Tessar lenses on SLRs

[AgX]

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.

Thank you Ian. I guess you used them in first instance as they came with these cameras. The one for the Praktina even has a rare mount.
But at least you used the Tessar instead of the 1 stop faster Pancolar. And that is just in line with my questioning.

 

[miha]

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.

 

[Marco Gilardetti]

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.

 

[miha]

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.

You are correct on this, I have probably mixed up the two lens designs.

 

[miha]

I have chosen the Mamiya brand and, within this brand, their reputed tessar-type lenses.

Since you have mentioned it (sorry AgX) are you talking about RZ/RB or TLR? In any case, here is an interesting document that gives some insight into some of the Mamiya TLR lenses: http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static...Lenses.pdf?token=JOxg9ayjGG9X5AfpdbJCB2bobrc=

 

[Pentode]

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 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 only one triplet, an Isco Westanar for the Exakta, and while I don’t like it as well as the Tessar It’s nice for certain applications.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

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.

 

[miha]

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.

Fine with me.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

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.

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.

 

[Marco Gilardetti]

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.

 

[miha]

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.

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

 

[Jim Jones]

My first of many SLRs was a Praktica FX3 with the 50mm f/2.8 Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar. Both gave good service until I could afford Nikon gear.

 

[Marco Gilardetti]

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.

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.

 

[Marco Gilardetti]

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

Which is an obvious triplet derivative, exactly as the Tessar is.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

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.

The f:1.8 50 might be the finest 50 Nikon ever made.
It's predecessor the 50/2 Nikkor H & HC is my favorite - a tiny bit of barrel distortion compared to the 1.8 and even cheaper, but with the lovely pre AI construction; the last one cost as much as three pints and a tip, each Nikon body (5) wears one. Other favorites are the 1.8 and 2.0 55mm Takumars (same lens, the f:2 has a restricted aperture), the f:1.8 Helios 103, and an old Summitar I bought here & recemented, the only way I could afford a Leitz lens.

 

[Marco Gilardetti]

The f:1.8 50 might be the finest 50 Nikon ever made.

I was kind of understating that; but now that you've written it, I can say that I fully second your sentiments.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

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.

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.
The ideal is realised in lenses such as the Dagor, Protar, and Rapid Rectilinear - two internal sufaces, and lovely smooth contrast. Unfortunately these are not for miniature cameras.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Which is an obvious triplet derivative, exactly as the Tessar is.

You've been listening to too many ignorant Germans. Rudolph developed the Tessar starting from a Unar front cell and a two-element Protar rear cell, not from a triplet.

 

[jim10219]

I don't own any 35mm tessar's. All of mine are medium and large format. Here's my take.

On 35mm format, large depth of field (until high MP digital came out) was not its forte. The small imaging area meant diffraction quickly became an issue. So it's not the best format for getting everything in sharp focus. Its strength lies in its size and weight. Long and ultra fast lenses don't have to weigh a ton. So it can mimic the shallow depth of fields of long lenses on larger formats by using much wider apertures that would be impractical on larger formats. It's not unusual to see a 35mm lens with an objective larger than the film's imaging area. But could you imagine that on an 8x10?

With larger formats you get longer lenses and more shallow depths of field. Thus, you don't need expensive planars and such with super wide apertures. You also can take advantage of smaller apertures without having to worry as much about diffraction. So a tessar, with it's cheap and compact design, makes more sense.

Personally, I like tessar's for their sharpness but hate their busy bokeh. They're great with small apertures, which makes them less useful for smaller formats. They're also really useful for large formats where you can spin the elements around for macro photography.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

If you look at 135-format rangefinder cameras, the Leica Elmars, both 3.5 and 2.8 versions, are Tessar-type lenses. The 2.8 had lanthanum glass and was a superb performer. The contemporary 50mm f/2.8 Elmar is still available new. But as far as I know, the R reflex Leicas never had any Tessar-style lenses.

paulbarden, that is a superb photograph of a flower bathed with window light. Well-done!!

 

[AgX]

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 quite, as less light is entering the lens.

 

[Prest_400]

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

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.

I'll adopt a Pentax MX with a 40mm 2.8 that sadly is not a Tessar, being a 5 element lens. Got a GW690 which has a 5 element double gauss type derivative... The older Interchangeable model does have a Tessar type. Not an SLR though.
In praise of the previous post, Tessar types on TLRs draw really nicely. Got a Rolleicord V with some ill alignment on focus, but it's gotten me some nice frames. Quite different to the modern Fujinon on the GW.

 

[summicron1]

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?

As i recall, the few times I’ve actually exposed film with them they were just lovely. I mean — why not? Tessa’s, within their construction limits, are excellent lenses.

 

[Arthurwg]

That is what I wanted to know. A special look from a Tessar.

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

 

[AgX]

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?

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