135mm f3.5 Planar - keep? Sell?

[Vick Ko]

135mm f3.5 Planar - keep? Sell?

If it was a T*, it would be no-question to keep it.

But, the regular one? Should I keep it? Is it a legend?

I don't shoot a 4x5 much, but I do like to shoot it when I can.

....Vick

[Steven Tribe]

I think this must be high quality late version (not the original from 1898!) which was made for the 4x5 /9x12 Linhof. In a working shutter?

[mrossano]

There were two versions of the non-T* marked lens. One has a 58mm filter thread, the other 67mm. The version with the 67mm filter thread is identical to the version marked T*, other than, possibly, the coatings. The performance is indistinguishable from the T* version under most conditions. I've owned all these lenses in the past; all three concurrently for a brief time. The older (58mm filter) version is a different optical formula, with a slightly smaller image circle and noticeably lower contrast, with a distinctly cooler color balance. All versions have excellent resolution from center to edge, from wide-open on down. If you're trying to channel WeeGee, but with the classier Linhof outfit, I'd say keep what you have no matter which. Personally, I never actually used the lenses I had for other than some test shots. Eventually they all went on the block, with me sadder, wiser and poorer for the experience.

[Vick Ko]

Hmmm, I did not know that there were different models.

Mine is the 58mm filter thread, and is on a Linhof selected Synchro Compur shutter.

Can you tell me what the current selling value is?

regards
Vick

[Vick Ko]

Hmm, see two 67mm versions on 'bay - $6K and $4K. And a couple 58mm, at $1200

Vick

[mrossano]

I've never seen one that actually sold for more than about $3,600 or $3,700. That would be for a perfect condition T* version, the most valuable, it would seem. I would expect the 67mm-threaded single-coated versions that are on eBay right now to sell for less. The older 58mm-threaded versions at around $1,200 seem about in-line with what people have actually paid. Of course, if someone in China gets a bug up their butt to get one, the sky's the limit.

[drew.saunders]

I have a single-coated "T" 165/3.5 Zeiss Tessar from c. 1960 (see avatar image), and I'm having fun with using an f/3.5 lens. Shot at 3.5, it's a bit on the soft side, at f/8, it's every bit as sharp as a modern lens, and with a hood (had to use gaffer's tape to get a Lee adaptor ring onto it, which is working very well), I don't worry too much about lens flare. I'd say unless this is a super-rare one that's worth silly amounts of money, and that seems to just be the T* version, shoot with it and have some fun. If it's no fun, sell it.

[Carsten Wolff]

Planars are similar to the plasmat design, right?
So, e.g. as a soft focus/portrait lens one could even play with one cell only? :)

[Arne Croell]

Planars are similar to the plasmat design, right?
So, e.g. as a soft focus/portrait lens one could even play with one cell only? :)
No they are not, they are a Planar design! The outer (cemented) groups in a Plasmat have negative power, the (usually single meniscus lens) inner ones have positive power. In a Planar the (usually single meniscus lens) outer groups have positive power, and the (often cemented) inner groups are negative.
However, each cell of a Planar will form an image like a Plasmat single cell. The quality and coverage are a different matter...

[Dan Fromm]

Arne, I don't know how aware you are of Boyer.

They sold f/2.8 Saphirs (6/4 double Gauss types) as convertibles. Single cells are f/5.3, have focal length approximately 1.4x the whole lens' focal length. So, at least one Planar type has been sold as a convertible.

I have a 95/2.8 Saphir, have never asked it how good a single cell is. The lens doesn't quite cover 2x3, has strong barrel distortion.

Cheers,

Dan

[Carsten Wolff]

Thanks, Arne/Dan. I had evidently "misremembered" Dan's response from this 2004 thread :) : http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=9070

[Arne Croell]

Arne, I don't know how aware you are of Boyer.

They sold f/2.8 Saphirs (6/4 double Gauss types) as convertibles. Single cells are f/5.3, have focal length approximately 1.4x the whole lens' focal length. So, at least one Planar type has been sold as a convertible.

I have a 95/2.8 Saphir, have never asked it how good a single cell is. The lens doesn't quite cover 2x3, has strong barrel distortion.

Cheers,

Dan

Yes, also the Steinheil Quinon S we discussed some time ago is officially a convertible Planar type. But I would consider these exceptions, especially since the OP's lens is the 135mm f/3.5 which is quite asymmetric in construction as you know..

[thrice]

Sorry to resurrect an old thread!
I just bought a 135/3.5 first version for $195 and had to share somewhere.
I'm familiar with how the store rates items and a 9/9+ is basically mint. Aside from a 6mm scratch on the rear element he says that is how he would rate it. Now we all know such a scratch will have no effect on images what-so-ever so I think I got a steal.

Here is the pic from their site, I've ordered an off-centre #1 lens-board, Zeiss lens cap and cable release in eager anticipation :D

[Carsten Wolff]

Nice deal! I think I got a similar amount for selling a 135/f3.5 Planar front-cell only recently (if only to buy a Komura 152mm/f3.5 in Copal 1 for the same shortly thereafter); sounds as if you can't loose on that deal though.

[thrice]

Thanks Carsten :) I'm really excited to try it out!

[originalphoto]

mrossano,

I am a Chinese and love photography a lot. I read a lot here and learn a lot from people around world. But your tone made me very uncomfortable as a Chinese. here is not the place let you show your discrimination and insolence. you could find rich guys who are willing to pay more money to get what he likes all around world, not only from China!!!

[BrianShaw]

Good point.