Difference between Xenotar 135/3.5 and Zeiss Planar

[richardman]

Not that it matters because there is no way I would pay $3000-$4500+ for a lens (most expensive lens I still own are the Zeiss 85/2, the Summilux 50/1.4ASPH and the 30mm XPan, but that's in another lifetime). In any case, on this thread:
http://www.largeformatphotography.in...enotar-135-3-5

It was casually mentioned that the Xenotar and the Planar are the same lens except for the coating, or am I mis-reading it?

In the now closed Zeiss Planar ad, two people mentioned that Xenotar are coated, so are these the same lens, or are they different?

Thanks

[Ian Greenhalgh]

Similar but different. Both are double gauss types. Originally, the Xenotar had 5 elements in a similar scheme to the CZJ Biometar and Wray Unilite:

Original 1952 Xenotar scheme:


That 5-element Xenotar type was used on the Rollei TLR, which is also where the Planar was used, and that version of the Planar was also 5 elements in a similar but different configuration to the Xenotar:



Later iterations of both the Xenotar and Planar used either 6 or 7 elements. The 6 element type being the more common and consisting of a pair of cemented doublets either side of a central stop with an outer pair of meniscii, similar to this:



The reference to the coating was that the particular Planar they were discussing was a late production model with the T* multi-coating and the Xenotar and earlier Planars didn't have that particular coating.

[richardman]

Got it. I thought may be I misunderstood the coating comment that way too. Thanks for confirmation.

I love looking at lens diagrams, it's like artwork by themselves.

[Ian Greenhalgh]

Glad to be of help.

[Dan Fromm]

Ian, see what Arne has to say about Planars: http://www.arnecroell.com/publications

I think you're not fully informed and are spreading information that is at best partially correct.

[Ian Greenhalgh]

Everything I wrote is correct. You don't expect me to write a lengthy piece all about Planars, Xenotars and all the variations thereof in answer to a simple question do you? I made my response as brief as possible and gave the OP the basic info he asked for.

[Dan Fromm]

Everything I wrote is correct. You don't expect me to write a lengthy piece all about Planars, Xenotars and all the variations thereof in answer to a simple question do you? I made my response as brief as possible and gave the OP the basic info he asked for.

To quote Dr. Croell, "Large format Planars from Carl Zeiss Oberkochen. All are 5/4 constructions as shown in fig. 1,"

I think its reasonable to expect you to think and check y'r facts before posting. I don't know why you didn't think and check, but you posted an answer that's seriously in error. The worst of it is that it will stay up and mislead people who don't read the entire thread for at least as long as this site stays up.

[Ian Greenhalgh]

you posted an answer that's seriously in error

No I didn't, and let me prove it:

Firstly, the Rollei Planar and Xenotar evolved from 5 to 6 elements:



The Hasselblad Planar evolved from 6 to 7 elements:



Of course, those are MF lenses, but there are other examples.

The S-Planar 5.6/120 was produced from 1969 to 1982, not only for Rollei and Hasselblad MF cameras but also in shutter for LF technical cameras, so it is precisely what I wrote - a later iteration with 6 elements.

[Dan Fromm]

I see. So large format begins at 6x6. That's not the local convention.

[BrianShaw]

Dan, I don't have time this afternoon to get a PhD in optics, so could you please let us know what information is in error. Simply alleging an error and then pointing to a whole lot of great information doesn't help either. Thanks.