Questions on Zeiss Planar 135mm 3.5

[Michael2710]

Hello, I am fairly new to large format photography, I was at an estate sale of a former photographer and found a zeiss planar 135mm f3.5 lens. The serial number is 4118892, could some one please help me to identify what version this lens is. I am thinking it was version2 made in the early sixty's. Thanks

[Dan Fromm]

Made in '65 0r '66.

[Michael2710]

Thanks Dan, are you fairly familiar with this lens? forgive my ignorance but what would I need to do so I am able to use it on a calumet 4x5? It is in a recessed lens board i think.

[Jac@stafford.net]

It is a desirable lens. May we know how much the seller wanted for it?

Sure you can use it for 4x5. It has enough coverage for straight-on work with just a bit of rise or fall near infinity.

[Michael2710]

I can tell you that I purchased it for $85.

[Dan Fromm]

Thief!

[jbenedict]

I think it was designed to be used as a standard lens on a 4x5 press camera so the image circle is not large enough to use the front movements on a camera such as a Technika or similar. If my knowledge is correct, the 'best' stops on these Planars are wide open or close to wide open. A press photographer might need to have f3.5 to get the shot and would never need movement shooting handheld. A lens design with greater coverage would use the f4 or f5.6 just to be able to see a good image on the GG and need to be stopped down to f11 or f16 to get the best performance.

Kerry Thalmann rates it a 'future classic" on his lens pages:

http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/future.htm

[Dan Fromm]

Go here http://www.arnecroell.com/publications and read Arne's article on Zeiss Oberkochen's LF lenses. You too, jbenedict.

[Jac@stafford.net]

I can tell you that I purchased it for $85.

You STOLE it!

[jbenedict]

Go here http://www.arnecroell.com/publications and read Arne's article on Zeiss Oberkochen's LF lenses. You too, jbenedict.

These are a fascinating set of articles. Maybe I don't read well, but I'm not sure that I contradicted anything I read in the mentioned article in the post I made above.

[Dan Fromm]

j, Arne says clearly the Zeiss Oberkochen's LF lenses are best near wide-open.

[Jac@stafford.net]

I can tell you that I purchased it for $85.

That is a fair price, close to what I paid for mine which was included with a Super Technika twenty friggin years ago!

Ya lucky dog!

[jbenedict]

j, Arne says clearly the Zeiss Oberkochen's LF lenses are best near wide-open.

Yes, that's what I said:

" If my knowledge is correct, the 'best' stops on these Planars are wide open or close to wide open."

The same article states that the Tessar designs covered better but needed to be stopped down to achieve their best performance.

As a user of both a lens of Tessar design (Ilex-Calumet which is similar to an Ektar) and a lens of Planar design (80/2.8 Hasselblad) I find myself agreeing with the conclusions of the article,

Jeff Benedict

[Dan Fromm]

Sorry, j, I misread y'r post.

[Richard Johnson]

I feel sorry for the heirs/spouse... To sell a $1500-plus lens for so little indicates that other fine photography items also sold far under value.

That lens is not an ideal general purpose shooter and you might be better off to sell it for a fair price, using the considerable profits to fund more photo adventures? A $200-300 Schneider Symmar-S or APO 150/5.6 lens would be a better all-arounder to learn with.

[ic-racer]

MTF curves for the 135/3.5 presented in the Zeiss Oberkochen text clearly show superiority at f8 over f3.5.

[Michael2710]

[QUOTE=

That lens is not an ideal general purpose shooter and you might be better off to sell it for a fair price, using the considerable profits to fund more photo adventures? A $200-300 Schneider Symmar-S or APO 150/5.6 lens would be a better all-arounder to learn with.[/QUOTE]

Is this lens a more specialized lens or is it due to the limitations with camera movements? What do you see this lens used for? Thanks

[Arne Croell]

MTF curves for the 135/3.5 presented in the Zeiss Oberkochen text clearly show superiority at f8 over f3.5.

Which version? The image shows the curves for both the more common old one and the new version of the Planar from 1971 on. For the new one, f/8 is better than f/3.5 of the same lens, yes. For the older one, its true for the center, but not further out in the image field at about 50mm radius where the higher frequencies (20 and 40 lp/mm) take a hit at f/8.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Is this lens a more specialized lens or is it due to the limitations with camera movements? What do you see this lens used for? Thanks

It is not a specialist lens. Its virtue is speed, if you need it, and good resolution and adequate contrast. I use it most of the time because I do not use a lot of movements, just a bit of front rise and a tiny bit of rear tilt. (I have two, one salvaged from a Linhof aerial 4x5. Performance does not differ.)

