Planar vs Tessar lens character

[Pioneer]

Planar = opera
Tessar = soul baby, soul

+1

Not too sure about this "fat, juicy and meaty" idea (though the words do kind of roll off the tongue), but the Tessar on both my Ikoflex IIa and the one I have kept for my 4x5 (built by Bausch & Lomb) have plenty of soul. I also have an 85mm Solinar (Tessar formula) from a common little Agfa 6x6 folder, with no amazing extra features to recommend it, that has given some great results. That one took a bit of cleaning and needed a lens hood before it could sing with the angels.

I do suspect that NB23 probably has the ability to squeeze a bit of soul from his Planars as well.

Not all lenses are created equal, maybe even those especially common types like Tessars and Planars. Sometimes it takes some picking and choosing to get lenses that fit your style and special vision. Some were not destined to be great right from the moment of manufacture, others have been beat to death by neglect over the years. In my experience the good ones don't always show up in the first batch that arrives in your mailbox. It always amazes me how many really good lenses are shrugged off and ignored because they do not have a great internet reputation. Edward Weston did some great work with a lens that most of todays internet experts would not even give a second look.

 

[cliveh]

I would suggest that the Planar records a perfect focus of the image at superb resolution and sharpness, perhaps unsurpassed by any other lens. The Tessar on the other hand records the image as a perfect rendition of the scene as you viewed through the viewfinder. For what it’s worth, I prefer the Tessar for personal interpretation of the scene.

 

[Down Under]

I have a Zeiss Planar, two Zeiss Tessars, and a Schneider Xenar, all f/3.5s. The Planar is sharp and crisp, with somewhat high contrast. The Tessars and the Xenar are softer but equally crisp, with a sort of 'glow' in the mid-tones and a look I can only describe as the light wrapping itself around the subjects. It's a difficult one to describe, but I like this look, so I use my 'flex Ts and 'cord Vb more often than my 3.5E2 with the Planar.

The Ts and the Vb are also lighter cameras to carry, which at my age is a big plus. They can also be adapted to take 16 exposure kits, the Vb both 16 and a 24 kits. All four Rolleis take a 35mm exposure back, mine has a separate back so it probably dates to the 1940s, but it works. '35' in a Rollei is an odd size, but now and then it suits.

Without expanding this into a mini-book, I noted you already have a Rolleicord. My suggestion is that you go the economy way and either get your 'cord repaired or invest in a Vb. They are fine cameras in their own right and 95%-98% as good as the bigger Rolleis, with the advantage that they were amateur models and so not likely to have been used almost to extinction in pro studios.

Whatever your decision, I'm sure you will be a happy Rollei shooter for a long time to come.

 

[weasel]

I have both a 3.5 tessar rollie, and a 2.8 planar role. The planar has a 3d effect I dont see with the tessar, and is sharper. I prefer the planar, but that said, there is nothing wrong with a good quality tessar design. I have a super ikonta with a 2.8 tessar that is one of the sharper lenses i own, sharper i think than my tessar rollei. I shoot a tessar design lens on my 4x5. I think that when dealing with old lenses, especially at this age, sample variation is going to be huge, and i would buy whichever one I could get that was in the best possible shape. A good tessar will likely be a better shooter than a banged up planar. Either one will make great images.

 

[Down Under]

I have both a 3.5 tessar rollie, and a 2.8 planar role. The planar has a 3d effect I dont see with the tessar, and is sharper. I prefer the planar, but that said, there is nothing wrong with a good quality tessar design. I have a super ikonta with a 2.8 tessar that is one of the sharper lenses i own, sharper i think than my tessar rollei. I shoot a tessar design lens on my 4x5. I think that when dealing with old lenses, especially at this age, sample variation is going to be huge, and i would buy whichever one I could get that was in the best possible shape. A good tessar will likely be a better shooter than a banged up planar. Either one will make great images.

If your Rollei with the Tessar isn't producing sharp images, it may have been dropped or damaged in some way. Many Rollei TLRs I've seen in my time were damaged, and that affected the focusing in one way or another.

Some Rolleis have been home-tinkered with by well-meaning owners who basically didn't know what they were doing. Whenever I've come across such a mis-repaired camera on Ebay or from a shop (which, sadly, is all too often) I either offered a low price or returned to the shop/owner.

This repair isn't cheap, but it's not difficult to get done, and the results will be well worth it. Have the camera CLA'd at the same time. It will then be good to use for the next half century or longer.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

The whole problem with threads like this is...

.. is people like you. Who don't read but rush into writing. You obviously did not bother reading anything but the title. She clearly stated two very specific lenses she's trying to choose from.

 

[warden]

I know the Tessar vs Planar thing has been talked about ad nauseam, and the consensus is always that the Planar design lenses are considerably sharper in the corners until about f/11 where things even out and the Tessar is pretty much indistinguishable from the planar.

The thing is, if I wanted ultimate sharpness and a clean, perfectly corrected image I’d pick up my Fuji X-T2 and shoot digital. What nobody seems to talk about is lens character. I’ve heard the planar has more micro contrast and “3D pop”, but the Tessar renders smoother tones, especially in b&w. So, let’s get vague and subjective! Anyone who’s shot with both, which do you prefer and why? Is the extra contrast/pop of the planar easily mimicable with curves in post? Is either one better for colour film?

Welcome to the forum! I like the work you've shown in this thread, and while either type of lens would work well I'm thinking Planar is a natural fit. But there is no wrong choice here so just go for it.

 

[Down Under]

All photo web sites have their grammar and syntax Nazis. We have the Gear Gestapo. Also Old Gregg, who seems to fit into a category uniquely his own. Oh, well.

They are all to be enjoyed, and (some of them anyway) treated as a good joke. I sometimes worry for their partners at home, though. They must all be deaf.

All this is meant to be fun, and a pleasant learning curve. So far this thread has been truly good in both respects...

 

[Madeleine Ostoja]

Thank you so much everyone! What an amazing resource this forum is

Over the Summer I had a chance to shoot a couple of images with my Minolta Autocord (Tessar type lens) and my Rollei 6008af with the 80mm f:2.8 Xenotar. I was amazed at how indistinguishable they are.

These are incredibly close! Actually quite shocked, I've never shot my Rolleicord (or my old MX) wide open because the advice with tessars is not to. If I was forced to choose I'd say the second is the planar, only because the corner of the house and bottom foliage seems a bit sharper, but nitpicking at this point.

Some Rolleis have been home-tinkered with by well-meaning owners who basically didn't know what they were doing.

The 3.5F I bought and had to return had the shutter speed off by one stop (1/250 was actually 1/500, bulb started at 4s, etc) and the lens board seated at a very noticeable angle. And that was "CLAd" by a pro photo shop (who also missed the fungus and separation in the taking lens, and broken shutter lock). You just really don't know with most of these.


From everything everyone has said I do think if money (and camera weight) were no object the planar would be slightly better suited to the type of work I do, which often has a fair bit of detail, and I love that 3d 'pop' whenever I can get it. But this thread has been eye opening on how good the Tessar can be, and the lower weight of the automats or 'cords is certainly a bonus. The failed 3.5F was actually surprisingly heavy, not as bad as the Mamiya C220 I used to own, but considering its small size it certainly felt dense.

I think right now I'm going to try my luck on this mint CLAd MX-EVS that's on eBay, and if that falls through spend the funds to get my 'cord up to scratch, before maybe upgrading next year. But I think I've learnt my lesson about trying to get a planar at all costs, failing twice with cheaper (sub-$800) planar 3.5s, and I'd just go for the best condition camera of either type I can afford.