Zeiss Planar 135mm f3.5

[Philip_5765]

I have heard alot about this lens, but have never seen any shots from it. I was wondering if any users of this lens would be so kind as to post some shots? I am especially interested in pictures shot using the lens wide open. Thanks in advance.

M.

[Ole Tjugen]

I must have some, somewhere...

But since I tend to to take copious notes (read: I don't take notes at all) it can be difficult to find out lens the pictures were shot with. I'll see if I can find a scene I shot wide open with two lenses of almost the same focal length - the shorter should then be the Planar, the longer Heliar or APO-Lanthar...

[J. P. Mose]

Unfortunately, I don't have a scanner to download any photos. However, I feel confident that I have more information on Linhof Select Zeiss lenses than Zeiss themselves. If you have any questions, please feel free to e-mail me. JP Mose

[David A. Goldfarb]

It's a great lens. If you can get one, you won't regret it.

I don't seem to have too many of these conveniently scanned, but here's a shot I made with a 6x7 rollfilm back and the Planar (Fuji RMS, EI 200), exposure not recorded, alas--

http://www.echonyc.com/~goldfarb/photo/tulips.jpg

[Scott Sharp]

How does the Zeiss 135mm Planar compare to the Schneider 135mm Xenotar?

[John_4185]

Tonight I can post 4x5 negative scans shot on the Planar 135mm F3.5. The cases I will choose will be examples in which the front was raised until coverage fell off so that you get a fair sample.

[Oren Grad]

JJ, if you've got anything which includes distant out-of-focus areas I'd be very interested to see a sample. TIA...

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

In reference to Scott Sharp's question:

A few years ago I did a comparison between a 135/3.5 Planar and a 135/3.5 Xenotar. Both lenses were approximately the same late 1950s vintage, and were in very similar (ie: excellent) condition. I found that the two lenses behaved very similarly, as they should since they are the same design. Between f/5.6 and f/16 both rendered out-of-focus areas similarly (this design is not my favorite for 'Bokeh'), and were equally sharp. However, at f/3.5 the Planar was noticeably sharper and produced a 'nicer' bokeh than the Xenotar. Of course, its value is also much much higher. Another lens to consider, the same design but a bit longer is the 152mm f/3.5 Komura.

[John_4185]

http://elearning.winona.edu/staff_o/jjs/tmp_1200.jpg

Note the darkening at the top - that's where coverage was falling off with front rise. Picture was shot from just across the street.

http://elearning.winona.edu/staff_o/jjs/tmp_1200_detail.gif
http://elearning.winona.edu/staff_o/jjs/sample.gif

Tiny sections of the above.

Enough of the grain sniffing. Oren's question is more interesting (IMHO) and if the sun ever shines here again, I will shoot some examples more relevant.

* Scanned on an Epson 3200 by me - and I am not a good scanner, nor is the 3200. :)

*Efke 25 @25, Rodinal 1:150, stand developed (Thank's J&C!)

PAX,

[John_4185]

Sorry. The above was shot at F11.

[Bill_1856]

In the days when they were still being made, reports were that there was no difference in sharpness between the 135mm Planar and Xenotar. The Planar was much more expensive, thus there are a lot more Xenotars around.

[David A. Goldfarb]

There's also a 150/2.8 Xenotar. An extra half stop couldn't hurt.

[Kevin Kemner]

Morgan,

Are you referring to the later version with T coating. I don't think you could compare that lens to a xenotar. Kerry Thallman makes mention of this lens on his future classics review.

Kevin

[Kevin Kemner]

Here is the link. Scroll down til you hit it.

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