[rollei_list] Re: Question re. Planar vs. Tessar
- From: Ardeshir Mehta <ardeshir@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2005 14:02:56 -0400
Thanks, John! That explains it.
Cheers.
+++++
On Sunday, April 3, 2005, at 11:48 AM, John A. Lind wrote:
> At 01:02 AM 4/3/2005, Ardeshir wrote:
>
>> So I gather that the Tessar is supposed to be an IMPROVEMENT over the
>> Planar. Why, then, is the Planar generally preferred over the Tessar
>> among users of the 6x6 format, whether SLR or TLR? Any ideas? Richard
>> ... ?
>
> Not the current formulation(s), but the original from the late 19th
> Century. Keep in mind that a lens name is just that, subject to
> reformulation and "derivations" over time. The Sonnar, of which I have
> two different formulations . . . one on a circa mid-1950's Contax and
> another on a circa 1978 Rollei 35S . . . are similar in concept but
> substantively different in design execution . . . the former an f/1.5
> having 7 elements and the latter an f/2.8 having 5 elements
> (presumably a reduction in design complexity as lens speed was
> reduced).
>
> AIFK, from the research I did before writing about the Tessar, the
> current Planar is substantially different from the original created in
> the late 1800's. I came to the conclusion the current one is a very
> loose derivative of the original concept. The f/3.5 Tessar on the
> Rollei 35[T] has very high contrast and produces great sharpness, but
> does not have the flatness of field found in the f/2.8 Sonnar on the
> Rollei 35S (which also seems to be a tad lower in contrast). If given
> a choice of 4 element Tessar, 5 element Sonnar or current Planar in
> standard focal length on a 35mm camera body, I'd likely choose the
> Planar.
>
> -- John
Other related posts:
