Tessar lenses on SLRs

[E. von Hoegh]

I believe that a Tessar shot wide open can be considered a soft focus lens.

The fast ones on 35mm, perhaps. However the f:6.3 versions made for lf, such as the Ektars, not so much. Even the f:3.5 version on my old Kodak 35rf is decent wide open - which is not to say it doesn't improve at f:8.
One of the local junque stores has a Practika with an f:2.8 Tessar, maybe they'll dicker on the price...

 

[Jerevan]

The only Tessar derivative that I could think of, was the older Nikkor GN 45/2.8, the newer Nikkor P 45/2.8 and the Zeiss CY 45/2.8. Surprised to see that the Nikkor-H 50/2 is purported to be a Tessar-derivative - it has more elements (6) - but whatever - I love that lens, as well as my Elmar 50 3.5.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

The only Tessar derivative that I could think of, was the older Nikkor GN 45/2.8, the newer Nikkor P 45/2.8 and the Zeiss CY 45/2.8. Surprised to see that the Nikkor-H 50/2 is purported to be a Tessar-derivative - it has more elements (6) - but whatever - I love that lens, as well as my Elmar 50 3.5.

The Nikkor H is a classic double Gauss design. I included it due to it's "modest" maximum aperture in the context of the "speed race" of the 70s.

 

[Jerevan]

Aha, then I see. Yes, going back to the Tessars, I guess that was one of the reasons it fell out of favour - too slow.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Aha, then I see. Yes, going back to the Tessars, I guess that was one of the reasons it fell out of favour - too slow.

"Too slow" for what? My first real camera was a Kodak 35rf, f:3.5 uncoated front element focussing Tessar type. I used that camera with Kodachrome 25, existing light, 44 years later those slides still look pretty good!
It seems that just about everyone who has one likes the Nikkor H 50/2

 

[Ian Grant]

Aha, then I see. Yes, going back to the Tessars, I guess that was one of the reasons it fell out of favour - too slow.

Many earlier SLRs had poorer focussing screens and a faster lens like an f2 or f1.8 was snappier(as in pops in and out of focus) and so easier to focus accurately, you also notice that extra stop or so of brightness. I had an Edixamat with an f2.8 lens and really noticed the difference when I bought a Spotmatic F.

When you put a 50mm f2,8 Tessar on a modern SLR (or DSLR) it's much easier to focus compared to the older SLRs.

"Too slow" for what? My first real camera was a Kodak 35rf, f:3.5 uncoated front element focussing Tessar type. I used that camera with Kodachrome 25, existing light, 44 years later those slides still look pretty good!
It seems that just about everyone who has one likes the Nikkor H 50/2

Speed is far less relevant when it's not an SLR as you aren't using the lens for focussing, however some rangefinder cameras did have fast lenses I was looking at a Yashica with an f1.4 lens yesterday.

Ian

 

[Agulliver]

I have a CZJ M42 50mm f2.8 tessar lens. I can attach it to my Praktica MTL5, with which it came. Using adapters which I picked up for a fiver each I can attach it to my Praktica B mount cameras (2x BX20S, BCA, B100)....and to my Nikon F601M, F50 and my two Nikon DLSRs. In short, that lens can be fitted to each and every SLR/DSLR body I own. I am very familiar with it's operation and with how it takes photographs, what they look like in B&W and in colour. I happen to think it's a nice lens. Ergo it is a lens I enjoy making photographs with and it's very versatile in terms of what bodies I can attach it to.

So I use it.

 

[AgX]

One of the few... Thank you.
Have you got any special reason for using it (on more modern cameras)?

 

[ciniframe]

All this talk about the Tessar make me want to buy one of those cheap M42 mount Industar 50mm f3.5 lenses for my Fujica ST605n. (Although I'm not sure it is a 'Tessar' design.) Looks like it is very compact, almost a 'pancake' lens. Has anyone here tried out that lens?

Closest focus is 65 cm, not very close for a 50mm SLR lens.

 

[AgX]

-) Industar has Tessar design

-) In contrast all 50mm double-Gauss and Tessar lenses made by Meyer and Zeiss Jena for 35 cameras had a min focus distance of 33 or 35cm !


Thus if a Zeiss Jena Tessar is at hand one gets as special feature the extreme short focusing distance.
(I forgot to mention this in this thread so far.)

The Zeiss Tessar thus yields about 2x image scale compared to the Industar, but also to the Canon FD 1.8.

 

[Ian Grant]

I have a love hate relationship with Tessar and type lenses, I have one or two others apart from those 50mm CZJ ones

In fact I have a few more than shown here, an Opton Tessar on an Automat, a couple of Raptars, another Ilex Parago, another 150mm Xenar an f4.5 that came with a MkVII MPP MicroTechnical, a 135mm f4,5 in a sunken mount. The most potentially valuable as it's a Zeiss Linhof 150mm f4.5 Tessar is the worst preformer despite bing in almost mint condition its just not remotely sharp, The rarest is a CZJ 165mm f5,3 Tessar, the best performers are the coated post WWII CZJ 150mm T f4.5 Tessarm and the late version 150mm f5.6 Xenar and the 210mm f6.3 Commercial Osaka (Congo). The Opton Tessar on the Rolleiflex is superb as well.

I always forget this 135mm CZJ f4.5 Tessar

Ian

 

[Pentode]

All this talk about the Tessar make me want to buy one of those cheap M42 mount Industar 50mm f3.5 lenses for my Fujica ST605n. (Although I'm not sure it is a 'Tessar' design.) Looks like it is very compact, almost a 'pancake' lens. Has anyone here tried out that lens?

