Planar vs Tessar lens character

[Madeleine Ostoja]

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?

 

[Madeleine Ostoja]

Personal context: I have a Rolleicord IV with very slight lens haze, and it gives me excellent results in anything but very bright direct light. I have the potential opportunity to buy a mint Rolleiflex MX-EVS that’s just been CLAd by one of the best Rollei technicians there is, but I’m wondering if I should save up and hold out for a 3.5E/F.

I’ve tried to buy a 3.5 planar twice on a budget, both went back to the seller or got resold because of lens issues (intense scratching on one that led to crazy flaring, separation on the other that I didn’t even bother running film through). I just feel like if I get the MX-EVS I’ll always wonder “what if” about a planar version

 

[Pioneer]

I own a Rolleflex K4B MX EVS with the Tessar and love it. Use it frequently.

I also owned a Rolleiflex with Planar and I sold it.

Nothing to do with image quality, both lenses are very good, the Tessar is a whole lot easier to pack around with a strap around your neck. If you are working in a studio it won't matter but in the field I prefer the Tessar. In fact, I often shoot with a Zeiss Ikoflex with a Tessar because it is even easier to pack.

EDIT - Besides, I am very fond of the Tessar look, even with large format.

 

[JPD]

I would personally go for the "MX-EVS" (or 3,5B as it's called in Europe). I have that one with Tessar, and also a 3,5F with six element Planar. Both are very sharp, but I sometimes feel that the Planar is "clinical" and "too modern". There are of course times when that's a good thing, when documentation and the images themselves are more important than the "artsy" feel of the photographs.

I also like the uncoated Tessar on pre-war Rolleiflexes. I would describe them as "sharp and smooth".

I don't get much of a 3D-pop with the Planar. For that the Heliar is nicer.

 

[Dan Daniel]

Other than the lens haze, the Xenar on the Rolleicord is a great lens. How about getting that cleaned up?

Any chance of borrowing a Planar? Or a Xenotar? (if you think the Planar/Tesar debate gets silly, listen to the Planar/Xenotar discussions.)

Seriously, you have two issues going on here. One is the Rolleicord/Rolleiflex difference. Sounds as if you want to try a Rolleiflex. Because the Xenar to Tessar difference is very minor so moving to a Tessar would be sort of silly by itself. The Xenar to Planar difference is real, in my opinion and my limited experience. I've shot a Rolleiflex Xenotar a lot, the Planar equivalent (give or take, how many angels really fit on that pinhead, eh?).

What are you shooting? For landscape and urban scapes, I'd go Planar/Xenotar. For closer street shooting or portraits or more intimate urban/land scapes, I'd go Tessar/Xenar for the smoother out of focus character and a bit more 'old school' feel (and no, I cannot explain what I mean by that).

And to be real, you are going to get a Planar one day just because. Save up, try to borrow one, etc.

 

[Besk]

I look at the debate between the Planar/Xenotar and the Tessar/Xenar as one of what you plan to use the camera far.
The Planar/Xenotars are more versatile because they can be used over a wider range of apertures than the Tessar/Xenar lenses which have to be stopped down for best sharpness.
On the other hand, if weight is a large factor the Tessar/Xenar cameras win.

 

[JensH]

Hi,

after using several Rolleiflexes in the 75/80mm range I prefer the uncoated 4.5/7.5cm Tessar followed by the multicoated 2.8/80mm Planar of the SLX/600X.

So far, so good - but what is the difference in lens character?
The 4.5/7.5cm Tessar gives images that have a special balance, soft edges wide open, sharp at f8 to16. A very natural look.
Always with a lens shade, not prone to blur.
3D look? Hard to say... but somehow yes.
Same for the 4.5/10.5cm Tessar of a 6x9 Super-Ikonta when focussed at 2 to 3m...
Some Rolleiflexes with 3.8 and 3.5 Tessars are at hands, but I like the 4.5 Tessar better.

My modern HFT 2.8/80mm Planar is better in terms of resolution and contrast at f/5.6 and wider. Best at f/5.6 to 16. Subjectively less 3D look here.
Planar's like multicoating. ;-)
The 3.5/75mm Planar (single coated Rolleiflex 3,5F) was somewere in between...

Best
Jens

 

[Madeleine Ostoja]

I responded to a bunch of things above but apparently it's awaiting moderation.

My point is that the "clean Planar look" is a commodity in the digital world.

Yes! I think a lot of us that shoot film get hung up on sharpness, when even the best multicoated Planar on a Hasselblad is about the same in terms of sharpness as your run of the mill prime on a digi. Even the cheap Chinese TTArtisans 35mm f/1.4 I bought new for $80 gives some of my good film glass a run for its money in technical quality.

Like I'm certainly not after a lomo/lofi look, but I'm also not hugely fussed about ultimate sharpness, otherwise I wouldn't bother with film. All recent digital sensors out-resolve 35mm, and the best ones even have medium format beat on resolution and dynamic range. So for me chasing technical quality (beyond a certain point) on film is a bit of a strawman pursuit.

The 4.5/7.5cm Tessar gives images that have a special balance, soft edges wide open, sharp at f8 to16. A very natural look.

I think this is definitely the sort of feeling I would like, so maybe a Tessar is better for me after all.

 

[Madeleine Ostoja]

I'll try replying to some things again! I think my previous reply got flagged because I put a link to my portfolio to show the sort of things I shoot.

I have that one with Tessar, and also a 3,5F with six element Planar. Both are very sharp, but I sometimes feel that the Planar is "clinical" and "too modern"

Yep this is something I've heard before, that a Planar can look a little too good, and feel clinical. I couldn't really translate that to practical differences in images, but I feel like my Tessar medium format images so far do feel very different to my digi for example. Don't know how much of that is down to 120 film vs digital though, since I've only ever owned Tessars. I have shot one roll on a Planar with a Hasselblad I borrowed, but I think that particular sample was iffy because it needed a lot of contrast correction in post. Once bumped up though I got nice results:

Seriously, you have two issues going on here. One is the Rolleicord/Rolleiflex difference. Sounds as if you want to try a Rolleiflex. Because the Xenar to Tessar difference is very minor so moving to a Tessar would be sort of silly by itself.

I actually have owned a Rolleiflex MX before, which I sold due to a broken hood. I do find the Rolleicord handling a bit wonky, and my Rolleicord IV also has a film advance issue where it doesn't register a shutter fire, so stays locked on frame (and allows me to re-cock the shutter, even with double exposure prevention on). I can advance frames by holding down the shutter button while turning the wind knob, but I figure upgrading to a clean automat would be a better use of funds than CLAing the Rolleicord, when the outlay (after selling the 'cord) would probably be similar.

What are you shooting? For landscape and urban scapes, I'd go Planar/Xenotar. For closer street shooting or portraits or more intimate urban/land scapes, I'd go Tessar/Xenar for the smoother out of focus character and a bit more 'old school' fee

I won't risk linking to my portfolio again, but I do mostly street with some urban landscape thrown in. Not much portraiture, and not much up-close candid street style portraits either. The image above from the Hasselblad is pretty representative of what I normally shoot.

 

[Madeleine Ostoja]

And for what it's worth here are some shots from my lil Rolleicord (and old 'flex MX). I very rarely open up beyond f5.6, but I also don't know if that's a force of habit from being so used to Tessars.

Rolleiflex MX:

Rolleicord IV:

I think you can see some loss of contrast in the hills in the bg of the last one from the haze in my rolleicord, it was shot at at least f8-f11 for memory. And I definitely get some flaring problems in contrasty light (even with a hood).

 

[MattKing]

I think my previous reply got flagged because I put a link to my portfolio to show the sort of things I shoot.

Indeed, your post was "paused" by some of our anti-spam measures which are directed toward low post count members.
But rest assured that when us real life moderators got to it we would have had no problem releasing the "pause".
Your website portfolio is very interesting. Don't hesitate to reference it in future posts if it is relevant to the thread topic - just be patient if some of the protective software tools delay things a short bit.

 

[Madeleine Ostoja]

Thanks for clearing that up! Wasn’t sure what the forum policy was on links etc since I’m new here

 

[NB23]

Ok, haven’t read the thread but I can tell you what I clearly see on my prints: my rolleiflex 3.5f planar is magical. As I’ve often called the images coming out of it “fat, juicy and meaty”. It’s the best description.

tessar from my ikoflex? Flat, 2-dimensional. Lacks the juice, fat and meat around the bone.

 

[NB23]

The planar/xenotar are definitely a big step ahead any tessar/xenar, on all accounts. There is a depth that they add to all images.

 

[Dan Daniel]

I won't risk linking to my portfolio again, but I do mostly street with some urban landscape thrown in. Not much portraiture, and not much up-close candid street style portraits either. The image above from the Hasselblad is pretty representative of what I normally shoot.

Get the Planar. Or a Xenotar. It fits your style well. That kind of 'all over' image (where there is something going on and where 'detail' is part of the look around most of the image) works well with the slightly 'more clinical' look of the Planar type of lens. Also lets you shoot wider without having to worry too much about a change in feel, and in city streets you can often find yourself on a side alley or dark street where f/4 is needed.

I used a tessar-type lens (Rokkor on an Autocord) on this project because I knew that I was going to have lots of layers and depth in the scenes and the Tessar handles that better for my taste. Sharpness and bite' wasn't the issue. It was more of 35mm rangefinder style of shooting using a TLR.
https://dandaniel.zenfolio.com/p311823083

But most everything in this group was with a Xenotar- https://dandaniel.zenfolio.com/p436063139

 

[Auer]

And for what it's worth here are some shots from my lil Rolleicord (and old 'flex MX). I very rarely open up beyond f5.6, but I also don't know if that's a force of habit from being so used to Tessars.

Rolleiflex MX:
View attachment 285165 View attachment 285166

Rolleicord IV:
View attachment 285169
View attachment 285174

I think you can see some loss of contrast in the hills in the bg of the last one from the haze in my rolleicord, it was shot at at least f8-f11 for memory. And I definitely get some flaring problems in contrasty light (even with a hood).

Great images, have you considered a MF folder as an additional very portable tool?

 

[Madeleine Ostoja]

I used a tessar-type lens (Rokkor on an Autocord) on this project ..... But most everything in this group was with a Xenotar

Thank you for these! It's really helpful seeing the differences in lenses from the same photographer. I do love how soft the tessar is, and I think you can really see the more "old world" feel compared to the sharpness of the planar in ones like the tessar bicycle vs the tram tessar. Lots to think about!

The planar/xenotar are definitely a big step ahead any tessar/xenar, on all accounts. There is a depth that they add to all images.

Depth is certainly one of the main reasons I love shooting medium format, so I'm definitely tempted by a planar/xenotar.

Great images, have you considered a MF folder as an additional very portable tool?

I did a while ago, but I've beyond the novelty I've never been hugely impressed with output quality of the ones I've seen. Alignment, bellows, and age issues seem to always make them a little too antique to be a primary shooter. I do have an ancient Ikonta I do some fun shooting with, but nothing serious, eg:

 

[Auer]

Thank you for these! It's really helpful seeing the differences in lenses from the same photographer. I do love how soft the tessar is, and I think you can really see the more "old world" feel compared to the sharpness of the planar in ones like the tessar bicycle vs the tram tessar. Lots to think about!



Depth is certainly one of the main reasons I love shooting medium format, so I'm definitely tempted by a planar/xenotar.



I did a while ago, but I've beyond the novelty I've never been hugely impressed with output quality of the ones I've seen. Alignment, bellows, and age issues seem to always make them a little too antique to be a primary shooter. I do have an ancient Ikonta I do some fun shooting with, but nothing serious, eg:

View attachment 285237

Too bad, I have a few that fit in the front pocket of a pair of Levi's.
Bessa 46 with a Skopar 3.5:

 

[NB23]

Posting pics is totally worthless because all is lost in translation, but still, here are a few planar from a 3.5F Rolleiflex

 

[DREW WILEY]

The whole problem with threads like this is that you're trying to generically compare two entire categories of lens design in production for many decades, with many variations, as it only two specific lenses were in play. For example, do you really think a tessar made in 1905 would perform in the same manner as one made today? They come in all kinds of focal lengths and apertures. Some are ridiculously sharp. Sometimes we don't want them to be ridiculously sharp. Some people want a classic Ford Model A; some want a vintage Mustang; some don't like Ford at all. But for the same reasons???? I doubt that.

 

[btaylor]

I have both Xenars and Xenotars and Planars on my Rolleis. There is a “roundness” the creamy quality of my old Rolleicord and Automat Xenars that I prefer for my photos- especially color neg. Solution: get one of each!

 

[DonW]

Planar = opera
Tessar = soul baby, soul

 

[gone]

My 3.5 E made great images w/ a Planar lens, and the camera was quite a bit lighter than the 3.5F model. Guess I've owned them all. Planar, Tessar, Xenotar, etc., and they all imaged differently. One Tessar on a Rolleiflex T made images that looked like 6x6 Nikkor shots, if Nikon had made a MF TLR. The uncoated early 3.5 Tessars are great for B&W. My best shots always came from the early Rolleicords w/ Triotar lenses, a very few of which were coated. The cameras are smaller and lighter than the 'flex cameras, and the Triotar is pretty magical.

 

[Madeleine Ostoja]

Solution: get one of each!

This is obviously the answer, if only my wallet agreed ugh

One Tessar on a Rolleiflex T made images that looked like 6x6 Nikkor shots, if Nikon had made a MF TLR

That’s a really interesting comparison, because one of my other dream cameras is a Plaubel Makina 67 and I loooove the images I’ve seen from it’s nikkor.


Thank you so much for the input everyone! This is such a helpful forum. I think my main takeaway is they’re both excellent for different reasons. That might be obvious at surface level but especially with rolleiflex’s the usual rhetoric online would have you believe anything but a planar is either a relic (automat) or a toy (rolleicord). Making my decision both hard and in a sense easy, guess you can’t go too far wrong, and condition probably accounts for an awful lot with any two individual lenses. As my 2 failed 3.5E/F budget purchases showed…

 

[CJG]

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. I showed them on screen and made some 12x12 prints of each and showed them to a group of photo colleagues having them guess which lens was which. Nobody would guess consistently. Shot wide open, Portra 400.