I have a few CZJ 50mm f2.8 Tessar lenses, one on an Exa 1a, another on a Praktina FX, a third on a Pentax H1, actually I have a couple more as well.
I've used the one off the Exa on an Exakta Varex II and the one on the Praktina and they are very competent lenses, I've not used them wide open but then it's rare for me to use any lens wide open. However being f2.8 focussing is n;t as bright as the f2 Pancolar on my Varex II or Praktinas.
Where did you read it? It doesn't make much sense as the sonnar is basically a triplet with a thick element.
The planar was well known to be a dog until decent coatings became available.
But, in my opinion, even in contemporary lenses the clarity of contrast of a lens with few glass-to-air surfaces is unsurpassed; which is the main reason why I have chosen the Mamiya brand and, within this brand, their reputed tessar-type lenses.
I have chosen the Mamiya brand and, within this brand, their reputed tessar-type lenses.
I also use CZJ Tessars on Exakta and Praktina and have no complaints about image quality whatsoever. I also use one on a Pentacon F that occasionally makes its way on to a Pentax body. I like the look of Tessars.I have a few CZJ 50mm f2.8 Tessar lenses, one on an Exa 1a, another on a Praktina FX, a third on a Pentax H1, actually I have a couple more as well.
I've used the one off the Exa on an Exakta Varex II and the one on the Praktina and they are very competent lenses, I've not used them wide open but then it's rare for me to use any lens wide open. However being f2.8 focussing is n;t as bright as the f2 Pancolar on my Varex II or Praktinas.
Ian
I read that the entire British royal family are lizard type aliens in human guise.I read that the sonnar design when it was released in the late 20s actually showed inferior image to the much older tessar design. It only surpassed it when the coatings became better.
I read that the entire British royal family are lizard type aliens in human guise.
The Sonnar evolved from the fast Ernemann lenses of the mid 1920s. One of the design criteria was a minimum of internal surfaces - a Sonnar has four, same as a Tessar.
I have a 1936 Sonnar on a Contax, it is no "dog".
The Sonnar name comes from "sonne", sun. It as well as the aformentioned Ernemann lenses were designed by Ludvig Bertele.
That's a good comment, "uselessly fast".The 135 format is exactly the one from which the big big fuss of super-wide-aperture, uselessly-fast lenses came into photography, and with SLR cameras preminently (if not exclusively). As a consequence, as Ralph pointed out, there are billions of superb "normal" planar clones available at ridicolous prices. Moreover, people underwent a decades-long propaganda about "faster is better". So very few people are prone to try out older, not so fast lenses.
At least from my point of view, I'm persuaded that there is a change in perspective with other formats. Mamiya, just to mention one make, produced tessar-type lenses until they discontinued their mid-format cameras altogether. They are absolutely excellent in my opinion, and personally I carefully selected tessar-type lenses for both my C and RB mid-format system.
A Voigtlander Bessa II with Apo-Lanthar lens, despite being an "old folder", usually sells for no less than a half dozen of average salaries. But I would say that even the cheaper Apo-Lanthar lens for large format will sell at the equivalent of at least one average salary. Not exactly "rubbish", it seems.
Both. I think it's worth remarking that while on the RB system you can basically choose between a planar-derived "normal" (90mm) and a tessar-type "normal" (127mm), all of the beautiful pictures ever taken with a C system and any of its "normal" lenses (80mm and 105mm) are all pictures inevitably taken with a tessar-type lens. Which is an outstanding endorsement for this type of lens design, in my opinion.Since you have mentioned it (sorry AgX) are you talking about RZ/RB or TLR?
Both. I think it's worth remarking that while on the RB system you can basically choose between a planar-derived "normal" (90mm) and a tessar-type "normal" (127mm), all of the beautiful pictures ever taken with a C system and any of its "normal" lenses (80mm and 105mm) are all pictures inevitably taken with a tessar-type lens. Which is an outstanding endorsement for this type of lens design, in my opinion.
Indeed it was a sentence that perhaps deserved few extra words of explanation... But just like you did, I also had to grasp this concept backwards "the hard way", as I have been no less than any other a victim of the "uselessly fast lens" propaganda.That's a good comment, "uselessly fast".
My first fast 50 was a Zuiko in 1978, it wasn't so great wide open. Since then, I've had pre AI f1.2 and f1.4 Nikkors, Canon rf f1.2, a few other 1.4s and the only one I was impressed with is the f1.4 Takumar.
The 50s I use now are all 1.8 to 2.0, bright enough and usually as good wide open - often better than - the 1.2s and 1.4s @f2.
Which is an obvious triplet derivative, exactly as the Tessar is.In the link I gave in my previous post, the TLR 80 mm lens is said to be a copy of the Elmarit 90 2.8
The f:1.8 50 might be the finest 50 Nikon ever made.Indeed it was a sentence that perhaps deserved few extra words of explanation... But just like you did, I also had to grasp this concept backwards "the hard way", as I have been no less than any other a victim of the "uselessly fast lens" propaganda.
I completely agree with your opinion about the f:1,4 Takumar, and I'm persuaded that it's no coincidence. About other f:1,4 lenses that I've tried during the "faster & faster" war, some were just barely usable lenses, others gave nice results wide open but pretty much to detriment of sharpness at all apertures.
To complicate things, in the eighties the market was flooded with cheapish moderately fast lenses (ranging from f:2 to f:1,7 generally) which were horribly muddy or absolutely unimpressive when used wide open, and nothing to write home about even at smaller apertures, thus distorting any comparison between slower and faster lenses which were then on the market. The exception to the above are superb lenses like the Nikkor 50mm f:1,8 which in my opinion surpasses in many aspects the f:1,4 but costs a fraction of it.
While I reckon that a fast lens helps with focusing aids on a SLR (which is thus an application in which preferring fast lenses does make sense, at least to some degree), whichever lens with an aperture of at least f:3,5 is easily usable and should be considered. What actually deflected my attention from maximum aperture and conveyed it to other parameters was the step-up to medium and later large format, where I immediately saw that such race for the highest aperture never existed, and found out later that the most regarded lenses have actually moderate to small maximum aperture figures.
I was kind of understating that; but now that you've written it, I can say that I fully second your sentiments.The f:1.8 50 might be the finest 50 Nikon ever made.
As well as few air to glass surfaces, a "modest" maximum aperture helps as well - less area of however many surfaces to bounce light off of.Where did you read it? It doesn't make much sense as the sonnar is basically a triplet with a thick element.
The planar was well known to be a dog until decent coatings became available.
But, in my opinion, even in contemporary lenses the clarity of contrast of a lens with few glass-to-air surfaces is unsurpassed; which is the main reason why I have chosen the Mamiya brand and, within this brand, their reputed tessar-type lenses.
Which is an obvious triplet derivative, exactly as the Tessar is.
Not quite, as less light is entering the lens.As well as few air to glass surfaces, a "modest" maximum aperture helps as well - less area of however many surfaces to bounce light off of.
Not my experience, as I don't have any Tessar type on SLR, but a friend of mine used the Nikkon-P 45mm 2.8 which IIRC is a Tessar type, mounted on an F3. Basically he mentioned killer contrast and a certain look he really liked.Twenty posts so far and no one stating to mount a Tessar on its 35mm SLR.
That is what I wanted to know. A special look from a Tessar.
The only Tessa’s i have for 35mm are on my exaktas. Haven’t run any critical comparison tests on them — is lens-to-film plane an issue in building them?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?