CARL ZEISS JENA TESSAR 50mm 2.8

[Rol_Lei Nut]

Reading that, Rollei Nut, you would almost believe only German companies know how to produce high quality lenses to exacting standards.
That is, of course, not so. In particular, the Japanese companies (having an as long and reputable tradition in lens making as their German counterparts) do know very well what they are doing and how to do it well, consistently.

I didn't say or imply that, just different production and (especially) cost strategies...

 

[Anscojohn]

Two of my Leitz lenses were made in Canada; and my 90mm 4.0 Rokkor was made in Germany. Go figure.

 

[Alan Johnson]

I wonder what is known of the history of the M42 Zeiss Jena Tessar.
From Amateur Photographer magazine 24 August 2002 is this on the M42 mount:
"In 1949 after the announcement of (East German) Zeiss Ikon's Contax S,with 42mm screw lens mount,the Praktiflex 11,with some minor improvements,was relaunched with a 42mm screw lens mount as the Praktica...The Contax S was the the originator of the 42mm lens mount,but it was the Praktica that was to make it run and run"
However it does not say when the M42 Tessar was introduced.

 

[Ian Grant]

I wonder what is known of the history of the M42 Zeiss Jena Tessar.

It's just an earlier SLR lens in a different mount, it was made to fit the pre-WWII Kine Exacta as well as the KW Praktina both of which pre-date the Contax SLR.

Ian

 

[Mark Layne]

The f1.8 Super Takumar is very significantly better at all apertures, I've had quite a few Takumars in the past from f1.4 through to f2 and they are outstanding, I currently have about 4 or 5.

The Tessar's OK I have two, one on an Exacta the other Pentax thread, but they are not as sharp until about f8/f11.

Alan missed the infamous Meyer Domiplan that must be the worst of the Easy German 50mm lenses from a company whose lenses once equalled CZJ in quality. The Pentacon was the later name for the Meyer lens the Oreston.

Try the Tessar it might be fine, just don't expect too much.

Ian

With one exception Ian-the late recomputed Tessar first found in mid production Contaflex Supers is superior at least as far as sharpness goes.
My Takumars are certainly extremely sharp but smooth tonality might be another issue
Mark

 

[railwayman3]

I inherited various Exakta and Praktica cameras and lenses from my late Father...these were, of course, all East German products, and my impression was that the QC could sometimes be variable. The CZJ Tessars were very good, if not quite the outstanding quality of more modern designs, whereas an f1.8/50mm Pancolor was, unexpectedly, very poor. The Meyer Optik lenses also varied, the 50mm Domiplan was very soft, but the 30mm Lydith was outstanding.

My impression is that CZJ and Meyer quality was better on the more unusual lenses rather than the standard lenses which they turned out in quantity, and this seems to be born out by the good prices which lenses like the Flektagon, etc., fetch on Ebay.

The West German Zeiss lenses were uniformly excellent, but reflected in much higher original retail prices.

 

[Ian Grant]

The Pancolor can be a superb lens, I have one on an Exacta that is a great lens, and I had one on a Prakticamat that was optically good but mechanically poor. as it wouldn't stop down to the set aperture properly. There were quality control problems during assembly and testing.

Have to agree the Meyer lenses were good except for the Domiplan (I have 2), and I have a Lydith with my Exacta , a very sharp wide angle I used one with a Spotmatic too.

Mark Layne is right that many later Tessar designs were better, much of that was due to big improvements in optical glass, actually from Pilkingtons in the UK who still supply most of the specialist glasses taht are blended to amke optical blanks.

Ian

 

[darinwc]

The tessars design is 4 elements with one cemented pair and one air-spaced pair. This is typically notated as 4 elements in 3 groups. This means there are 4 actual pieces of glass and 6 glass-to-air surfaces.

The tessar was designed at a time when the cost to produce high-quality lenses for photography and scientific use was very high. Coatings were not available yet either, so the number of glass-to-air surfaces was a limiting factor.

The tessar is a compromise between 4 elements in 2 cemented groups and a 4 air-spaced element design. Lens designers of the time knew that they could correct more of the aberations by adding more elements but they were limited by contrast-reducing uncoated glass surfaces. The air-spaced elements are cheaper to manufacture, but have limited angle of view and suffer from poor contrast. Lenses made with two cemented pairs or triplets can be designed with a wider angle of view and they have much better contrast. However these are much more expenisive to build.

The tessar is a middle ground between the two lens designs. It has good enough coverage for a normal lens, is faster than air-spaced lenses like the rapid-rectilinear, and can be produced at reasonable cost. Designs such as the Planar, Dagor, and Sonnar are better corrected, but much more expensive to make. Therefore the tessar has been the perfect lens for mass-markets.

Over the past century the tessar design has been copied and reformulated many times. In large format there are many excellent lenses such as the Kodak Commercial Ektars and Nikkor Ms. But these have slower apertures (f6.3 and f9 respectively) than what we are used to in smaller formats. Despite the Zeiss name on some, the tessars used in 35mm format are not as well corrected as more complicated designs.

