I would like to know how the Rodenstock lens compares with the zeiss planar lenses in terms of sharpness, color rendition, and coverage, especially when shot wide open. (I have heard that the planar lens may have some falloff at 6X9)

Thanks

I have used a Graflex shuttered Zeiss 100mm/f2.8 lens on a Graflex XL, and can tell you that this is a GREAT lens. It should cover 6x9 easily, but I have only had personal experience with 6x7. Be sure to use a lens hood, though, as the flare can be significant. You may have problems fitting this to a miniature speed graphic due to the size of the shutter and the diameter of the rear element. On an XL or 4x5 it should be fine. I don't have experience with the other lenses, but they are all Heliar designs (I think).

Quote:

On 2001-05-19 08:17, Barking Spiders wrote: I would like to know how the Rodenstock lens compares with the zeiss planar lenses in terms of sharpness, color rendition, and coverage, especially when shot wide open. (I have heard that the planar lens may have some falloff at 6X9) Thanks

I can't talk about the Heligon, but I suspect the 80mm planar would have fall off on 6x9, particularly wide open. I use one on my 2x3 pacemaker and occasionally see a slight fall off on 6x7.

The 80mm is also a tight squeeze to get on and off. I can still mount the lens without removing the rear element, but suspect with the 100 you would have to remove the rear element, mount the lens and install the rear element through the back.

The Planars are a design unto their own. The basis is the Dynar, which used a double concave and a double convex element on either side of the aperture. Rudolf cemented these together and added a large minicus element in front and the back to keep the symetry and increase overall speed, giving a 6 elements in 4 groups lens.

The Heliar is based on the Tessar where the single rear element is split into a cemented doublet giving a 5 elements in 3 groups lens.