Tessar lenses on SLRs

Back to the original question. There is one way you could fit an absolutely superb Tessar-type lens on most SLR cameras. The Voigtlander Prominent and Bessaflex had a 50mm f/2.8 X Color-Skopar lens in DKL mount. Some people claim the Color-Skopar was one of the best of these 4-element 1950s lenses. You can buy an inexpensive adapter for DKL to Pentax K, M42, and other mounts. I am tempted to try this with the Spotmatic, based on very satisfactory results from a Color-Skopar on my Voigtlander BL camera. (But the Spotmatic has the amazing 55mm f/1.8 Super-Takumar, so why bother with a different optic?)

mmerig said:

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.

Click to expand...

AgX said:

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.

Click to expand...

It was quite possible to build smaller 50mm f2.8 Tessars, in the 1950s, after all Zeiss Ikon in the West did. It was many years before Pentax lunched their pancake style 45mm lens with the Pentax MV. I think CZJ deliberately chose to keep the Tessar in a large barrel because it just looks better.

There's a comment about coatings, my experience is that the CZJ T coated lenses have excellent contrast and flare resistance, Multi coating wouldn't make a very significant difference , however there's a noticeable drop in contrast with uncoated Tessar's compared to T coated. I did some testing maybe 3 years ago of uncoated lenses comparing a Dagor to a Tessar and a Dialyte all very clean optically, and the contrast was as expected - high with the Dagor, noticeably lower with the Tessar and significantly less with the Dialyte, all reltaed to the 2, 4 and 6 internal air/glass surfaces.

Ian

Kodachromeguy said:

There is one way you could fit an absolutely superb Tessar-type lens on most SLR cameras. The Voigtlander Prominent and Bessaflex had a 50mm f/2.8 X Color-Skopar lens in DKL mount.

Click to expand...

Interesting idea. But I prefer the use of M42 lenses, with the resp. adapter if needed. I got countless cameras in hand and still get confused with mounts. Just these days I had two Tessar types in west-german in-front-of-shutter mounts in hand. Seen on themselves they looked identical concerning the basic fit, but on trying to put them on crosswise on the resp. cameras, it was obvious they could not fit.

The Tessars on my Contaflex III and Super B perform surprisingly well (even with Portra).

I regularly use FSU Tessar knockoff Industar-50 on K-mount when I shoot black and white. Because it's tiny, also because f/3.5 can still focus on split screen and my eyesight is good enough to tolerate dim viewfinder. But most of all - it has more contrast than my other K-mount standard lenses, which include Pentax SMC-M 50/2, Sigma 50/2.8 Macro (manual) and Rikenon 50/2.

The Tessars on my Contaflex cameras do a great job and I find them very easy to focus. Of course I think that the Contaflex cameras have a pretty bright viewfinder. But most SLR cameras with good viewfinders are bright enough to work just fine with f2.8 maximum apertures.

As for why we would use them? Because they still work quite nicely. Just using some of the old cameras we use indicates some level of nostalgia but I don't think that is the only reason. Oft times the glass itself can bring a different look to the photo and to the print and for me the Tessar has a look that I still enjoy.

I love Tessars type lenses in general(although I've not had that many Zeiss Tessars-just a bunch of 4/3 Tessar-type lenses from various makes) and have used them extensively in medium format and large format. With the exception of my monster 75mm Nikkor-SW, all of my 4x5 lenses are Tessar type designs, and they perform amazingly well. I cut my MF teeth on Rolleicords and Rolleiflexes with Tessars or Xenars, and have images that still take my breath away when I see them. Probably 50% or better of my MF photography now is done with a Planar on a Hasselblad, although of course I have a range of Distagons and Sonnars to fill other focal lengths, and also use my RB67 kit a fair bit(although if I'm not mistaken both the 90mm and 127mm are Planar-type designs).

I have both of the Tessar-type F mount Nikkors-an AI-converted 45mm f/2.8 GN and the much, much newer 45mm f/2.8 AI-P. I think the latter may well be one of the highest contrast lenses I've ever used. Both have shot a lot of film, and forgive me for mentioning it but also quite a bit of digital. When I'm shooting 35mm along side digital, I often opt for a modern body like an F100 or F6, and the 45mm AI-P often goes in my bag as a my fast-ish normal lens to supplement the zooms that I'm often carrying in those situations. Of course, there's no way to have the AI-P meter on a non-AI camera, but the GN works quite well for that purpose . I'll also mention that either lens looks comically small on a D3, F4s, F5, or F6. With both lenses, and with Tessars in general, I just have to remember to not look too closely at the corners if the lens is wide open. The almost complete lack of distortion is definitely welcome, though, and also why I stick with them in LF.

I do have an f/3.5 Elmar, although admittedly it doesn't get used that much. I'm not a big rangefinder guy in the first place, find the IIIc a bit fiddly for my liking, and the Canon 7 is big and heavy enough that I'd be just as happy with an SLR. With that said, it's always been my understanding that the Elmar is considered a distinct design from the Tessar. The end result is not that different, though-low distortion, a decent amount of contrast for an uncoated lens, and poor corner performance with a lot of light fall off wide open that cleans up nicely when stopped down a few stops.

There may be one other Tessar-type lens in M42 mount: the Vivitar 55mm f/2.8 lens. I found minimal information on the web about it. Their 55mm f/2.8 macro lens is highly regarded, but the one I am referring to is not the macro version but a much more compact mount. I am not sure if the compact one is a Tessar design or if it has the same optical formula as the macro lens.

