Early 135/4.5 Tessar Nr. 594875 - well, what to expect? :)

[eumenius]

Hello friends,

today I made my way to our photo store, and bought the camera I was writing about before - a folding Kraft 9x12. Well, I did make a mistake - the lens on it is a real Carl Zeiss Tessar, Nr. 594875, uncoated, in Ica Dresden Compur shutter with a pentagram on a speed dial. The shutter works like new, judging by sound and eye. When I took the lens apart and cleaned it, I was seriously surprised - the camera itself is a rotten piece of junk, but the glass in this Tessar is PERFECT - no cleaning marks, fungus, separation or rot, it shines like the lenses on my Mamiya, and it is absolutely water-clear without a trace of brown/yellow. I am stunned by the quality of it, so here's my question, again a lame one: what can you say about this lens? I know that it's so stupid to ask here about Tessar, but maybe there's something peculiar about this beauty? I want to put it on my Speed Graphics, but again, isn't it just an extra double for my Ektar 127/4.7, or this Tessar should give something quite different?

Cheers,
Zhenya

 

[BradS]

The Ektar is also a Tessar design. That is they are both four elements in three groups. The 135mm and 127mm lenses are also (obviously) quite close in focal length so, you'll probably not notice much difference there. Where these two lenses are likely to be noticibly different is in contrast and (I'm guessing) sharpness - especially at the edges. The genuine Tessars do not have a stellar reputation for quality. The Ektars do.

 

[eumenius]

Yes, I expect it to have less contrast - but maybe it would give more details in shadows, along with that old lens plastics The Tessar is the same as Ektar by the optical scheme, right - the main difference should be in bokeh (Tessar's got a perfectly round iris, and Ektar is five-blade). I think that for $15 it's still a good deal in such a minty state, and it should be a nice thing to experiment with Do you say that genuine Tessars were not as well-reputed as Ektars? I have a Contaflex Super with Tessar 50/2.8, and it's a gem... also Apo-Tessars were quite good too, as I can remember. As I can understand, Tessars in 20-30s costed nearly a fortune, when regular cameras were mostly with simple triplets and cheaper lens designs?

 

[sajianphotos]

I have a very similar Tessar 135 on a 31/4X41/4 speed graphic. I have had some problems with corners out of focus in narrow openings. I also use an ektar and don't have the same problem.
Still there is something kind of cool about the pictures from the Tessar. They are definitely softer.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Not that old a lens, made around 1924. Zhenya, the only way to find out what the lens in hand will do is to shoot with it. No one here has it, the best anyone but you can do is spout generalities that may not apply at all.

FWIW, earlier this year I went crazy and squandered some of my lunch money on a couple of pre-WWI B&L f/6.3 Tessars, made under license. They're very usable on my little 2x3 Graphics, i.e., more that sharp and contrasty enough. I have better lenses at approximately their focal lengths, but if I had to use my crappy old tessars I wouldn't feel too sorry for myself.

If your 127 Ektar is in good condition, a 135/4.5 Tessar will probably bring little to your party. That said, the impulse to acquire is very hard to control, especially when the price is right. You're not the only one who has succumbed to it.

Apo Tessars, typically f/9, and garden variety f/4.5 Tessars are hardly comparable. The Apo lenses have much better corrections and cover a much narrower angle. I have three Apochromatic f/9 tessar type lenses made by Taylor, Taylor, & Hobson. All three are pretty good.

Cheers,

Dan

 

[BradS]

<snip>.... I think that for $15 it's still a good deal in such a minty state, and it should be a nice thing to experiment with Do you say that genuine Tessars were not as well-reputed as Ektars? I have a Contaflex Super with Tessar 50/2.8, and it's a gem... also Apo-Tessars were quite good too, as I can remember. As I can understand, Tessars in 20-30s costed nearly a fortune, when regular cameras were mostly with simple triplets and cheaper lens designs?

Oh, yes. Of course. It is a fanttastic deal for $15. I'm sure many here would gladly pay twice that much....even for the shutter alone. I don't mean to disparage the lens in anyway. It sounds like a gem and even sounds like something that would be quite interesting to try.

Even if it turns out to be not as sharp as the Ektar, it doesn't mean that it's no good. I've a wollensak 127mm raptar and a Kodak 127mm Ektar. The Ektar beats the pants off the Raptar in sharpness and coverage but, the Raptar has a magic "glow" that I simpy love. I use 'em both regularly.

 

[Ole]

A perfect 1924 Tessar is going to be good. Very good. The only complaints about it at the time was that they were too sharp for portraits!

 

[eumenius]

He-he, so it looks like my purchase is not all this bad at all - that's what I've anticipated I am sure that the lens was originally on some kind of Ica folding 9x12 cameras, and someone has transplanted it for some reason (image quailty, I hope) on this crappy Kraft camera. BTW, I have tried to find some pictures taken with this lens on the net - with no success, so it would be my another debt for APUG to find a 9x12 scanner, scan and post my results for bien publique

I am limited with my test only by absence of the appropriate lensboard for this lens - but it's being made now So in a short time I would be able to shoot with it and see how it works I am not a huge fan of resolution and contrast - you're right, friends, this magic glow can do more to your picture than all this submicroscopic skin facture Every lens is for its purpose, so I have to try it in different conditions. The blacking on the lenses inside is quite good, and the light scattering is minimal, as I can notice looking through the lens on a light source in a dark room - quite comparable to that in my Mamiya lenses, again And the stories that uncoated lenses don't work with back lighting and color films are just silly. I always refer those claiming that it wouldn't work to the Prokudin-Gorsky pictures

Cheers,
Zhenya

 

[k_jupiter]

Having a number of the lens mentioned in this thread, I can tell you, a good mid 20s Tessar is a delight. I have one (135 4.5) on a Zeiss Trona that picks out detail with the best lens I have (fuji 150 6.3), or better. I took a picture of my back yard and saw spider webs in the vents of my vw van 20 feet away. It might be too sharp and too contrasty. But I like it.

I also like my 127 Raptar as well as the 101 Ektar I have, all Tessar based lens.

Best of luck with your lens, You can always pull it and the shutter out for a Speed Graphic.


tim in san jose

 

[df cardwell]

The genuine Tessars do not have a stellar reputation for quality. The Ektars do.

The only folks who don't like TESSARS are scottish anti-zeiss bigots living in california.

The Tessar was regarded highly, equal or usually superior to the Cookes and Heliars of the day. Their problem, to early portraitists, was the immense ( for the day ) contrast. But portraitists soon figured out that being able to focus easily was beneficial, and simply racked the extension out to soften the image to their liking. The bokeh is excellent. This is the lens, after all, that MADE the Rolleiflex. Berek's famous Elmar was simply a reworking of the Tessar to fit the Leica. And why would Kodak pick THIS lens as its model if it were no good ? Today, we see millions of 'em around and figure ( from our 21st century point of view ) that they aren't rare, so how can they be good ?

Your Tessar will have little flare trouble, is only slightly less contrasty than the single ctd Ektar... the look will be a Zone II that looks like a II 1/2.

And, yes, Ektars are an improvement. By 1940, the needs of commerical illustration had outrun the old design and new glass ( for example ) was become available that allowed the Hawkeye designers to fix the shortcomings of a great lens.

You'll probably find your unctd Tessar to have about the same contrast as a single ctd Symmar. Good find: have fun.

.

 

[BradS]

The genuine Tessars do not have a stellar reputation for quality. The Ektars do.

The only folks who don't like TESSARS are scottish anti-zeiss bigots living in california.

Never said I didn't like 'em. Only made an observation about their Quality Reputation relative to that of the Ektars. We all know that reputation and reality, especially with respect to lenses (and film?), are not always aligned. The respective reputations may, or may not be deserved.

I think the Tessar design is popular and often immitated because of many factors. Performance is just one. Cost of manufacture and design considerations are possible others.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I have two Tessars in dial-set Compurs from this era -- one from about 1927, the other pre-1926. Neither is as perfect as you describe, and one shutter carries the scars of a previous owner's attempt to adjust it by filing the speed cam, but both are capable of making excellent images. IMO, even a 1920s vintage Tessar can stand up against any modern lens with similar coverage. The 13.5 cm will (just) cover 4x5, and allows considerable rise or shift with 9x12 cm (I use them on an original Zeiss-Ikon Ideal 250/7 plate camera).

Bottom line, it was the best overall lens money could buy when yours was made, and it's not a whole bunch behind anything you can buy under $2000 new price right now. If not abused, that shutter will probably still work right long after you're buried. Unless you paid a bunch of money for it, you've got a great bargain there and should in any case be very happy with the images you make with it.

Attached is a 6x6 mm crop from a 9x12 cm negative shot when testing my Ideal after repairing a detached bellows. This is about 1/3 the negative area of a Minolta 16 negative, shot through a lens like the one you have; Fomapan 100, EI 160, developed in Diafine. Go make good pictures...

 

[eumenius]

Hi Donald,

that's a great amount of details your lenses give, though the glass is not perfect... it really stands in line with modern lenses! Today I shoot two sheets of Fomapan 100 with the lens, on 5.6 it's okay, and on f/18 I can see sparks of sharpness And the bokeh is just perfect - alas, can't scan and post my results, I didn't get the LF scanner yet But the lens costed $15 to me, together with crappy Kraft plate camera

The shutter is in a fine state, though 1/200 is closer to 1/150 - age, age... it will work for another 80 years without any problems, right

I will try tomorrow to shoot some portraits in older style (shortish lens close to subject, hot lights, plenty of bellows extension), and reverse-process the Fomapan film - the slides would tell me the whole truth about this lens

I have some more good news for today - my friend gave me a gift, an original box with the full set of Sputnik stereo kit. Camera, case, contact printing stereo frame, stereo viewer, release cable, manual. Never used. Made in 1968 by LOMO So tomorrow I will try and shoot something with those pesky triplets T-22 it's equipped with - should be enough sharpness for contact prints, right?

Cheers,
Zhenya

I have two Tessars in dial-set Compurs from this era -- one from about 1927, the other pre-1926. Neither is as perfect as you describe, and one shutter carries the scars of a previous owner's attempt to adjust it by filing the speed cam, but both are capable of making excellent images.

Bottom line, it was the best overall lens money could buy when yours was made, and it's not a whole bunch behind anything you can buy under $2000 new price right now. If not abused, that shutter will probably still work right long after you're buried. Unless you paid a bunch of money for it, you've got a great bargain there and should in any case be very happy with the images you make with it.

 

[MattCarey]

Oh, yes. Of course. It is a fanttastic deal for $15. I'm sure many here would gladly pay twice that much....even for the shutter alone. I don't mean to disparage the lens in anyway. It sounds like a gem and even sounds like something that would be quite interesting to try.

Even if it turns out to be not as sharp as the Ektar, it doesn't mean that it's no good. I've a wollensak 127mm raptar and a Kodak 127mm Ektar. The Ektar beats the pants off the Raptar in sharpness and coverage but, the Raptar has a magic "glow" that I simpy love. I use 'em both regularly.

Hmmm, maybe I should have kept that 127mm Ektar I used to have...Perhaps the guy I sold it to will sell it back!

Matt

 

[df cardwell]

Never said I didn't like 'em. Only made an observation about their Quality Reputation relative to that of the Ektars. We all know that reputation and reality, especially with respect to lenses (and film?), are not always aligned. The respective reputations may, or may not be deserved.

I think the Tessar design is popular and often immitated because of many factors. Performance is just one. Cost of manufacture and design considerations are possible others.

Perception and Reputation are funny things. My perspective goes back 20 years before the internet. I became a 'Kodak guy' instead of a 'Goerz guy'. Schneider was peddled by B&J (yuck) and that's how it went. Funny.

I'm constantly surprised that today, the perception of lenses ( and stuff ) is totally different than it was when we made a living by shooting big film every day !