Closest focus is 65 cm, not very close for a 50mm SLR lens.

I have one - it came as part of a recent trade - but I haven’t used it yet. It is, in fact, very small and lightweight.

If it performs anywhere near as well as the m39 RF versions of this lens I have I think I’ll be pretty happy with it. When I get around to shooting with it I’ll let you know.

 

[AgX]

I meanwhile realised that there are interchangable Tessar type standard lenses with just front-element focusing.
Thus with lesser image quality and minimum focusing distance enlarged to 1m.

 

[BMbikerider]

Twenty posts so far and no one stating to mount a Tessar on his 35mm SLR.

One of my first slr's was a Pentacon 35mm. I don't remember what model it was but it bore resemblance to a Praktica V with a body that was like an enlarged Contax. That did have a Tessar 50/2.8. It didn't last long! The mirror was the non instant return type and the mirror was returned to it's normal position for the next exposure by being pulled into place by a thin, possibly silk cord, dragging it down it back into place. The cord snapped where it as attached to the mirror and was irreparable. Or so I was told by a dealer who probably couldn't be bothered to arrange it.

Auto lenses were not fitted to cameras made in the early 60's (I had mine sometime around 1967/8) and the diaphragm of the Tessar had to be cocked by twisting a ring on the outside of the lens.

I also later had a Pentacon 6x6 medium format SLR and that too had a an 80/2.8 Tessar. In fact I don't think they fitted anything else as a standard lens. A lovely camera to use, but sadly lacking in reliability with constant wind on problems with usually overlapping frames. Eventually it got so bad, with some frames being almost 6x4.5 format. Then the next film would be perfect! That too was ditched when it got really bad.

 

[R.Gould]

I once had an Exacta, can't remember which one, which had a Tessar lens as standard, also one of my first cameras was a Prakrica, again can't remember which but this was early 60's which again had a tessar lens as standard

 

[BMbikerider]

I once had an Exacta, can't remember which one, which had a Tessar lens as standard, also one of my first cameras was a Prakrica, again can't remember which but this was early 60's which again had a tessar lens as standard

Yes I never had one with a Tessar, mine had a Pancolor F2, but they still crop up occasionally.

There was once called a Penta (or something very similar). Also from the old eastern Bloc. That had a Tessar and two interchangeable lenses. One was a 35mm and the other I think either a 85 or 135mm. I never owned one but I do remember the exterior design was 'different'. For different think ugly!

 

[AgX]

Thank you both. But my question was less directed to use of the past, where even a plain triplet was kind of kit-lens, but to use of today were for instance in M42 next to 2.8 Tessar types a variety of 2.0 or faster double-Gauss are available cheap. Thus concerning a deliberate choice of a Tessar-type lens.

 

[BMbikerider]

You didn't say or ask that specific question that did you? The question was about Tessar lenses on an SLR, so I think R Gould and myself answered correctly in good faith.

 

[AgX]

Sorry if I offended you, my reply was not meant to do.
But in the first post of this thread I asked:
"Thus what argument is there today for a Tessar-type, other than nostalgia?"

And of course it is always good to learn what other fellows here used in the past.

 

[Peltigera]

Twenty posts so far and no one stating to mount a Tessar on his 35mm SLR.

I do. I like the rendition of Tessar lenses and I have several SLR Tessars. They fit my Exacta and M42 mount SLRs (several Pentaxes and Prakticas).

 

[Ian Grant]

No. As Tessar-type lenses are shorter built than for instance double-Gauss ones of same focal lenght.

CZJ originally used the same focussing helical, lens barrel, and mechanism for the 50mm f2.8 Tessar and the 58mm f2 Biotar

Ian

 

[AgX]

Ian, with "shorter build" I referred to the extension to front and the back of the lens assembly against the optical center.
The extension to the front has as only implication carrying/packing issues (that is why pancake lenses were introduced), the extension to the back though easily gets in conflict with the mirror movement.
In your example photo one can see that the Tessar still has 50mm FL, whereas the Biogon already has 58mm. Based on the FL of a lens faster rising than the length of the respective lens-assembly, an increase of the FL by 8mm , freed the Biogon from such conflict with the mirror.

Especially with the rather short built Tessar types bulky lens barrels were employed (as to be seen above). One of several reasons was to yield already with the plain barrel substantial stray-light shading.

 

[ph]

In my very limited experience with that Zeiss 4 element design, it has given high contrast snaps.

BUT, I have only used it fixed onto a Rollei 35, plus at times , a less multicoated one on a Werra I. I do not, however, see why they would be less contrasty & sharp with other mounts and focussing systems.

Of course the final sharpness requirement does depend on your intended enlargement. At my modest standards, both the east-- and the much later, weat- German Tessars were entirely adequate. Y

ou do realize that even if a lens has 4 elements arranged in the same way as the original Tessar, the radii and the glass refraction and dispersion characteristics s plus the coatings, will mot probably be different. Hence one "Tessar style" optic will not necessarily perform the same way as another.

p.

 

[AgX]

Yes, in its life even the original Tessar has been upgraded several times.

 

[mmerig]

Twenty posts so far and no one stating to mount a Tessar on his 35mm SLR.

I use a 45 mm f2.8 P Nikkor pancake lens on an F3 a lot, mainly for it's compactness, and I like the 45-mm field of view for landscape scenes. I have a non-Ai prong screwed to it so I can use it on my Nikon F in the normal way.

The build quality is not so great, and the aperture and focus rings are too narrow for easy use with gloves on, but other than that it serves me well.