Planars tessars rollei vs super ikonta questions

[Ruben_blaedel]

Two questions for the fine experts on this list

Q.1.
Many years ago I had to sell my Zeiss Ikon "super ikonta" 533/16 with a Tessar 2,8 as I was in bad need for cash. Now I found one that might end at a reasonable price. The tessar is a Zeiss Opton - How will that compare to the Zeiss Opton Tessar 3,5 75 mm on my Rolleiflex Automat 1951-54 - ??? I guess the super Ikonta is a lot older ? but I do remember that it was the nicest folder I worked with ??

Q.2.
The other day I stopped by a photo store that was on its way to close down buisiness
He had a rolleieflex with a built in lightmeter, coupled speed and f stop - and a planar 3,5. He said that he had been told that the planar 3,5 was better then the 2,8 at the time he got the camera. It had been in his possesion since new - i guess late 1950 early 1960 -
Is it true about the planar ?? is the coupled speed and f stop dials troublesome ?? I am thinking about talking him into selling it - would it be worth the effort ??

all the best Ruben

 

[colin]

Can't comment on the "coupling" issue, but can confirm that the 3.5 planar (80mm) is superior(sharper) than the 2.8 one in the Rolleis'
Colin

 

[carlzeiss]

Hello all,
I never knew that there was a Rolleiflex with a 3.5 Planar in 80mm focal length! I think Collin really meant 3.5 Planar in 75mm. The 2.8 Planar was in 80mm for the Rolleiflex 2.8f. I believe this was the same case for the 3.5e and 2.8e Rolleiflexes.
ANOTHER sharpness discussion always gravitates towards Xenotar vs Planar.....any comments out there?

 

[Ruben_blaedel]

Please - do not give me any xenotar right now - I was asking for something specific and that did not include xenotar - besides that it was 1. the comparing af the tessar on the super ikonta and automat and then it was comparing the 2,8 planar compared to the 3,5 planar not only sharpnes but other qualities !!

 

[emotepix]

1. There are general specs and actual cameras. If you can, put a roll through the one you're considering and see if you like it. That's the bottom line, the acid test, and there's no better way to answer that one.

2. Given the same model lenses, the 3.5 will usually outshoot a 2.8 in every area except speed.

That's usually a function of lens design -- my cheaper 35mm 2.8 Summaron-M (yes, that's right, one of the rarer ones) will outshoot my f/2 Summicron-M and very much my f/1.4 Summilux -- if there's enough light around.

So yes, get lucky - the cheaper lenses in this case are usually the better ones. And with the speed and lattitude of modern film stocks, I'd say you're getting luckier every day!