[David A. Goldfarb]

It's a nice lens for the reasons described--speed when you need it, but not a large image circle. You've got a little room for movement, but if you're shooting architecture or still life, you would be better off with a lens with a larger image circle. I have the second version, and it's OK wide open, but improves substantially around f:5.6-8. It's ideal for shooting press camera style with the rangefinder, but the extraordinarily bright groundglass image is a pleasure in itself.

[Richard Johnson]

My point was only that a lens which costs a few hundred dollars will provide similar results for most 4x5 photo situations, so why risk damaging a much more valuable lens that could be converted into cash for more film, better camera, more shooting experiences? An inexpensive Symmar will still be very sharp and offer the possibility of using significant camera movements. Obviously the Zeiss Planar is a wonderful lens but better suited to something like a Linhof Technika rangefinder camera for handheld or low light work with minimal movements.

[ic-racer]

For the older one, its true for the center, but not further out in the image field at about 50mm radius where the higher frequencies (20 and 40 lp/mm) take a hit at f/8.

A narrow circular band around 50cm radius shows deterioration when stopping down. But the center and edges are sharper when stopped down. I'd not say the lens is better when wide open when on a tripod based on the information presented in the MTF graph. However, when used handheld, with available light, the MTF curves could be significantly better when wide open but this is just speculation and would depend on a thousand variables.

[Michael2710]

Richard, you make a good point instead of keeping the lens, it could be more beneficial for me to sell it. Purchase another cheaper Len and put the money towards a workshop on large format photography. Thank you for you input

[Arne Croell]

A narrow circular band around 50cm radius shows deterioration when stopping down. But the center and edges are sharper when stopped down. I'd not say the lens is better when wide open when on a tripod based on the information presented in the MTF graph. However, when used handheld, with available light, the MTF curves could be significantly better when wide open but this is just speculation and would depend on a thousand variables.
Its not only the MTF curves I am basing my statement on. I ran two older-style and one new style Planar through my test setup a while ago, the result can be found on p.11 of this table: http://www.arnecroell.com/lenstests.pdf. Both old Planars suffered when stopping down from f/3.5, f/5.6 was the worst, even in the center, whereas f/8 was actually close to f/3.5 and only after reaching f/11 it got significantly better. The similar and concurrent 135mm Xenotar behaved the same, btw. This can be explained by some residual zonal spherical aberration in the old Planars and Xenotars. The newer Planar was quite different and resolution increased upon stopping down (until f/11), as it should.

[ic-racer]

: http://www.arnecroell.com/lenstests.pdf.

That is great work, thanks for the link! Had you posted this before? If so, I'm sorry I missed it.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Its not only the MTF curves I am basing my statement on. I ran two older-style and one new style Planar [...]

How can we identify which Planar 135mm F/3.5 is newer or older? Serial number?

Thank you,
j

[Arne Croell]

These are a fascinating set of articles. Maybe I don't read well, but I'm not sure that I contradicted anything I read in the mentioned article in the post I made above.


How can we identify which Planar 135mm F/3.5 is newer or older? Serial number?

Thank you,
j
The newer version has 67mm filter size, the old ones 58mm.

[Michael2710]

Where would be a good place to sell this lens?

[Dan Fromm]

eBay. A search for sold items will give you an idea of how much yours might (great stress, might) bring.

[Richard Johnson]

Be sure to do many detailed, good quality photos and open it up to international sales. There are numerous Chinese collectors who have driven the prices up on collectible and exotic photographic items. Be sure to use the expensive premium tracked and insured Express shipping services rather than trusting it to the cheapest option.

While they wouldn't pay nearly as much as a Chinese collector, keh.com may give you a good trade-in value, especially if you swap for merchandise.

[Jac@stafford.net]

The newer version has 67mm filter size, the old ones 58mm.

Yes, I knew that but I did not know that they redesigned the optics. Thank you.

[Michael2710]

Checked eBay only saw one that has sold recently, quite a few listed for sale now. Does KEH offer a fair value?

[jbenedict]

It has been my experience that KEH gives a fair amount when you consider one thing:

An item will cost a "certain amount" in the marketplace. You could sell the item for the price the marketplace would bear. That's probably the same amount that KEH could sell the item for so, due to economic necessity, KEH will have to pay you less than what it will bring in the marketplace.

