Tessar

[Melvin J Bramley]

The Tessar lens configuration has been around for many years.
Just what differentiates the better examples of this time proven design?
The Schneider and Zeiss designs are well regarded but what about the Minolta Autocord Rokkor lens and the Little known Kallowflex with a Prominar lens said to offer incredible resolution?
Are some of these better lenses because of better film flatness in their respective cameras?

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

Zeiss designd the Tessar in 1902. Major manufacturers like Schneider, Minolta, Nikon, Kodak, Yashica, and Canon have all made highly regarded Tessar-type lenses. I suspect that these companies made better Tessars than other companies because they had the capability to grind the lens elements and assemble them more precisely. Manufacturing quality makes a HUGE difference in the optical qualities of lenses; there's more to it then just the design. Another factor is the quality of coatings used; modern multicoated Tessars like the Nikon 45mm f2.8P (the one marketed with the FM3A camera) produce higher contrast than older lenses, especially uncoated versions made before WWII. Film flatness and the accuracy of the focusing system of the camera will make a difference in final image quality, though those things have nothing to do with the quality of the lens itself.

 

[Dan Daniel]

There are a lot of factors that affect image quality in a lens. Design, quality of manufacturing, amount of testing performed by the manufacturer to match lens elements. Film flatness and lens alignment, both issues on folders that you mentioned elsewhere that you had been using.

There was much more variation in manufacturing 70 years ago. I have seen Xenotars on 2.8Cs where one is amazing and the other is meh... nothing wrong but nothing jumped out. The same thing will happen with Tessar-type lenses, although fewer surfaces to grind will help reduce variation.

The Minolta Autocord lens is very nice. I prefer it to Zeiss Tessars I have used on Rolleiflexes, but this is angels on pinheads territory we are in. I don't know much about the Kalloflex lens in actual use. The best Tessar-type I have ever used was on a 1949 Rolleiflex. Schneider Xenar. I saw somewhere that Schneider was given an opening to supply Rollei after the war because Zeiss was such a mess. So Schneider fed Rollei specifically matched and tested sets for the Rolleiflexes. Amazing lens that I made the mistake of selling off.

Until you get to the Tessar on the Rolleiflex T, an improved formulation, I think that it is best to think of lenses on a case by case basis, where the individual lens and the camera and the alignment etc. all work to give an image quality.

 

[JPD]

There was much more variation in manufacturing 70 years ago. I have seen Xenotars on 2.8Cs where one is amazing and the other is meh... nothing wrong but nothing jumped out. The same thing will happen with Tessar-type lenses, although fewer surfaces to grind will help reduce variation.

Indeed. I've had many pre-war Tessars and some were "good" while others "extremely good". Same with early post-war Xenars. But somewhere in the mid-1950s something happened and there seems to be less sample variation from there on.

 

[Paul Howell]

Yashica made a vary good Tessar for the 124 and D, but lack of internal flocking resulted in flare, the Minolta Autocord has better flocking.

 

[Alan9940]

I've always been pleased with the results from the little Zeiss Tessar on my Super Ikonta III.

 

[Ian Grant]

Of the three TLRs with Tessar or type lenses that I've used the Ross 3"/7.75cm f3.5 Xpres on my MPP Microcord, is the sharpest, but the Zeiss Opton Tessar on my Automat is close, the Yashinon on my 124, was slightly softer at wider apertures.

Ian

 

[BradS]

I've never met a Tessar derivative that I didn't love but the Xenars are especially good.

 

[abruzzi]

I've never met a Tessar derivative that I didn't love but the Xenars are especially good.

I have a 210/6.1 Xenar that is extremely good on 4x5 and 5x7. (its sad that I don't use it that much since I like the 203/7.7 Ektar even more.) But a bad tessar is rare.

 

[Ian Grant]

I have a 210/6.1 Xenar that is extremely good on 4x5 and 5x7. (its sad that I don't use it that much since I like the 203/7.7 Ektar even more.) But a bad tessar is rare.

Now, when you read pre-WWII Carl Zeiss LF Jena sales literature they state that the f6.3 Tessar lenses are recommended for the highest quality results. The Commercial Ektars were f6.3 Tessar type lenses, I have a 210mm f6.3 Osaka version - Congo bought the production line from Kodak.

But the last LF Xenar lenses were probably the best, I have a 150mm f5.6 Xenar, the 210mm f6.1 was the next in the range.

Ian

 

[Melvin J Bramley]

Yashica made a vary good Tessar for the 124 and D, but lack of internal flocking resulted in flare, the Minolta Autocord has better flocking.

Could that be remidid?

 

[Melvin J Bramley]

So; do the old folders with the Tessar configuration or in the case of a Zeiss Ikon 532/16 with a Tessar 2.8 / 80mm stack up to the much lauded Rolleiflex applications of similar vintage?

 

[Dan Daniel]

So; do the old folders with the Tessar configuration or in the case of a Zeiss Ikon 532/16 with a Tessar 2.8 / 80mm stack up to the much lauded Rolleiflex applications of similar vintage?

Other than the lens, film flatness, lens alignment, and accurate focus all lead to sharp images. This is where folders tend to have problems. BUT- proper alignment, etc. with the same lens will lead to the same image quality. At the end of the day, the camera is a means to keep light out and to align the film to the lens. Other than that it is all bells and whistles of various usefulness.

I don't know what differences, if any, there were between front cell focusing Tessars and unit focusing Tessars like on the Rolleiflex. I think that front cell focusing lenses are optimized for a certain distance and fall-off is accepted as you move away from the ideal focus point. Remember that fall-off from optical ideal might still lead to more than acceptable results for film practice.

Could that be remidid?

Yes, you can add flocking to the inside of YashicaMats and decrease 'veiling' from internal reflections. I've used telescope flocking for this to good effect. Other people have used flat black paint. Autocords do not have flocking; they have flat paint and some baffles. Same for Rolleiflexes. Flat black paint handles most of the veiling, not sure why Yashica didn't use it until the last versions.

 

[Melvin J Bramley]

It is becoming apparent to me , at least, that film flatness is an issue.
I have to wonder if the Mamiya six with it's somewhat unique focusing back is an advantage?
Re later model Yashicas.
So; the Yashica 124G model should be competitive with the better , if not best, TLR's?

 

[itsdoable]

Tessars have improved over time with the increased selection of glass. But with 4 elements, they have a limited ability to correct optical aberrations - but enough to do the major ones. However, the designer does decide to optimize it for a sharp center at the cost of the periphery, or a more uniform performance at the cost of center sharpness. They also decide on the distance that the lens is optimized for. Changes in photography (ie: from mostly portraits, to landscapes, to reportage) made the designers modify it over time. Tessars designs are gernerally good, but there are some differences depending on their design objectives. (sic

Yashica 124 and 124G's have baffles, and are pretty good with internal reflections, the prior models do not, and show strong streaks if you placed the sun just outside the frame. Flair is different, and is pretty similar for most simple coated 4-element lenses.

Front cell focus changes the focal length by moving the front element (ie: zooming), which moved the lens from it's optimized spacing. Unit focus moves the lens from it's optimized distance, but this had a smaller effect on performance than changing the lens element distances.

 

[AnselMortensen]

In college, my only lens for 4x5 was a 210mm f6.1 Xenar.
It did everything well, and it was inexpensive because it was under-appreciated...all the "Pro's" were using Super-Ultra-Mega-HM-Wangulons.
Nowadays, my most-used lenses for 4x5 and 5x7 are Xenars and Wollensak Velostigmats/Raptars...which are also Tessar-formula lenses.

 

[Melvin J Bramley]

Tessars have improved over time with the increased selection of glass. But with 4 elements, they have a limited ability to correct optical aberrations - but enough to do the major ones. However, the designer does decide to optimize it for a sharp center at the cost of the periphery, or a more uniform performance at the cost of center sharpness. They also decide on the distance that the lens is optimized for. Changes in photography (ie: from mostly portraits, to landscapes, to reportage) made the designers modify it over time. Tessars designs are gernerally good, but there are some differences depending on their design objectives. (sic

Yashica 124 and 124G's have baffles, and are pretty good with internal reflections, the prior models do not, and show strong streaks if you placed the sun just outside the frame. Flair is different, and is pretty similar for most simple coated 4-element lenses.

Front cell focus changes the focal length by moving the front element (ie: zooming), which moved the lens from it's optimized spacing. Unit focus moves the lens from it's optimized distance, but this had a smaller effect on performance than changing the lens element distances.

What are your thoughts on film plane focus?

 

[blee1996]

I agree with @Dan Daniel that most Tessars from reputable manufacturers can produce excellent quality, if all other things are aligned. There might be more difference between samples and other camera related imperfections. That said, I do have my personal favorites in Kodak Ektars (post WWII - 1950's), Voigtlander Skopar (35mm and MF), medium and large format Xenar.

@Melvin J Bramley Film plane focus and lens unit focus should be the same thing. I have a Mamiya 6 Automat, and it can really keep the film flat as well as film plane focus. I calibrated the rangefinder and now the F.C. Zuiko 75/3.5 (another Tessar) can produce very sharp photos.

 

[gone]

I've always been pleased with the results from the little Zeiss Tessar on my Super Ikonta III.

I was happy w/ mine too. Darned sharp, w/ very nice IQ. My Autocord imaged a little differently, you might get some shots w/ that Heliar type 3-D look. On prints, everything seemed to balance out.

The only Xenars I had were the 50 2.8 and 50 3.5 lenses on Retina Ia rangefinders, my favorite Retina model. Again, you might get some 3-D type shots, and they seemed to image almost exactly like a Leica Elmar, at least on my cameras. This was only on the 3.5 lenses though. The 2.8 had a different look. A little sharper, but those never gave any 3-D shots for some reason. I much preferred the images from the bottom of the line 3.5 lenses.

 

[halfaman]

I have the experience of the Iskra with its soviet copy of Agfa Solinar... That's a very sharp Tessar! At f/8 I can't think of anything sharper than this lens. I have also a Xenar 210mm f/4.5 for 4x5'' and I can't see any differences in the center wide open compared to a Plasmat lens (Fujinon W 210mm f/5.6).

More modern examples I know are the Sekor 100mm f/3.5 for the Mamiya Press system which is also tack sharp with proper rangefinder calibration, and the Sekor Z 180mm f/4.5 W-N of Mamiya RZ67 with a super sharp center wide open.

I suppose that you can't be wrong with a good Tessar in MF or LF.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

The Tessar lens configuration has been around for many years.
Just what differentiates the better examples of this time proven design?
The Schneider and Zeiss designs are well regarded but what about the Minolta Autocord Rokkor lens and the Little known Kallowflex with a Prominar lens said to offer incredible resolution?
Are some of these better lenses because of better film flatness in their respective cameras?

What an interesting thought.

 

[Dan Daniel]

Re later model Yashicas.
So; the Yashica 124G model should be competitive with the better , if not best, TLR's?

Too broad for me. What makes a camera better, best? The Yashinon lens on the YashicaMats is a perfectly competent Tessar lens and many people have gotten excellent results with it, 124, 124G, and earlier. Personally I prefer the Xenar and the Rokkor, but I wouldn't argue why this is with a straight face ("openness with nice microcontrast" language). Considering all the assorted pieces of equipment to make all sorts of great photos over the decades, I thing that a good photographer familiar with a peice of equipment is what makes good photos. And for detail and sharpness, beyond a certain point a YashicaMat and a Rolleiflex Tessar can be seen as more similar than different. Yet most people who have used both will say that the Rolleiflex is a better camera because it is simply built better all around. This affects handling and pleasure in using a tool, but has nothing to do with lens resolution.

There were tons of YashicaMats made. Used in schools, newspaper, police, weddings, personal work, etc. If you are still looking for a TLR, find a YashicaMat, Rolleiflex, Rolleicord, Autocord that is in very good condition and use it, become familiar with it. You want it to be a guitar that you don't even pay attention to, just make music. Not a bull you need to wrestle with every time you let it loose in the ring. Only using a camera will lead to that.

Condition is key. That's the most important point.

 

[Paul Howell]

Could that be remidid?

I bought a flocking kit on line, that was 12 or so years ago, I used the pattern to make a second set so both my D and 124 are flocked. You can do the same with just some black felt and adhesive, tape of the rear element so no chance of getting any glue on the glass, or look on line to see if anyone is still selling.

 

[itsdoable]

What are your thoughts on film plane focus?

Film plane focus is the same as unit focusing. As for whether it affects film flatness, there is a long discussion going on about that in the other forum. In practice, I don't think you will see a difference from one or the other, and it's more dependent on the condition of the film.

There is a table of resolution tests done on TLRs at https://web.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html, keep in mind that most of these are single samples of various age and provenance, but it gives you an idea of how each Tessar versions holds up.

Hasselblad sold a modern Tessar in 1997 (160mm f/4.8) which held up fine with the other lenses in it's line-up, but pixel peepers can show that the 180mm was sharper.

 

[Alan9940]

The only Xenars I had were the 50 2.8 and 50 3.5 lenses on Retina Ia rangefinders, my favorite Retina model.

I have a Xenon on my Retina IIa. Is this Kodak's name for a Xenar? Regardless, I once did a direct comparison between this camera and a 50mm Summicron on my Leica M6 using a very sharp, fine-grain film and found the Retina to be, at least, as sharp in all cases and, maybe, just a tad bit sharper on some subjects. No complaints from me on how this camera performs.