Does anyone know how the 180mm Rodenstock compares to the 180mm Zeiss Planar? I've found the Rodenstock version to be much cheaper. Cheep!

A 180mm planar is a rare item, so it commands a price even if there are sharper lens designs out there.

The Planar design was for speed, but it suffered in coverage and, inuncoated version, contrast.

I"m not sure which Roddenstock your comparing it to.

Les

Are you sure this is a Zeiss Planar? As far as I know, the 180mm is a Zeiss Sonnar supplied for a Graflex XL.

I have a lot of data on the large format Linhof select Zeiss lenses as I will be creating a web page on this subject someday. The 180mm Sonnar (same as the 180mm Linhof select Sonnar supplied with Linhof cameras between 1955 and the early 1970's) is an outstanding lens. However, you are paying a premium for it's Zeiss status. The main advantage of this lens is performance at wide apertures. In fact, the Sonnar is known to be equally sharp wide open versus stopped down. I own a Linhof select 250mm Sonnar and find this to be true. If you can afford the premium, I would go with the Sonnar.

Thanks for your answers! And your are right that I mistakenly identified it as a Zeiss Planar, instead of a Sonnar. Sorry. I am continuing to look for either lens. To be honest, it will probably boil down to whichever I can afford at the moment they become available.
PS: The Rodenstock is a Rotelar 180mm/F4.5, I believe, and is a "true" telephoto, whatever that means.

I find they're both great lenses. I wont dispute whether the Sonnar is sharper at large apertures, I can't really recall using it at wider than about f8 (thinking about, I'd like to try that). The Rotelar is a lot lighter and more complact and is the lens I carry with me when I want a longer lens along. Hence, I've used it a lot more then the Sonnar, which tends to sit in my 'auto-dry' cabinet. The 180mm Rotelar is really excellent - absolutely no complaints. Actually, my sole complaint is only having one of them! I'd like to get one mounted on a board to use on my 2x3 Graphics. Also, like the 58mm Grandagons for the XL, the Rotelars can have separation problems. Thinking about it, mine does have a thin (a few millimeters) crescent of separation around part of the front element (no effect on performance, evidently) and another I bought (to mount on a lens board) arrived with worse separation and I returned it.

In my opinion, you can't go wrong with either lens, but the Rotelar is a lot easier to carry around and handhold, etc.

A non tele lens, when focused at infinity, will draw out the bellows equal to the focal length, so a 5" lens will focus infinity 5" away from the film plane.

The same can be said for a 24" lens.....focuses at infinity with 24" of bellows draw.

Tele lenses cheat. By adding a negative element to the rear of a short lens the image gets spread over a larger area. but the Ground Glass didn't get bigger so the effect is magnification.

You end up with a 180mm lens that needs less than 180mm to focus infinity.

So the Rotelar is lighter, brighter, cheaper and won't stick out as far.

The Sonnar is a Zeiss, and is sharp wide open.

I know the Sonnar will cover 4x5. I suspect the Rotelar will, but this is where I suspect you'll see a marked performance improvement with the Sonnar.