They have a 'price estimator' on their website where you can get an idea of what they will give. I have sold things to them and they rated the item higher that I did so I got a little more money than what the estimator indicated. Also, the prices are pending examination by the KEH staff and they call you and explain the how and why of what they are offering you and you accept or reject. I'm pretty sure that if you reject their offer, you pay the shipping to get the item back. If you don't want to go the Ebay route, which can be a little messy at times, and you can't/won't do a private sale like here on the forum or something like a buddy in the camera club, KEH is pretty much where it is at.

I just looked on their website and they did not post an offering price for the 135/3.5 Planar. This could mean they are not buying LF lenses at this time. They do have a 135/3.5 Planar for sale in "BGN" condition for $2K BGN means it works well but looks used. Good for the buyer- not so good for the seller. I always buy BGN stuff from KEH. They are very conservative in there rating and sometimes I wonder what it was they found wrong about an item to bring the value down.

[Richard Johnson]

On eBay, expensive items can be slow to sell but be patient. You're waiting for the right buyer to come along, so discounting something won't make a difference other than to leave money on the table.

[Corran]

There was a 135mm Planar with some slight cleaning marks that sat unsold at $900 for months a little while ago.
The price on these seems to be falling a bit. The Xenotar 150/2.8, however, still seems to be going up, with one example selling for over $4k last month.

Anyway, $85 is still a steal of a deal, and well worth it. I personally would keep it, if you are into available light photos with 4x5. If you only want to do landscape or architecture or anything else that involves f/22 and movements, sell it. Unless it's mint though, I wouldn't expect to get 4 figures in the current market.

I wouldn't mind a Planar to test against my 135/3.5 Xenotar. But then, I only paid $650 for the Xenotar. I passed on the $900 Planar.

[Jac@stafford.net]

I wouldn't mind a Planar to test against my 135/3.5 Xenotar. But then, I only paid $650 for the Xenotar. I passed on the $900 Planar.

I wager that nobody could find the difference in outcome up to 4X enlargement,

[Corran]

Well I doubt there would be any notable difference at a 4x enlargement in sharpness between almost any lens made in the last 40-50 years. More interesting to me would be the OOF rendering and such.

There's plenty of lore about these lenses. Personally I only believe what I can see/test myself. I do love the Xenotar lenses though - I've got all of them I think (80mm, 105mm, 135mm and 150mm).

[Richard Johnson]

While I'm sure the later Planars are great, my impression from the Xenotar I had - and therefor similar vintage Planars - was one of veiling flare, low contrast, and meh sharpness. But a great reputation!

[Corran]

In my experience the Xenotars are very sharp and high contrast. YMMV, obviously.

[Carsten Wolff]

The later Zeiss obviously has T* logo and coating and was regarded as a lens with rather different properties to the earlier one (e.g. much better flare resistance and contrast handling and not as soft, if I remember right).
On another, rather insignificant note: I used to have a 135mm 3.5 Xenotar; I sold that to be able to eat and pay rent that month and by chance found an almost free Komura 152mm 3.5 shortly thereafter; that one had separation, so I re-cemented it and I still have that lens. It is rather nice; not all that different to my old Xenotar, I guess, just a bit longer.

[Arne Croell]

The later Zeiss obviously has T* logo and coating and was regarded as a lens with rather different properties to the earlier one (e.g. much better flare resistance and contrast handling and not as soft, if I remember right).
On another, rather insignificant note: I used to have a 135mm 3.5 Xenotar; I sold that to be able to eat and pay rent that month and by chance found an almost free Komura 152mm 3.5 shortly thereafter; that one had separation, so I re-cemented it and I still have that lens. It is rather nice; not all that different to my old Xenotar, I guess, just a bit longer.
Actually, there were one or two batches of the new Planar design that did not yet have T* multicoating (but do have 67mm filter size). Serial nos. 5194236-5194735. If one can find them, they are usually less expensive (relatively) than the T* versions.

[Jac@stafford.net]

When I got my 135mm Planar, it came with my first LF camera. I didn't know it was desirable. Then I fell into the sharpness trap, and was rescued by a brief post by Dan Fromm. Since then I pay attention to the whole process, every element necessary, and find that lens quality is the least of my worries. Good suffices.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Actually, there were one or two batches of the new Planar design that did not yet have T* multicoating (but do have 67mm filter size). Serial nos. 5194236-5194735. If one can find them, they are usually less expensive (relatively) than the T* versions.

Mine falls in this range. This is one case where I think the multicoating is likely to add more to the price and collector's value than practical value to the lens. The advantage of multicoating is that by improving contrast, you can design a better lens with more elements. If the lenses are of exactly the same design, and we're only talking about a 5-element lens, the improvement in contrast with multicoating vs. single coating should be marginal.