Triplet lenses

[Slixtiesix]

Recently I have become more and more fascinated with triplet lenses like they can be found on old folders and tube cameras. Although I would not have considered anything "below" the Tessar design as a serious lens until some time ago, I now have realized that these triplets have a beautiful rendering of their own. Some of them are also surprisingly sharp. What is your experience with triplets? Sample pictures are welcome!

 

[onre]

I like triplets a lot. My Reflekta II has Meyer Trioplan optics and I'm very satisfied with it.

Here are a couple of pictures.

 

[Richard Man]

Triplets have this lower contrast sharp yet nicely soft in OOF effect. I love them!

 

[darkosaric]

The only triplet that I have and use is Elmar 5cm f3,5 (4 element triplet, but triplet nonetheless). Of course I love it .

 

[Richard Man]

I have 2 100 years old Cooke LF triplets, 2 Miyazaki Leica M Cooke triplets, and 1 modern LF Cooke triplet (Rodenstock Grenaror). The Cooke PS945 is a Pinkham & Smith re-done, not sure if it is a Cooke Triplet

 

[blockend]

The Zeiss Ikon Nettar has a 3-element Rodenstock lens, it renders beautifully. It's silly that people dismiss these cameras as old fashioned.

 

[baachitraka]

Triotar is one good triplet with nice background swirl.

 

[gone]

I love them too. More than Tessars, which I find sharp, but sometimes a little boring in their rendering. The Rolleicord Triotar is my favorite (especially for head and shoulder portraits), followed by the Ikonta Novars, Agfa Agnars, Agfa Apotar (which may as well be a Tessar the way it images at f8) and the surprisingly excellent Varex 3 element lens on the Argus Argoflex TLRs.

Super Ikonta III w/ Novar. Tri-X in D76 full strength.

 

[Dali]

As a preliminary statement, I would say that I use and appreciate Triplet lenses. By Ikoflex Nover lens is very capable.

Discussions about Triplet lenses clearly show the gap between the optical standpoint and the user standpoint. Optical companies spent a fortune to "improve" their products. Nevertheless, a strong percentage of photographer still prefer using simple lens design. Between optical engineers and users, you have a population of so-called experts giving their opinion (Tessar is "better" than Cooke Triplet, Planar is "better" that Tessar and on and on...) mainly based on manufacturers ads and magazines biased articles but with little connection with reality. Sad.

 

[bernard_L]

Super Ikonta III w/ Novar. Tri-X in D76 full strength.

Nice! What was the f-stop? BTW, you seem to have Newton rings (most visible in full-size version) from an apparatus that shall not be named.

 

[Jim Jones]

Triplets were certainly good enough on the Argus C3 and Mercury cameras. I've used a 90mm f/4 Elmar triplet on Leicas with fine results.

 

[Slixtiesix]

Amazing quality Momus!

 

[Dan Fromm]

Rendering? What's that? Extracting fat by heating?

In my tests the humble 103/4.5 Graftar (triplet)had better coverage and sharpness on 2x3 than the revered 101/4.5 Ektar (tessar type) which in turn had better coverage and sharpness that the exalted 105/3.7 Ektar (heliar type). You never can tell ...

This doesn't mean that all triplets are wonder lenses.

 

[Peltigera]

My Nettars produce excellent pictures.

 

[macfred]

I really like my Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta III 531/16 with Novar Anastigmat f/3.5 75mm

pipe - II by Andreas, on Flickr

untitled by Andreas, on Flickr

Mia by Andreas, on Flickr

Stairway and shadow play by Andreas, on Flickr

 

[JW PHOTO]

Triplets have this lower contrast sharp yet nicely soft in OOF effect. I love them!

I don't understand your statement "lower contrast sharp"? The later, better coated triplets I've had/have are every bit as contrasty as lenses with more elements. The Zeiss Novar and the Zeiss Triotar on the Rollei B35 are perfect examples. Contrast is right up there with any Tessar I own and sharpness too when stopped down a couple of stops. I would imagine that if there were a "Super-multi Coated" triplet it would be even better yet. Reading what you right several times I'm beginning to think you are referring more to the "out of focus" areas, which do look softer and thus have a look of lower contrast.

