What's a good aperture for a Zeiss Nettar Novar-Anastigmat 105mm 1:6.3?

[Emil]

I found a Zeiss Ikon Nettar 518/2. It has a 105 mm 1:6,3 Novar-Anastigmat lens.

I would like to close the aperture as much as possible when shooting, since it has no rangefinder to help me focus. Do you think I can safely use f/22 or smaller without losing too much sharpness?

I have very little experience with the 6x9 format and the lens (which I assume is a Tessar?) so any help would be much appreciated

Thanks

Emil

 

[Ian Grant]

f16 should be OK, f22 even better, these are triplet designs not Tessar and perform at their best stopped down.

I have a pre-WWII uncoated Novar but unfortunately it's too low contrast to be usable, but they can be quite good, the top models of Nettar range were fitted with a Tessar.

Ian

 

[Emil]

Thanks!

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

What you will find, as Ian indicates, is that the lens will give a lower contrast negative, and you may wish to do some tests in processing your film longer than normal to arrive at a negative contrast that is usable and 'normal' to you.

And, you may find yourself liking it so much that you wonder why newer lenses have so much contrast via their sophisticated multi coatings. There are so many flavors of photography.

 

[R gould]

I have a ikonta B with the nova, 1948 vintage,and I find it a good lens, even if it is a triplet,I find anything from 11 to 22 is fine, 8 is the mimnim I would use,Have fun with the camera,Richard

 

[alapin]

I have a Nettar 518/16 with a 75mm 1:4,5 Novar-Anastigmat lens.
I shot a test roll by placing the camera on a tripod and shooting the same object for each f opening. This gave me a good ideal of want each f opening would do, in case I need to use a different f opening.
Have fun with your new camera.

 

[ntenny]

It's certainly true that triplets perform nominally "better" when stopped pretty far down, but their technical failings when wide open have a certain appeal of their own. On 6x9 those issues will probably be quite visible---the corners will not be so much "soft" as "just plain out of focus", and you'll see quite a bit of vignetting. That sounds awful, right?---but do try it out and see what you think.

But the original post seems to be asking about stopping down to get more depth of field as a guard against scale-focussing errors, not to optimise technical performance of the lens. It will work for that, but I think an accessory rangefinder is a better solution. It won't cost much to get one on eBay with a little patience, and you have more degrees of freedom if you're not forced to stop down every shot.

-NT

 

[BrianShaw]

But the original post seems to be asking about stopping down to get more depth of field as a guard against scale-focussing errors, not to optimise technical performance of the lens. It will work for that, but I think an accessory rangefinder is a better solution. It won't cost much to get one on eBay with a little patience, and you have more degrees of freedom if you're not forced to stop down every shot.

I've been playing with an old scale-focus camera lately (1939-vintage Kodak Duo-16 with Kodak Anastigmat lens, which is a triplet I think) and find that my estimation of range is definitely hit-or-miss... except for infinity, which I seem to be able to measure quite well. It seems to be my fault, not that of the camera because on the few times I'm measured range the pix are really nice. I agree that an accessory rangefinder is the best solution!

 

[Ian Grant]

I'm not sure you need to add a range-finder, I shoot with a 6x17 camera and use scale focussing without a problem. I had a range-finder and sold it to someone on this forum a couple of years ago as I never used it but I have to admit buying another recently//

My experience with 1930's lenses is that some often used new optical glasses that had just been introduced and allowed Zeiss, Meyer, Leitz etc to manufacture high speed optics, f2, f1.5/f1.4 etc. These glasses seem to go slightly soft with age, both in terms of contrast and they are very prone to scratching/cleaning marks. My poorest quality Tessar's are made in this period as is my Novar, but not every lens is affected,, my Novar suffers similarly though. Some claim the lenses go cloudy but mine look optically perfect, it's only with use you find teh issues.

So test your lens it may well be a good performer.

Ian

 

[Jojje]

I have an ICA 6x9 pre 1926 with a Novar 105mm/f6,3. Already at f12,5 it is amazingly sharp - but only in the middle! Very useable at smaller openings too.

 

[Ste_S]

Necro-post as I've been wondering the same question. Got a Netter 518/16 with the Novar 75mm/f4.5 waiting for me in the post when I get home. Had planned to use Tri-X or TMAX pushed two stops and shoot at f8-f11 for depth of field. I had worried that opening it up further to f16-22 would lead to drop in sharpness, this doesn't appear to be the case though ? f16 and f22 should be ok to shoot at ?

 

[R.Gould]

I've got a couple of Ikonta's with the nova triplet, it is a very good lens, I find 11 to the best f stop for the lens to perform at it's best, with 16 a very close second, use between 11 and 16 and you will be fine, but even opened up to 5 it is no mean performer, I remember reading somewhere that the Nova is the Radioner just given a different name by Zeiss, can't swear to it being so, but if correct it is one of the better triplets and I have a couple of cameras with the Radioner, and it also performs at it's best at 11

 

[Down Under]

The Novars on 1950s Zeiss Nettars are quite good performers if used cautiously. I recall a Focal Press camera guide (by that prolific photography writer of the period, W.D. Emmanuel if I remember rightly) with instructions that the Novar was best used between the range of f/8-f/16 and gave its best results just past f/11.

There is, I believe, on most Nettars some red dots which are guides to use the lens and shutter at their optimal settings. Set just beyond f/11 and at about 24 feet (I am writing this from memory so please do not pin me down to exacts) everything from about 13-15 feet to infinity came out acceptably sharp. Closing the lens down to f/16 or f/22 increased the range of distances.

Thee is also a second red dot at about 10 feet which at the same f/11 setting, gave equally acceptable results at medium distances from about 8-9 feet to about 15 feet.

The in-focus distances can easily be verified by using the hyperfocal distance settings on the Novar lens unit.

These were the point-and-shoot cameras of their time and gave very good results used with preset distances. Even with ISO 100 film most shots can easily be taken hand held and good enlargements made up to maximum (in my case) quarter plate size, 6.5 x 8.5 inches or even larger, which should be possible with ISO 100 films and careful processing.

Nettars (and more so my Perkeo) are fun to use and let you apply more hands-on variations to your shooting. They were produced in a great range and many are still in use. My 6x9 Nettar from 1954 also produces gorgeous negatives but has to be used at f/11 or beyond to avoid soft negatives, so I rarely use it.

My two Nettars stay mostly at home in a camera bag, keeping company with my Voigtlander Perkeo I (with a Color-Skopar) which gives me the best results I've ever had with a folder. this isn't to say the Nettar isn't almost as good. I must get them all out and use them more in my Tasmanian rambles.

 

[ic-racer]

It depends on how big you enlarge. Put your camera on a tripod and expose a scene to f22, f16, and f11. See if you can tell any difference in the prints.

 

[Ste_S]

Thanks folks. Checked the camera out last night and it looks in good working condition. Loaded it with TMAX 400 and will try it out on my lunch break today, can't wait !

These were the point-and-shoot cameras of their time and gave very good results used with preset distances

It's the reason I bought the camera, wanted a 120 P&S for candids & street. Will definitely be making use of the red dots to use it as such. Anyone got any Depth of Field app recommendations for iOS ?

 

[Down Under]

Oops. I must be undercaffeined (or is that undercaffeinated?) today - I just realised the OP has a Nettar 6x9 and not 6x6. Sorry.

The red distances on the 6x9 are a little tighter than the 6x6 but if used with care, they function just as well on either.

The 6x9 Nettar (at least the one I have) comes with an unusual left hand shutter button - the leather grip is also on the left side of the camera. An odd design, but one I was told years ago that was once common with German cameras from the1930s on. Can someone please verify this?

The elderly photographer who sold me my 6x9 Nettar told me the 105mm f/6.3 Novars were an "unusual: lens as when used wide open or at f/8, they have more limited depth of field than the 75mm versions but still produce excellent definition in negatives when used wide open. Obviously this was more important in the '30s through to about 1960 when most films were slower. Many old landscape photos in my family archives were taken with 120 or larger roll film folders (mostly now obscure Kodak and Ansco models as I was raised in Canada), and most of the contact prints I have show the foregrounds clearly out of focus.

As for lens quality, I have always held faith in the old saying (from the same photographer) that Zeiss never made a bad lens. Nor the makers of the Novar, possibly Rodenstock, Voigtlander or some other German factory producing quality optics.

Ste_S (#15), just set your lens at f/8, f/11 or f/16 and adjust the distances from the markings on the lens (ie the red dots). Novar shutters have clearly marked hyperfocal settings which can be briefly (and I hope correctly) explained as follows. If you are shooting at say, f/11, set the distances you want to get reasonably sharp, between the two f/11 markings to the left and right of the distance setting on the lens (the front part) and then set the speed to suit the exposure you want. Using the Sweet Sixteen rule, the best setting on a sunny day for an ISO 100 film would be 1/100 at f/16, but with f/11 you would be opening up one full stop, so 1/200 (which I believe the Nettar shutter has) would be your best bet.

Words are not flowing so easily with me today (I badly need another shot of espresso black or maybe a hefty slug of good Tasmanian Pinot) and I hope this explanation won't be too confusing...

 

[Ste_S]

Novar shutters have clearly marked hyperfocal settings

Doh ! I missed that, they do indeed. That makes it a lot easier

Words are not flowing so easily with me today (I badly need another shot of espresso black or maybe a hefty slug of good Tasmanian Pinot) and I hope this explanation won't be too confusing...

Makes perfect sense thanks and very helpful. On my second espresso with a third in the very near future

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I've got a couple of Ikonta's with the nova triplet, it is a very good lens, I find 11 to the best f stop for the lens to perform at it's best, with 16 a very close second, use between 11 and 16 and you will be fine, but even opened up to 5 it is no mean performer, I remember reading somewhere that the Nova is the Radioner just given a different name by Zeiss, can't swear to it being so, but if correct it is one of the better triplets and I have a couple of cameras with the Radioner, and it also performs at it's best at 11

The Novar (Zeiss) and Radionar (Schneider) are both Cooke triplets, many other makers had their own versions and names. A decent triplet is a very under regarded lens, as are rapid Rectilinears. A good R-R has a very nice smooth contrast.

 

[R.Gould]

The Novar (Zeiss) and Radionar (Schneider) are both Cooke triplets, many other makers had their own versions and names. A decent triplet is a very under regarded lens, as are rapid Rectilinears. A good R-R has a very nice smooth contrast.

Yes nothing wrong with a good triplet, I have several triplets in my camera collection, including the Ensign Ensar, and stopped down to anything between 8 to 16 give me good results, in fact most German 120 folders have triplets, and all are capable performers, even some on 35mm cameras from that era give good results
Richard

 

[Ko.Fe.]

It all depends how good you are on scale focusing and if lens was aligned. I have no problems to use cameras like this wide open on close distances with external rangefinder or on greater distances with scale focus, after I'm cleaning, aligning the triplet lens on old folder.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Yes nothing wrong with a good triplet, I have several triplets in my camera collection, including the Ensign Ensar, and stopped down to anything between 8 to 16 give me good results, in fact most German 120 folders have triplets, and all are capable performers, even some on 35mm cameras from that era give good results
Richard

The 50mm Cintar on the Argus C3 is a triplet, one of the best I've seen. And the Rodenstock Geronar series of LF lenses are multicoated triplets, possibly the best ever made.

 

[R.Gould]

I don.t have an argus c3 but I have heard good things about it and the lens and I don't use LF, but I have yet to find a bad triplet, stoped down a bit they give execlent results
Richard

 

[Ste_S]

It all depends how good you are on scale focusing and if lens was aligned. I have no problems to use cameras like this wide open on close distances with external rangefinder or on greater distances with scale focus, after I'm cleaning, aligning the triplet lens on old folder.

Speaking of rangefinders, can anyone recommend a period correct German rangefinder that would suit ?

Had a blast shooting it during my lunch break and was fairly happy with zone focusing, would like a rangefinder though when a bit more precision is needed.

Whilst (I think) my zone focusing was fine, I suspect my exposures where all over the place - around buildings in and out of shade, strong sun at times, cloud at others. Need to get to used to exposure with ‘feel’

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Speaking of rangefinders, can anyone recommend a period correct German rangefinder that would suit ?

Had a blast shooting it during my lunch break and was fairly happy with zone focusing, would like a rangefinder though when a bit more precision is needed.

Whilst (I think) my zone focusing was fine, I suspect my exposures where all over the place - around buildings in and out of shade, strong sun at times, cloud at others. Need to get to used to exposure with ‘feel’

Are you into steampunk with this? Oldest RF I had was Voigtlander Germany made. But something like Blik FSU made will do:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/BLIK-Blick...618620?hash=item2a98f1eefc:g:KpgAAOSwOA1aLCaW

 

[DWThomas]

I've pretty much dropped back to estimate and set, but I was following Voigtländer rangefinders on ePrey for a while a few years back. They seemed very nice and compact, but wow, they tended to sell at prices like there was a camera attached to them! I finally wound up with a Watameter, but in all honesty, hardly ever use it. The other hazard with accessory rangefinders is some are marked in meters and some in feet, the same with cameras. So it's nice to get matching units. I think most commonly found RFs would be approximately "period correct," as later in the 20th century, most cameras had built-in RFs (or -- like wow -- auto-focus!)