Lens question

jgoody · Jun 16, 2017

Looking over my photos I find that I love the rendering of my Minolta Autocord, very pleasing OOF areas etc. I know it's 6X6 and that has a large effect on the image, but I am interested in an LTM lens that might have similar characteristics. I believe the Autocord has a Tessar type lens. At present for 35mm RF I am using a Canon 50mm 1.8, which is I think a Planar lens. The Nikkor LTM 50mm f1.4 or f2 are I think Sonnars. Would one of these be more to my taste? Or a Summitar? Sadly I don't have access to a lens to try out and will need to purchase. Advice please- Thanks!

Paul Howell · Jun 16, 2017

Yashica made both a triplet and a 4 element Tessar lens for their TLRs. I recall that the LTM and later Yashichmats all had the 4 element lens, while the D came with either the 3 element or 4 element lens, the 635, not sure. Rolli put both Tessar and Planar style on there TRL, the 2.8 were Planar, don't know if early models came with a triplet, Rolli fans will know for sure. Mamyia put out Planar 80 2.8 for the C33, 330, and 220. I think the Konica's 90mm 3.5 for the Omegaflex was a 4 element.

faberryman · Jun 16, 2017

The lens on the Autocord is a 75mm 4-element Tessar type.

Peltigera · Jun 16, 2017

The FSU Industar 50 is a Tessar copy and was made in the M39 mount (Industar 50-2 is M42 mount)

Ko.Fe. · Jun 16, 2017

I have earlier Industar-26M which is Tessar formula. Well, I also have Industar-22. I also have Canon 50 1.8 LTM.

I-26M (re-lubed, re-shimmed) test shots on M3.
http://rangefinder.ru/glr/showphoto.php/photo/102281/ppuser/9655/cat/500

Recent print scan:

PM me if interested or just for more questions .

Be ready to overpay for Nikkor LTM lenses. And Summitar is no difference, either. Overpriced. Big lens, need special ring to take normal filters. And many of them are not in good condition optically. This is what happening with old Leitz glass from fifties and earlier over time.

chip j · Jun 17, 2017

Yessir, I read that old Nikkor Rf lenses are just fine optically.

E. von Hoegh · Jun 17, 2017

jgoody said:
Looking over my photos I find that I love the rendering of my Minolta Autocord, very pleasing OOF areas etc. I know it's 6X6 and that has a large effect on the image, but I am interested in an LTM lens that might have similar characteristics. I believe the Autocord has a Tessar type lens. At present for 35mm RF I am using a Canon 50mm 1.8, which is I think a Planar lens. The Nikkor LTM 50mm f1.4 or f2 are I think Sonnars. Would one of these be more to my taste? Or a Summitar? Sadly I don't have access to a lens to try out and will need to purchase. Advice please- Thanks!

The Summitar is a double Gauss type, as are your Canon lens and the Planar as well. You have a choice of a few Tessar types from the FSU, the Industar 10, -22, and -50 which are all 50/3.5 collapsible and can be very good; then the Industar 26 and -61, 50/2.8 rigid barrel. The -61 has a Lanthanum element and can be very good. The rendering you get will be very similar to your autocord for identical film at equal enlargement - BUT for equal size prints the tonality and smoothness will not be as good smoothness will not be as nice; as you enlarge a negative, you lose more and more of the fine tonal gradations.
The Leitz Elmar, both 3.5 and 2.8 versions, is basically a Tessar with the aperture located behind the front element (instead of in front of the rear cemented group as in a true Tessar) and you might like it.

02Pilot · Jun 18, 2017

I hate to tell you, but what you are experiencing is simply the first stage of a syndrome that will eventually result in you buying a lot of lenses. You can look at samples and read everything you can find, but you won't really know how a given sample of a given lens will render the photos that you take with it until you have it in your hands.

You've got a double Gauss type in the Canon. Get a Sonnar (Jupiter-8 is the cheapest buy-in for this type) and a Tessar (Elmar 50 or one of the Soviet lenses mentioned above) and start experimenting. Once you have some basic feel for the differences you can delve further into the minor variations.

jgoody · Jun 18, 2017

02Pilot said:
I hate to tell you, but what you are experiencing is simply the first stage of a syndrome that will eventually result in you buying a lot of lenses.

Now I'm scared!!!!

John Koehrer · Jun 18, 2017

^^^It's only money(yours).

E. von Hoegh · Jun 19, 2017

02Pilot said:
I hate to tell you, but what you are experiencing is simply the first stage of a syndrome that will eventually result in you buying a lot of lenses. You can look at samples and read everything you can find, but you won't really know how a given sample of a given lens will render the photos that you take with it until you have it in your hands.

You've got a double Gauss type in the Canon. Get a Sonnar (Jupiter-8 is the cheapest buy-in for this type) and a Tessar (Elmar 50 or one of the Soviet lenses mentioned above) and start experimenting. Once you have some basic feel for the differences you can delve further into the minor variations.

Thanks, O2. I neglected to mention the Sonnars, they have a similar rendering (early ones, at least) to the Tessars.

Sgore · Jun 20, 2017

I'm pretty sure that only the first, all chrome, version of the Canon 50mm 1.8 was a Planar design. I believe the later versions were of Tessar design

E. von Hoegh · Jun 20, 2017

Sgore said:
I'm pretty sure that only the first, all chrome, version of the Canon 50mm 1.8 was a Planar design. I believe the later versions were of Tessar design

Nope - an f:1.8 Tessar? Not Likely. And It's double Gauss, not Planar. The Planar was originally a flat field process lens made by Zeiss, and was/is a double Gauss design - "Planar" is a Zeiss trade name, "double Gauss" is a specific design type.

Dan Fromm · Jun 20, 2017

Not to be a complete idiot, but why not an f/3.5 Elmar? Tessar type, but reversed (cemented doublet in front) and with, IIRC, the diaphragm in the wrong place. You could do worse ...

02Pilot · Jun 20, 2017

Dan Fromm said:
Not to be a complete idiot, but why not an f/3.5 Elmar? Tessar type, but reversed (cemented doublet in front) and with, IIRC, the diaphragm in the wrong place. You could do worse ...

The optical arrangement of the Elmar 50/3.5 is no different from the typical Tessar except for the placement of the aperture blades between the first and second elements, rather than between the second and third elements. Both designs have two single elements followed by a cemented doublet.

btaylor · Jun 20, 2017

You can pick up the Industar 22 for peanuts, literally. I liked mine very much. The Jupiter 8 and Jupiter 3 are Sonnar copies and very attractive in the OOF areas too. The Elmar 3.5 is inexpensive for a Leica but hard to find in really good condition.

Lens question

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency