Anastigmat versus Tessar lenses

spoolman · Sep 27, 2012

I'm looking at two identical cameras, one with an Anastigmat lens and the other a Tessar. Which is better overall.

Doug

Richard S. (rich815) · Sep 27, 2012

For shooting what?

Two23 · Sep 27, 2012

The anastigmat will be a bit softer, the Tessar will be soft wide open but sharpens considerably from f8 on up.

Kent in SD

summicron1 · Sep 27, 2012

according to this http://throughavintagelens.com/2009/09/the-anastigmat-lens/ the tessar is a development of the earlier anastigmat -- tessars have a better reputation. Given the choice, all other things being equal, I'd go for the tessar. If it is softer images you want, whack the enlarger during the exposure.

ruilourosa · Sep 27, 2012

or your head during exposure!

Jim Jones · Sep 27, 2012

Anastigmat is a generic word that has included many more specific types of lenses, fine and inexpensive. If possible, taking photographs with both cameras is the best test of both lenses and cameras.

BrianShaw · Sep 27, 2012

Two23 said:
The anastigmat will be a bit softer...

Not in my experience. Both seem to perform about the same, and the softness is something I read a lot about but never found all that annoying.

Lens marked Tessar is likely slightly newer than one marked Anastigmat.

E. von Hoegh · Sep 27, 2012

Two23 said:
The anastigmat will be a bit softer, the Tessar will be soft wide open but sharpens considerably from f8 on up.

Kent in SD

Not neccesarily. I have a lens marked "Zeiss-Kodak Anastigmat" It's a 7" f:6.3 Tessar. Another marked "13" Eastman Anastigmat" - it's an f:10 Artar type process lens.Scary sharp. Yet another marked "Goerz Double Anastigmat" - we all know what this is.

Unless the OP gives more info. about just which anastigmat he has his question is unanswerable.

Dan Fromm · Sep 27, 2012

To add a little, the name anastigmat has been applied to many design types. The name refers to a property -- well corrected for astigmatism -- not to a design type. All tessar types are anastigmats, some anastigmats are tessar types.

Spoolman, if you want advice that's safe to act on, you'll have to tell us more about your Anastigmat. Other markings on the face plate, who seems to have made it, which camera it is attached to, ...

If you're looking at old Kodak folders, anastigmat covers a lot of lens types, including tessars, triplets, dialytes.

spoolman · Sep 27, 2012

Anastigmat versus Tessar

The specific reason for asking this question is that I'm looking to purchase an Ihagee Parvola 3x4 cm camera. I have a choice of two. One has an Anastigmat 70 mm lens and the other is a Tessar 70mm. The price difference between the two is significant. The camera with the anastigmat lens is $80.00 cheaper than the one with the tessar lens. I will be using one of these cameras for everyday street photography and I just needed to know which is the better lens for rseolution and sharpness.

Doug

Dan Fromm · Sep 27, 2012

One of these http://www.ebay.com/dsc/Cameras-Pho...w=(parvola,+ultrix)&_osacat=625&_odkw=parvola three? The ones with the anastigmats look pretty scruffy, the one with the Tessar has a 75/2.8, not a 70. I've always viewed f/2.8 Tessars as iffy but the VM says late ones are ok, also that some Ihagee Anastigmats are tessar types. Can't tell what the ones in the listings are from the images.

IMO, unless you want a display camera, you'll regret whichever you buy. If you want a display camera, spring for prettiest. IMO that's the one with the fast Tessar.

Not that it matters much, but why did you ask in the LF section? 3x4 is on the small side of medium format.

removed account4 · Sep 27, 2012

if you want to use the camera
get the one you think is the user
and don't worry about the lens
it is the least of your worries buying
a 70y/o camera ...
stopped down i am sure they are both nice

if you are going to showcase it
its a nobrainer, get the nice one
if it is for both reasons,
get a beater/ user
beaters have character, babied cameras,
well, they just look nice ...

spoolman · Sep 27, 2012

jnanian: Thanks for the sobering advice. I'll skip them all and save my money to get a REAL camera !!!. I don't know what got into me. I think it was a passing episode of G.A.S.

Doug

k_jupiter · Sep 28, 2012

Dan Fromm said:
Not that it matters much, but why did you ask in the LF section? 3x4 is on the small side of medium format.

Excuuuuse Meeee Mr. Fromm... My 3x4s are distinctly LF. Use LF film, use LF processing methods, use LF negative holders in the enlarger.

I do beg your pardon SIR!

tim in san jose

Dan Fromm · Sep 28, 2012

Tim, for you, 3x4 means 3.25" x 4.25". Upper end of MF, according to the people who think that 4" x 5" is the smallest LF format.

The Ihagee Parvola shoots nominal 30 x 40 mm on 127 film. You can look it up.

removed account4 · Sep 28, 2012

spoolman said:
jnanian: Thanks for the sobering advice. I'll skip them all and save my money to get a REAL camera !!!. I don't know what got into me. I think it was a passing episode of G.A.S.

Doug

hey doug

i love street shooting with a graflex slr. if you have your heart set on 3.5x4.5, you can find
a graflex and a bag mag ( if you want to shoot sheets ) or a roll film back and be good to go.
graflexes focus without a zone focus system, and take barrel lenses ( integral fp shutter, sometimes is ezpz to repair )
so you can pick and choose whatever lens you want from super new+sharp to old and fluffy. besides if someone attacks you for stealing their soul on the street, you can't do much with a folder, with a graflex you can swing it
and clobber them, like tim conway, ruth buzzy or carol brunette!
( someone always seems to be selling a graflex slr here on apug in the format you are looking to get into )

SNIP

Dan Fromm said:
Tim, for you, 3x4 means 3.25" x 4.25". Upper end of MF, according to the people who think that 4" x 5" is the smallest LF format.

yeah there are people on the LF site who are crazy like that ...
thinking that 4x5 is the smallest of the large format,
but free thinkers know better

spoolman · Sep 28, 2012

jnanian: Actually I was referring to 3x4 cm on 127 film but your advice from post #12 opened my eyes and helped dissipate any lingering effects of G.A.S. I already have a 2x3 speed graphic and I;ve almost had to use it as a defensive weapon but quick talking and a passing police car solved that situation.

Thanks,

Doug

E. von Hoegh · Sep 28, 2012

But you do need another camera......:devil:

summicron1 · Sep 28, 2012

a lot depends on how you use the camera yourself -- I bought a 127 folder a while back that was alleged to have the softer of possible lenses on it, a schneider something, instead of the preferred sharper tessar, but I found the images to be nicely sharp and very pleasing.

try out any camera, get the one that gives you the images you want.

spoolman · Sep 28, 2012

To E. von Hoegh some think you can never have enough cameras. I used to be like that. What I am trying to do is upgrade and reduce the number of cameras I have and use. If I get the Parvola, I'll be getting rid of a Kodak Nagel Vollenda 127 folder and the bellows it has. I'm trying to replace cameras that I have with bellows with ones that do not.

summicron1 that is what I'm also trying to accomplish. But that darn G.A.S. keeps getting involved. I think I've found a cure. I'll let you know if it works.

Doug

alanrockwood · Sep 30, 2012

I think I recall somewhere that lenses marked anastigmat are typically uncoated, not that anastigmat means uncoated, but just that it turns out that most anastigmats were not coated.

Of course, anastigmat means, literally, without astigmatism, so I suppose the optics were designed and computed to minimize astigmatism.

E. von Hoegh · Oct 1, 2012

alanrockwood said:
I think I recall somewhere that lenses marked anastigmat are typically uncoated, not that anastigmat means uncoated, but just that it turns out that most anastigmats were not coated.

Of course, anastigmat means, literally, without astigmatism, so I suppose the optics were designed and computed to minimize astigmatism.

Lenses marked "Anastigmat" are typically uncoated because they were made before lens coatings were commercially available. No other reason. There were post WWII lenses marked so which were coated, as well.

The designation "Anastigmat" became popular - and possible - when new glasses were developed in the late 1880s at Schott Jena, these glasses allowed lenses to be corrected for astigmatism. Marketing being what it is, the term was used to designate highly corrected lenses made with the new glasses, also to differentiate the new lenses from the Rapid-Rectilinear type which was un- or partially corrected for astigmatism.

The likelyhood is that both of the OP's lenses are uncoated.

k_jupiter · Oct 1, 2012

Dan Fromm said:
Tim, for you, 3x4 means 3.25" x 4.25". Upper end of MF, according to the people who think that 4" x 5" is the smallest LF format.

The Ihagee Parvola shoots nominal 30 x 40 mm on 127 film. You can look it up.

My mistake.

I do have cameras that shoot 127 3x4 format as well as half format.

Anywhooooo, people who think 3.25x4.25 is medium format are... mistaken.

tim in san jose

E. von Hoegh · Oct 1, 2012

k_jupiter said:
My mistake.

I do have cameras that shoot 127 3x4 format as well as half format.

Anywhooooo, people who think 3.25x4.25 is medium format are... mistaken.

tim in san jose

Large format is 20 square inches or larger. Period.

BrianShaw · Oct 1, 2012

Total film dimensions or the per frame image dimensions?

Anastigmat versus Tessar lenses

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency