[rollei_list] Tessars and Planars at extremely high magnification.

  • From: Jerry Friedman <tinycameraco@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 13:36:11 -0700 (PDT)

Largely because I had an empty afternoon, I took pictures of a large pumpkin
with both a Tessar and a Planar, the first on a Rollei T and the second on a
Rollei GX. 
In both cases, Rollei #2 power close up lenses were used to get the subject
about 15 incxhes away. Exposure in both cases was at f/16 but I found
comparabile results using f/8. Film was Tmax 400 developed in dilution H of
HC-110. Both negatives were enlarged on a Kodak Precision enlarger with an
Aristo cold light head and with a 63mm Nikor  f/2.8, which vignettes slightly
at the corners buts covers most of the negative and provides for very great
magnification. . The full enlargement size would be three feet by five feet,
but these 8x10 images represent and central portion of the pumpkin, showing the
stem.  -- As you can see, the Tessar is amazingly good but even with the lens
closed down, it will not provide the same sharpness or resolution as the
Planar.  At other f/ stops, the results were predictable. The Tessar from f/8
was very good through f/16. The Planar was really good from f/4 through f/16.
At all f/ stops, the Planar was superior to the Tessar. Wide open, the Planar
was good but depth of field was so very shallow, that other than at a very
limited area of sharpness, there was blur. 

 I can not imagine making such large magnifications in real life. I was not
surprised that the Planar was as good as it performed but that the Tessar was
really able to hold its own. I can not imagine that one would find the Tessar
wanting under normal circumstances, certainly up to 20x26 inch prints.
Certainly, when closed down, a good coated Tessar is quite good. Given these
results, I do not see how anyone could possibly see much difference between
Planars and Xenotars. At individual lens openings, perhaps there might be some
small difference, but this is bound to be subject to the differences between
individual cameras, degree of focus accuracy. 

 
Considering, additionally, that these images were produced not with a negative
scanner but with a canon scanner using 8x10 inch prints, the initial quality of
the images is even more impresive.    

I think these informal tests very clearly demonstrate how truly good Rolleis
are, even those of more modest specifications. I am sorry that I did not have a
rolleicord with a triotar because I thing it would interesting to see how even
a more modest lens would do. 

Now I goota go clean bird seed husks out of my downspouts.   

Jerry F.     

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

JPEG image

JPEG image

Other related posts: