Difference between Xenotar 135/3.5 and Zeiss Planar

[Dan Fromm]

'Planar' and 'Xenotar' are trade names. 'Double Gauss' is a specific design. It may be productive to bear this distinction in mind...

Emil, there are 4, 5, 6, 7, ... element double Gauss type lenses. To add to the confusion, some German authors, e.g., H. M. Brandt, refer to what we think of as 6/4 plasmat types as double Gauss type II. Vierlinser double Gauss types are usually slow wide angle lenses, the others are usually faster narrow angle lenses. The words "double Gauss" with no more information aren't particularly informative.

[E. von Hoegh]

Emil, there are 4, 5, 6, 7, ... element double Gauss type lenses. To add to the confusion, some German authors, e.g., H. M. Brandt, refer to what we think of as 6/4 plasmat types as double Gauss type II. Vierlinser double Gauss types are usually slow wide angle lenses, the others are usually faster narrow angle lenses. The words "double Gauss" with no more information aren't particularly informative.

Yes there are, and it's a bit of a atretch to call some of the dG types. The original Planar was designed by Rudolph in the late 1890s, IIRC, and was a truly symmetrical six-element Gauss type intended for process and engraving work, again IIRC. There was a Gauss telescope objective, and also a microscope lens - the telescope objective at least was calculated by Gauss himself. As for the Plasmat being a Gauss type II, that seems a bit of a stretch as well.
But my statement still holds true - trade names and design types are not the same, and all the tetrapyloctomy in the universe won't change that.

[Dan Fromm]

trade names and design types are not the same

I thought everyone knew that.

[Corran]

So does anyone have the cross-sections for the lenses in question - the 135mm Xenotar and Planar (and any variations therein)?

I've wondered this as well - for whatever reason, it seems that the 135mm Planar will sometimes fetch much more than the Schneider Xenotar on the used market. Mostly I would attribute that to some mystical lust some people have for all things Zeiss, especially with a T* engraving.

I have three Xenotars - a newer 80mm f/2.8 in Compur #1 on my 2x3 Century, a 135mm f/3.5 in Compur #1 in my Polaroid 900 4x5, and a 150mm f/2.8 "Linhof-Select" in Compur #2 usually on my Linhof MT. They honestly all render a little differently. The 135/3.5 is my least favorite but I think that's partly due to poor RF calibration on the 900 for most of its life (fixed recently). The 80/2.8 and 150/2.8 though are crazy sharp but still super-smooth in background rendition, with the 150mm probably smoother overall, I think due to aperture and FL equivalencies. I've never used any Planar lens but I've seen many photos from Rolleiflex cameras equipped with them and they seem to render beautifully, maybe even better than the Xenotars, hence my curiosity on this topic as well.

[richardman]

This is my test with the Xenotar 135/3.5 on a Chamonix F1 Acros 100. Some people object to the bokeh. I toned it down at post here (sorry, bad me).

[Ian Greenhalgh]

So does anyone have the cross-sections for the lenses in question - the 135mm Xenotar and Planar (and any variations therein)?

Cameraeccentric has a Linhof/Zeiss catalogue that includes the schema for the Planar:

http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/zeiss_5.html



I couldn't find a Xenotar schema for the 3.5/135, but the 3.5/75 for Rolleiflex probably matches it fairly closely:

I've wondered this as well - for whatever reason, it seems that the 135mm Planar will sometimes fetch much more than the Schneider Xenotar on the used market. Mostly I would attribute that to some mystical lust some people have for all things Zeiss, especially with a T* engraving.

I would agree, the difference in price is probably due to the mythos carried by the names 'Zeiss' and 'Planar' and that T* marking.

[richardman]

Wow! So it does look similar with the sections reversed! Thanks

[Bernice Loui]

This image reminds me of the Zeiss 100mm f3.5 Planar CF T* for Hasselblad, never did like the Bokeh or out of focus rendition of that lens (owned it for about 20 years and never liked this aspect of that lens). The pentagon shaped iris of that lens did not help as it resulted in OOF pentagons in more than a few images.

Bernice

This is my test with the Xenotar 135/3.5 on a Chamonix F1 Acros 100. Some people object to the bokeh. I toned it down at post here (sorry, bad me).

[Corran]

Thanks Ian. Interesting indeed.

[Ian Greenhalgh]

You're welcome Corran.

I like that image, I don't see anything wrong with the bokeh. I do prefer a smoother bokeh but that example isn't unpleasing to my eyes.