Tessar, Sonnar, Sumicron, Plannar?????

[aparat]

This is really funny! No wonder the OP is confused... so am I.

 

[jmcd]

"Where can I learn about the difference in all of these lens classifications? I have no idea what these classifications mean."

The main thing they mean to me is how they produce distinctive images.

As for the physical make-up, I think it was Lynn Jones who years ago had a running series in View Camera magazine about the history of lens design, which might be informative.

 

[sidearm613]

So, on the topic, what exactly does it mean when you say a lens is a Petzval? I heard that it was some sort of early apochromatic triplet, but I don't really know jack... Help out a younger member of the photo community!

 

[ntenny]

So, on the topic, what exactly does it mean when you say a lens is a Petzval?

Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petzval_lens, it's a kind of double-doublet.

A descendant, the "Nagler-Petzval"---I don't know exactly what the differences are---is well known in the high-end refracting telescope world; http://www.cloudynights.com/item.php?item_id=1749 has a few words on the history of the design (along with a detailed review of an extremely sexy scope).

-NT

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

I
Also, it seems like the tendency to use the name as an indicator of the design went out of vogue sometime in the latter half of the last century, leading to things like the Olympus convention where a prefixed letter tells you how many elements there are ("D.Zuiko"==4 elements, "E.Zuiko"==5 elements, &c.).
-NT

Pre-AI Nikkors also used letters to indicate the number of elements; Nikkor-H, Nikkor-P and so on.

I think no current manufacturer is doing that, it probably isn't considered immediately important information any more.

There is a *tendency* with Zeiss and Leitz to give their different aperture lenses different signatures. What I've noticed is that fast Zeiss and Leica lenses 35/1.4, 35/2.0, 85/1.4 & 90/2.0) tend to be more pictorial with a nice 3-d effect, bokeh and all that. Slower lenses (35/2.8, 85/2.8 & 90/2.8) tend to be more technical/analytical: High contrast, flat field, even lower distortion.

From what I've read, the differences between the Zeiss ZM 21/2.8 and 21/4.5 should be similar.

 

[Ken N]

So, on the topic, what exactly does it mean when you say a lens is a Petzval?

If it's hot, put a little mustard on it and enjoy the baseball game.

 

[ath]

A "telephoto" lens is a telephoto by design, not by focal length. In essence it moves the nodal points.

Correct. And the 35/2.8 of the Olympus XA is a wideangle telephoto design.

 

[Q.G.]

Is it?

Is there a diagram of it somewhere?


(P.S.
One perhaps should say that not the nodal points, but the glass is what is moved by tele-photo and retrofocus constructions.
The glass is what is moved closer to, or farther away from the film, while the (rear) nodal point/principal plane is where a similar focal length lens of 'normal' construction has its nodal point/principal plane.)

 

[AgX]

Off topic, a XA lens sketch:
http://www.geocities.com/maitani_fan/xa_camera.html

 

[Q.G.]

Thanks!

 

[John Koehrer]

Stradibarrius,
So far it's really only Zeiss & Leica terms being bandied about.
What about Schneider? Angulon, Super Angulon, Xenar?
I don't know that knowing a particular name of a lens will help you pick out a good lens or not but it can help identify a family of lenses.

 

[Lee L]

What about Schneider? Angulon, Super Angulon, Xenar?

And don't forget one of my favorite lens names, from Killfit, the Zoomar Zoomitar.

Lee

 

[Q.G.]

The mysterious -ar, -or, and -on suffixes carry meaning when talking about Rodenstock, and possibly also Schneider, lenses.
Not in Zeiss' 'nomenclature'.

 

[Mark Layne]

??? Did anyone say that the Summicron wasn't Leica?

BTW: I've had excellent results with Tessars at f/8.0 and even 5.6...

Exactly so -the Tessars in late Contaflexes are among the best of lenses.
And the wide angle 35mm Planar for Contax is superb.

 

[Mark Layne]

The benefit of old age is that I can sit and watch this discussion mit amusement. Almost all postwar lenses are 'sharp enough'. That leaves the rendition of out of focus details as the wothwhile subject for consideration- aka 'bokeh'.
My barbecued suishi is about ready and I have a beer in the microwave.
Mark

 

[Sirius Glass]

The benefit of old age is that I can sit and watch this discussion mit amusement. Almost all postwar lenses are 'sharp enough'. That leaves the rendition of out of focus details as the wothwhile subject for consideration- aka 'bokeh'.
My barbecued suishi is about ready and I have a beer in the microwave.
Mark

Mark, you forgot to include these in your post!
:munch::munch::munch::munch::munch:

Steve

 

[John Koehrer]

Mark,
You've barbecued a suishi? Aren't they on some list or another?

 

[removed account4]

it is all a bunch of hype :munch:

lenses tend to show their signature / distinct characteristics of lens design when shot wide open ...
i am no expert by any stretch of the imagination, but would say stopped down, a lot of lenses tend to look similar, no matter
what "mystique" surrounds them.

i wonder if the experts (here or elsewhere)
can really tell the difference between one "mystical" lens and another "not so mystical" if both are shot at f16 or 22, in a blind test ... :munch:

there is no silver bullet ...

 

[Sirius Glass]

jnanian,

Please pass the popcorn back, I'm getting the munchies again.

Steve

:munch::munch::munch::munch:

 

[removed account4]

jnanian,

Please pass the popcorn back, I'm getting the munchies again.

Steve

:munch::munch::munch::munch:

sorry steve, i'm still snacking !


i have a 3.5 tessar and only shoot it wide open,
i get great results ... :munch:


john

 

[Sirius Glass]

John,

No prob man ... I'll just herb up on some of that good stuff you brought over to smoke while I wait for you to pass it back.

Steve

 

[Mike Wilde]

I hate to pour gas on the fire- here is a scan of my info on lenses from my copy of the 1963 encyclopedia of photography

 

[Sirius Glass]

Nice, I just wish it was a little more readable.

Steve

 

[removed account4]

steve, click on the image, and then click on the attachment that pops up ... it enlarges quite well

thanks mike!

john

 

[Sirius Glass]

No large enough to clearly read the number 14 on the chart. The resolution is too low. Check the MTF.

Steve