Tessar lenses on SLRs

[AgX]

Tessar type SLR lenses were common in the past as cheap alternative to a double-Gauss lens. And there were even plain triplets.
Meyer Optics (with some years gap) even offered both until their very end.

For the plain triplet one may argue for the bokeh.
For both one could not argue for size as in a pancake design as both were made in a large cone-barrel.

Thus what argument is there today for a Tessar-type, other than nostalgia?

 

[ic-racer]

Availability? A Rollei 35 with Sonnar lens is hard to find in the USA. The Tessar is easier to find.

 

[AgX]

The Rollei 35 is a special case and moreover a compact finder camera, where a 2.5 triplet design makes more sense than a 1.4 double-Gauss design.

With an SLR volume and weight, in this context, are of lesser importance, moreover the pancake-design lenses offered for SLRs seem not even to be triplets.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Tessar type SLR lenses were common in the past as cheap alternative to a double-Gauss lens. And there were even plain triplets.
Meyer Optics (with some years gap) even offered both until their very end.

For the plain triplet one may argue for the bokeh.
For both one could not argue for size as in a pancake design as both were made in a large cone-barrel.

Thus what argument is there today for a Tessar-type, other than nostalgia?

Cost? There are a couple FSU Tessars for SLR, an f3.5 and the 2.8 version I6?.
At f2.8, the Tessar design is working hard to cover 35mm in a 50mm lens, although the ones using Lanthanum glass seem to do a good job.

 

[AgX]

Cost was an issue in the past. Today one can get various standard lenses for a few Euros.

 

[AgX]

What trickled my post was that I can read quite some praises on Tessar-type lenses mounted at plain-finder cameras. But I dot not remember anyone even reported here on using a Tessar-type on his SLR.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

What trickled my post was that I can read quite some praises on Tessar-type lenses mounted at plain-finder cameras. But I dot not remember anyone even reported here on using a Tessar-type on his SLR.

I'm pretty sure I've never used one on an SLR, come to think of it.

 

[Arvee]

What trickled my post was that I can read quite some praises on Tessar-type lenses mounted at plain-finder cameras. But I dot not remember anyone even reported here on using a Tessar-type on his SLR.

The entire Contaflex SLR series had f/2.8 Tessars that were quite good. Also, the Nikon F series 45mm pancake f/2.8 AIP is a Tessar design - also very good.

 

[macfred]

What about the early Canon FL 50mm F/3.5 macro lens - wasn't it a Tessar-type ?
https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/fl104.html

 

[removedacct1]

Sometimes there is magic to be found within the older technology. Here is an image made with a Rolleiflex Automat fitted with an f3.5 Zeiss Tessar, using Tri-X and D-76.
For me, the question is not "which lens has superior optics", but "which lens will help me achieve the look I want?" I quite like the look of many of my Tessar-generated photos.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Sometimes there is magic to be found within the older technology. Here is an image made with a Rolleiflex Automat fitted with an f3.5 Zeiss Tessar, using Tri-X and D-76.
For me, the question is not "which lens has superior optics", but "which lens will help me achieve the look I want?" I quite like the look of many of my Tessar-generated photos.
View attachment 211670

I have a '46 Automat with the Zeiss Opton, and a Standard with the Jena Tessar - your picture is an excellent example! Love 'em.

 

[AgX]

What about the early Canon FL 50mm F/3.5 macro lens - wasn't it a Tessar-type ?
https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/fl104.html

A 4E,3G construction. Not necessarily a Tessar, but at least a modified triplet. But in this context we anyway can include that all under "Tessar".
Good find, I did not know about it. FL lenses typically stay in interest behind the FDs, also I rarely come across one.

 

[AgX]

Sometimes there is magic to be found within the older technology.
For me, the question is not "which lens has superior optics", but "which lens will help me achieve the look I want?" I quite like the look of many of my Tessar-generated photos.

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

But your camera came with that Tessar as fixed lens. Deliberately mounting a Tessar still seems to be rare.

 

[removedacct1]

I have a '46 Automat with the Zeiss Opton, and a Standard with the Jena Tessar - your picture is an excellent example! Love 'em.

Thank you very much!

 

[E. von Hoegh]

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

But your camera came with that Tessar as fixed lens. Deliberately mounting a Tessar still seems to be rare.

Thank you very much!

As good as that looks on a screen, I'm certain it's different from the print. The Tessar on the Rollei Standard is uncoated, the one on the Automat single coated; neither give any trouble with flare.
My first "real" camera was a prewar Kodak 35rf, it had a front element focussing Tessar, no coatings, but you'd never know it from the transparencies it made.
I use a lot of old lenses for lf, many of them uncoated. Tri-X is a very good match, it does a great job with the smooth tonality of the older designs.

 

[BMbikerider]

I have used a Werra 35mm fitted with a F2.8/50mm Tessar and so long as it was adjusted to F4 or smaller the quality was probably as good as it got in those days of 'real' cameras. A good lens of whatever make/type can be always improved by putting the camera on a tripod. Camera shake is a killer of any good lens if the camera isn't steady.

 

[AgX]

The Werra is no SLR.
With SLRs a large aperture is benefitial for using the finder. Here a Tessar has not its strongest point.

 

[Mackinaw]

Ancient history perhaps, but the Canon FL 50/3.5 Macro lens was a Tessar design.

Jim B.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Cost was an issue in the past. Today one can get various standard lenses for a few Euros.

amazes me but true.I bought and regularly use 50mm Nikorrs that cost me less than $50.

 

[Marco Gilardetti]

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.

 

[AgX]

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

 

[Europan]

The French FOCA and Focaflex SLR cameras came with Tessar design lenses by O. P. L., Optique et Précision Levallois.

The Tessar has a snapping focus behaviour, the more pronounced the longer focal length is. Incomparable

 

[Ian Grant]

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

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

 

[BMbikerider]

The Werra is no SLR.
With SLRs a large aperture is benefitial for using the finder. Here a Tessar has not its strongest point.

Neither was a Rollie 35 with a Zeiss Sonnar (see post number 2)

 

[AgX]

I replied on that in post #3 ....