 

[ransel]

I have an Agfa Billy Record II w/105mm Apotar. I enjoyed how the background looked when focusing close so I purchased another 105mm Apator in shutter (minus the camera) just to use on my Mini Crown Graphic. What I wanted to do was to be able to turn the front focusing cell of the lens to different distances but then focus with the cameras focusing system on the ground-glass. I found that if you set the lens at it's closest focus distance you get a rather dreamy look. Set the lens closer to infinity it gets much sharper. Here are some samples.

 

[RauschenOderKorn]

I also like the triplets for certain pictures.

What I do not understand is the money people are willing to pay for a hipster triplet. The "new" MF Trioplan costs big €€€ and has sold really well. I don't get that, especially as you can get a Domiplan for almost free.

 

[Richard Man]

I don't understand your statement "lower contrast sharp"? The later, better coated triplets I've had/have are every bit as contrasty as lenses with more elements. The Zeiss Novar and the Zeiss Triotar on the Rollei B35 are perfect examples. Contrast is right up there with any Tessar I own and sharpness too when stopped down a couple of stops. I would imagine that if there were a "Super-multi Coated" triplet it would be even better yet. Reading what you right several times I'm beginning to think you are referring more to the "out of focus" areas, which do look softer and thus have a look of lower contrast.

My other lens are things like 150mm APO Sironar-S, 110 Super Symmar XL, and on the Leica side, the 35 and 50 /1.4 ASPH. Those are prime examples of sharp and contrasty lens.

But yes, the OOF also.

 

[Jojje]

I have an ICA Icarette 6x9 folder from the twenties with a f6,8/105mm Novar. (ICA was later merged to Zeiss) I once tested it with USAF 1951 targets. At f12,5 this lens resolved all the lines = 88 line pairs/mm maximum in the center. Which was at the same level with my best modern 35mm prime lenses! In the corners the sharpness was something else, of course. Stopping down the sharpness fell in the center and rose in the corners. None of the later Novars on my Zeiss folders were this sharp in the middle. (I really ought to put a roll through it again, at this time there's plenty of light available outdoors.)

 

[Dali]

I have an ICA Icarette 6x9 folder from the twenties with a f6,8/105mm Novar. (ICA was later merged to Zeiss) I once tested it with USAF 1951 targets. At f12,5 this lens resolved all the lines = 88 line pairs/mm maximum in the center. Which was at the same level with my best modern 35mm prime lenses! In the corners the sharpness was something else, of course. Stopping down the sharpness fell in the center and rose in the corners. None of the later Novars on my Zeiss folders were this sharp in the middle. (I really ought to put a roll through it again, at this time there's plenty of light available outdoors.)

Never tested the Novar mounted on my Ikoflex but apart from a "light" coating, I have no complaint.

One thing to keep in mind: the lens is only 1 part of the optical equation. Poor film flatness like wrong lens register are optical performance killers, much more than the alleged flaws inherent to a triplet compared to more sophisticated designs.

 

[Darko Pozar]

Never tested the Novar mounted on my Ikoflex but apart from a "light" coating, I have no complaint.

One thing to keep in mind: the lens is only 1 part of the optical equation. Poor film flatness like wrong lens register are optical performance killers, much more than the alleged flaws inherent to a triplet compared to more sophisticated designs.

I have an ICA Icarette 6x9 folder from the twenties with a f6,8/105mm Novar. (ICA was later merged to Zeiss) I once tested it with USAF 1951 targets. At f12,5 this lens resolved all the lines = 88 line pairs/mm maximum in the center. Which was at the same level with my best modern 35mm prime lenses! In the corners the sharpness was something else, of course. Stopping down the sharpness fell in the center and rose in the corners. None of the later Novars on my Zeiss folders were this sharp in the middle. (I really ought to put a roll through it again, at this time there's plenty of light available outdoors.)

I have a 12cm Novar Anastigmat f6.3 on my Zeiss Ikonta 520/15. As you can see the left hand side appears soft. This image was shot at f11. Perhaps the lens wasn't stopped down enough or as the previous quotes indicate: how the projection falls on the wider film plane (6x11.5) remaining sharper towards the center because of the Triplet lens' ability?

 

[AgX]

What I find intriguing too is the historic aspect:
Photographic lenses got more and more intricate, and then comes a guy and presents a simple, easy to make lens that kind of beats them.

 

[elcabezagrande]

The Zeiss Triotar triplet used on the early Rolleicords is a fine lens.


Rollecord IIc, Kodak Portra 160 by Mike Novak, on Flickr