I have just finished rebuilding two CZJ 50 2.8 Tessars. A late black one that was included as a bag of parts (right down to the iris blades!) with an MTL5b and a few other dismantled lenses, and an earlier zebra that was seized solid. They both look pretty decent through the viewfinder and now that they work, I'll be using them on my MTL5b and Zenits.

Incidentally, I have another black CZJ 50 2.8 Tessar, which is also somewhat in kit form. Annoyingly it's missing the aperture control ring and the manual / stopdown lever, the optics look OK and the iris looks really good. If anyone is interested, it's postage cost only from the UK. I'll be listing quite a few odd bits like this in the classified section hopefully later in the week!

I'm using CZ Tessar 2,8/45 T* on Contax 137 and quite happy with it. Got it free as an extra to other lens.
Why? I think they have their own character, kind of simplicity, owners of Rollei 35T might say the same.
And it reminds me very first camera's Industar 3,5/50, tessar clone.
Here comes another question - why 50mm? Because 50mm is tricky

Marco Gilardetti said:

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

Click to expand...

Marco Gilardetti said:

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.

Click to expand...

Thank you for helping mr add "uselessly-fast lens" to my photospeak. How correct that is when most pictures are made in the f5.6 to f16 range and have been for years, unless, of course, you are using extremely slow (by today's standards) film of ISO 25, etc. Even then, with a tripod, f8 to f16 would be more useful. Thank you again.......Regards!

Thank you all for the many replies! I asked especially for use aside of nostalgic reason and am especially thankful for those replies.

Uselessly fast lenses aren't actually useless. They make the SLR viewfinder brighter and since the depth of field is so narrow, and most SLRs since the mid 60s focus at max aperture automatically, they make focusing easier. I have a few M42 ƒ3.5 lenses where focusing is less than ideal on my Pentax SV.

abruzzi said:

Uselessly fast lenses aren't actually useless. They make the SLR viewfinder brighter and since the depth of field is so narrow, and most SLRs since the mid 60s focus at max aperture automatically, they make focusing easier. I have a few M42 ƒ3.5 lenses where focusing is less than ideal on my Pentax SV.

Click to expand...

f/3.5 can be a pain in the eye even for a camera with split-image focusing. But I could never see significant difference in brightness between f/1.8 and f/1.4 lenses.

M-88 said:

f/3.5 can be a pain in the eye even for a camera with split-image focusing. But I could never see significant difference in brightness between f/1.8 and f/1.4 lenses.

Click to expand...

Split images(and microprisms) can be optimized for different apertures-I understand that it has to do with the angle at which the prisms are "cut." This is one of the reasons why most pro SLRs(Nikon was notorious for this) cataloged a mind-boggling array of different focusing screens. With that said, I've also never seen a focusing aid that worked at f/8 and smaller-f/5.6 seems to be the practical limit. It's also my understanding, though, that a split image designed to work with-say-f/5.6 is somewhat less precise than one designed for f/2.8.

Plain ground glass screens, which you won't find on "modern" 35mm cameras(by modern I mean probably anything made since the late 1950s) seem to keep getting brighter as you throw faster and faster lenses at them, and they also tend to "pop" nicely when in focus. A lot of the SLR screens that I've used don't get any appreciably brighter past f/2, though, and screens like the "red dot" screens for Nikon F3s and the "L" screens for the Canon F-1(original) don't seem to get brighter past f/2.5. AF cameras are often even more dramatic, and won't brighten past f/2.8. The super-fine screens on AF cameras seem to be designed to give the brightest image possible with slow zooms, but they are also all but useless for manual focus.

M-88 said:

f/3.5 can be a pain in the eye even for a camera with split-image focusing. But I could never see significant difference in brightness between f/1.8 and f/1.4 lenses.

Click to expand...

Any slow lens is harder to focus on an SLR regardless of the screen, the SV screen is actually quite good good as were the early Spotmatic screens, I have f1.4, f1.8 and f2 lenses and the f1,4 is easier to focus in terms of brightness and speed but it's very minimal. But then I'd cut my teeth with a Zenit E and then later a Prakticamat so the Pentax screens were just wonderful. I tend to be more interested in overall screen sharpness the split bit is just a bonus,

Ian

Ian Grant said:

Any slow lens is harder to focus on an SLR regardless of the screen, the SV screen is actually quite good good as were the early Spotmatic screens, I have f1.4, f1.8 and f2 lenses and the f1,4 is easier to focus in terms of brightness and speed but it's very minimal. But then I'd cut my teeth with a Zenit E and then later a Prakticamat so the Pentax screens were just wonderful. I tend to be more interested in overall screen sharpness the split bit is just a bonus,

Ian

Click to expand...

Zenit is something otherworldly. I'm having hard times not only with f/3.5 Industar 50, but also with supposedly faster Helios 44 (f/2). It's because they have a very bad focusing screen and a rather small viewfinder (0.62x IIRC). Older Zenit models like Zenit C and Zenit 3 have a matte screen with no microraster whatsoever.

Ben Hutcherson said:

AF cameras are often even more dramatic, and won't brighten past f/2.8. The super-fine screens on AF cameras seem to be designed to give the brightest image possible with slow zooms, but they are also all but useless for manual focus.

Click to expand...

This is the primary reason I don't use my MF lenses on my AF cameras.

Just got two different, peculiar M42 standard lenses:
Triplets with front-cell focusing