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