For further reading, try this:http://www.panix.com/~zone/photo/czlens.htm

 

[ayiomamitis]

Folks,

I am seriously thinking about acquiring a Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 50mm/f2.8 lens for widefield astrophotography work by attaching the lens to a cooled CCD camera.

Can I get some feedback as to how sharp the results will be when stopped down to about f5.6 or even f8?

My CCD camera can also accomodate a Nikon-mount lens and the Nikkor 50mm/f2 lens is another possibility.

My SOLE priority is image sharpness at f5.6 to f8 with minimal chromatic aberration with potentially bright stars across the field of view of the CCD camera whose chip is full-frame (ie. 35mm). Other features such as manual vs auto are a non-issue.

Thanks!

Anthony.

 

[lens_hacker]

Tessar formula lenses are not known for extreme color correction. You would be better with a Summicron. My type 1 Rigid Summicron has the IR focus index within the F2 DOF marks. Low Chromatic Aberration. Look at where the IR index is on the lens. That will give some indication of the color correction.

If you cannot use Leica mount, for Nikon mount the 55/2.8 Micro-Nikkor would be my choice. I use it with Infrared, no need to refocus.

Also- this is a film forum, and the question might be best asked on a telescope / astronomy forum.

 

[Wade D]

The 50mm 2.8 Tessar on my Exakta is quite sharp and contrasty. I've made excellent 16x20 prints from the negatives shot with it. For an early 50's lens it is one of the best in my opinion. Newer lenses are of course in a different class as the technology has changed but I like the "look" the older lenses give to a scene. One of my favorite lenses is a 5x7 Rapid Rectilinear 210mm from 1910 that I use on my 4x5 Speed Graphic.

 

[Pumal]

I have a Carl Zeiss 2.8/120 and a 4/25 that I enjoy tremendously.

 

[R gould]

I have a Zeiss Ikon contina with the tessar lens,a Rolleiflex with tessar lens and a werra also with the tessar,all carl zeiss, and I love them all, I also have two Ensign selfix's, a 12/20 and a 16/20,both wit the ross expres lens,a tessar copy, but I would say that, in my opion using them that the ross is the better lens,Richard

 

[Pumal]

I have a Carl Zeiss 2.8/120 and a 4/25 that I enjoy tremendously.

[/IMG]

 

[Q.G.]

I have a Carl Zeiss 2.8/120 and a 4/25 that I enjoy tremendously.

Neither of which are Tessars though.

 

[Pumal]

Who cares?

[/IMG]

 

[dynachrome]

I don't have too many East German or FSU lenses in Exakta or M42 mounts. I did have a 50/2 Zeiss Pancolar zebra lens in Exakta mount and it was optically good if a little balky mechanically. That was traded with my VX 500. Somewhere I have a 35mm Enna Lithagon in M42 mount. I don't remember whether it's an f/3.5 or an f/2.8 lens. It seems to have yellowed cement between the elements. My best old German lenses in M42 mount are a 30/3.5 Meyer Lydith and a 35/3.5 Noflexar. Both are excellent. I wouldn't expect any of the older German M42 lenses to be better than a late model 55/1.8 Super Takumar. The coating is the only important thing to consider. The 55/1.8 S-M C-T and 55/1.8 SMC lenses are quite good and I wouldn't expect many other lenses of that speed or focal length range to be much better. When the 55/1.8 SMC was changed to K mount for the KX, K2 and KM cameras it only stayed in production for a short time before it was replaced by the 50/1.7 M lens. I still prefer the 55/1.8 SMC Pentax to the later 50/1.7 M. The latest lens in that line that I have is the 50/1.7 SMC Pentax-F. I use it as a portrait lens on my K-x but it's also very good on film cameras and has more modern coating that the 50/1.7 M.

 

[Alan Johnson]

I don't think the Tessar design was ever patented.This from an advertisement of March 1941 reproduced in Classic Camera magazine no 6 1990 p26:
"An Englishman, H L Aldis designed and caused to be produced before 1900,an anastigmat lens later to be developed into the famous Aldis f/4.5.In doing so he had anticipated the Zeiss Tessar Patent of 1902.
When the Aldis f/4.5 appeared,Zeiss.....demanded that all stocks be destroyed and an end put to the business.
They confidently applied for an interim injunction and in reply H L Aldis put in his affidavit particulars of his work prior to 1900.
...the judge had to be informed by Zeiss's counsel that their clients case had collapsed.It could not be disputed that the Tessar patent was void,having been anticipated by Aldis."

 

[T42]

**********
I have found good Tessars to have more contrast than the good 1.8 Super-Takumars.

I was thinking the exact same thing. Tessars are not so sharp in the corners at wider apertures, but they improve considerably when stopped down. But contrast using a clean, coated Tessar will be very good.

Isn't Nikon's 45mm f2.8 pancake lens for the FM3a basically a modern, coated Tessar?