[rollei_list] Re: Thanks Richard! (was: recoating and polishing the Xenotar lens)
- From: Allen Zak <azak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 16:21:21 -0400
Oddly, I found the Planars and Xenotars I have used to be equal in
almost every respect. Sometimes, in transparencies, it seemed one
would render a slight color difference, but other times not even that.
On only one occasion did I compare two samples side by side, aperture
to aperture on the same subject and results then were identical.
As for the Xenar, the one on my MX-EVS is scary sharp, as was one on a
Rolleicord V owned decades ago. My first 'cord, bought new c. 1957,
was likewise. I sold it off (don't ask), but when eventually replaced
it, the newer Xenar didn't have the same bite. I returned it to the
distributer, which sent it back with a note that everything was within
spec. It was then I learned that individual lenses can vary one from
another. Subsequently, I owned several Rolleis with reasonably sharp
Xenars, but didn't hit the charm again until encountering my current
sample. They will pry this MX-EVS from my cold, dead hands.
Allen Zak
On Apr 12, 2005, at 12:55 PM, Peter K. wrote:
> Is the design of the Xenar that much different that it would be
> referred to as a individual design? I thought it was a Tessar copy?
>
> As to the Xenotar, in the 50s and 60s, it was considered the ugly
> stepchild, now we say otherwise. I have had Xenotar and they were good
> but personally I think the Planar delivered slightly better results
> especially at the corners. Perhaps this is perception on my part, but
> this is what I see from numerous transparencies I have taken over the
> last dozen years.
>
> Peter K
>
>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2005, at 04:06 AM, Richard Knoppow wrote
>> (edited):
>> The Xenar is a Tessar _type_ lens but is an individual design.
>> Actually, both Zeiss and Schneider made several versions of these
>> lenses over their lifetimes.
>
>
>> The f/2.8 Xenotar seems to be an exceptionally lens. I judge this
>> because it reproduces textures in a way typical of very good lenses on
>> a larger format. Also, this very fine detail holds up under
>> magnification so its not an illusion of some sort.
>
Other related posts:
