Zeiss Ikon Nettar 105mm 1:6.3 folding Camera With Novar-Anastigmat lens

braxus · Sep 5, 2021

Just purchased this off Ebay, because I've seen videos on the Zeiss Ikon Nettar 120 cameras (both 6x6 and 6x9) that recommend them for some fun use. Im not sure on the serial number, but it looks like O 53354. Looking at the pictures, can someone tell what age or timeframe this camera may have been from? Im guessing the 50s, but I can't be sure. Also how good is the lens in this thing? I got the 6x9 version. This folder camera will replace a Franka one I have. Does this camera use the good Zeiss optics?

braxus · Sep 5, 2021

Nettar - Camera-wiki.org - The free camera encyclopedia

Not sure if this would be a 517/2 from 1951 to 53, or a 518/2 from 1952 to 58.

Helge · Sep 5, 2021

Pretty good. One of the better 6x9 choices out there.
You need to stop down to f11 or above for actual good image quality. Which sort of requires a tripod in anything but noonday sun on ISO 100 film.

Stopping down to get more DoF to help film unevenness, to get rid of most of vignette of this lens and to have actual detail in the corners.

I was about to write that this 6.3 version will take most common accessories that fits other 32mm push on folders, but it appears this one for some reason doesn’t have the usual rim for that.
Strange.

Down Under · Sep 6, 2021

I had the later model 518/2, from the mid-1990s to 2019 when I sold it to a collector. If yours isn't too badly beaten from use, it can be a good camera to play with. Mine had a 105/4.5 Novar, with a somewhat 'primitive' (as in basic) shutter with only a few speeds - the top speed was at times wildly inaccurate, usually slower in cold weather, but the lower speeds seemed to function well.

Set at f/11-f/16 it gave excellent images, best on a tripod and with a cable release. I did a few architectural shoots with mine and had some good images taken with it on Ektachrome film, published by my clients.

I still have an earlier model 6x6 Nettar with the 80/4.5 Novar, the better synchro-compur shutter and an albada finder. Sadly, it gets little use, I prefer my Voigtlander Perkeo I and it goes almost without saying my Rolleiflexes are easier to work with.

The Novar anastigmat was manufactured by Rodenstock, I believed. Not Zeiss.

The Nettar is fun to work with as a minimalist experience. These were amateur cameras and usually not badly used and abused. The 'minus' points to look out for are holes in the bellows, poor focusing (usually from a lens that was taken apart and badly reassembled), and damaged 'brackets' propping up the front panel.

If the bellows in yours are light leak-free, load it with ISO/EI 400 film, and shoot away. You'll enjoy it.

I also had a Franka, a long time ago (1980s), but never really bonded with it.

Helge · Sep 6, 2021

ozmoose said:
I had the later model 518/2, from the mid-1990s to 2019 when I sold it to a collector. If yours isn't too badly beaten from use, it can be a good camera to play with. Mine had a 105/4.5 Novar, with a somewhat 'primitive' (as in basic) shutter with only a few speeds - the top speed was at times wildly inaccurate, usually slower in cold weather, but the lower speeds seemed to function well.

Set at f/11-f/16 it gave excellent images, best on a tripod and with a cable release. I did a few architectural shoots with mine and had some good images taken with it on Ektachrome film, published by my clients.

I still have an earlier model 6x6 Nettar with the 80/4.5 Novar, the better synchro-compur shutter and an albada finder. Sadly, it gets little use, I prefer my Voigtlander Perkeo I and it goes almost without saying my Rolleiflexes are easier to work with.

The Novar anastigmat was manufactured by Rodenstock, I believed. Not Zeiss.

The Nettar is fun to work with as a minimalist experience. These were amateur cameras and usually not badly used and abused. The 'minus' points to look out for are holes in the bellows, poor focusing (usually from a lens that was taken apart and badly reassembled), and damaged 'brackets' propping up the front panel.

If the bellows in yours are light leak-free, load it with ISO/EI 400 film, and shoot away. You'll enjoy it.

I also had a Franka, a long time ago (1980s), but never really bonded with it.

I actually find folders easier to bring along and get a quick snap with. Even with a light tripod.
No faffing about with getting a good view in the waist level finder and focusing.
And completely dependent on large DoF and your quick assessment of distance.
No question the Rollei is better at lower apertures and for closeups.
But a folder is superb and unrivaled for many things.

I don’t think it was ever confirmed or proved that the Novar was produced by this or that company. It is a very good front cell focusing triplet though.
Underrated because of negative snobbery from Zeiss people and Zeiss detractors.
Just as good as say a Radionar or Aportar, if not a bit better in some respects.
It’s more maturely/measured in its design by its restraint with max aperture and min focus distance.

takilmaboxer · Sep 6, 2021

I had one of these for a while, but it displayed vignetting unless it was stopped way down, which limited its usefulness. The f/4.5 and f/3.5 versions work better IMHO. Nowadays my "users" all have Tessars, which give good images at f/8, while my triplets need to be stopped down to f/16.
In 2021 we expect to be able to make big enlargements from these big negatives, but when those cameras were new, they were used to make contact prints or small enlargements. In those days if you wanted a bigger print, you used a bigger negative.

Helge · Sep 6, 2021

takilmaboxer said:
I had one of these for a while, but it displayed vignetting unless it was stopped way down, which limited its usefulness. The f/4.5 and f/3.5 versions work better IMHO. Nowadays my "users" all have Tessars, which give good images at f/8, while my triplets need to be stopped down to f/16.
In 2021 we expect to be able to make big enlargements from these big negatives, but when those cameras were new, they were used to make contact prints or small enlargements. In those days if you wanted a bigger print, you used a bigger negative.

That is not entirely true. It’s correct that 6x9 was made as an economical wallet size contact print size.
But by the fifties enlargement had been a very real option for decades.
I have both contacts and enlargements from my relatives from the thirties and fifties, from Box and folders.

The 4.5 Novars that cover 6x9 are from my experience with two of each specimen, is less center sharp at 8 and never really catches up until f16 or 22.
They are ok if you need 4.5 and don’t mind sub 4.5x6 quality with less grain, at that aperture.

Tessars are overrated here, and you pay through the nose for one, for a doubtful and truly marginal improvement at 8. Full open sure it’s better. But really a waste for film, if your main reason for shooting 6x9 is resolution.
All the improvements gets lost in film buckle, less contrast and very thin DoF.

A good Novar Nettar, body and lens, is way better than a wonky (might even be cosmetically good) Tessar.
Rigidity, trueness and lens condition (for example, has some arsehole been “cleaning” it for sale at some point?) is far more important with 6x9.
It’s almost into bonsai large format territory.

Helge · Sep 7, 2021

This test has some interesting comparisons:
https://www.arnecroell.com/mf-lenstest.pdf
Especially in the context of this thread page 10 with the various Voigtländer 6x9 folders.

One meta observation is that Voigtländers folders appears to be overrated as such. Goes pretty well with my own observations. Advanced confirmation bias perhaps. Or deflated hype based on name and design perhaps?

Notice how the small aperture triplet is actually better or matches the larger aperture ones and gives the Tessar derivative Skopar and custom Heliar a very good run for their money.
Of course there is sample variation, and that actually has quite an impact as witnessed by the 2.8 Ikontas below.
But still a guy doing such a test will have done his best to find promising and fair examples of each camera.

Also interesting to note that unit focusing buys you very little if anything. What is there could be well within normal variation.
He also doesn't tell us about distance to the target. For front cell focusing the distance makes more of a difference.

distributed · Sep 7, 2021

ozmoose said:
The Novar anastigmat was manufactured by Rodenstock, I believed. Not Zeiss.

According to Harmut Thiele, author of a book collecting information about many lenses indexed by serial number[1], Zeiss-Ikon has bought most of the Novar Anastigmats from subcontractors. The f=7cm, 1:3.5 Novar Anastigmat I have on a 30ies 6x4.5 Ikonta was manufactured by OAS, Optische Anstalt Saalfeld. OAS belonged to Carl Zeiss Jena. I think the situation with the lower tier lenses is quite confusing.

[1] https://www.lindemanns.de/shop/foto...ele-grosse-nummernsammlung-photoobjektive.php

takilmaboxer · Sep 7, 2021

distributed said:
According to Harmut Thiele, author of a book collecting information about many lenses indexed by serial number[1], Zeiss-Ikon has bought most of the Novar Anastigmats from subcontractors. The f=7cm, 1:3.5 Novar Anastigmat I have on a 30ies 6x4.5 Ikonta was manufactured by OAS, Optische Anstalt Saalfeld. OAS belonged to Carl Zeiss Jena. I think the situation with the lower tier lenses is quite confusing.

[1] https://www.lindemanns.de/shop/foto...ele-grosse-nummernsammlung-photoobjektive.php

Yes, there were actually several subcontractors. We had a long thread here about this years ago but alas I don't remember the specifics, yes it could get confusing. Agfa produced more than one triplet as well but I have no knowledge of further details, I just use the Apotars, which work fine.
Anyway, the f/6.3 Novars were the least expensive version and the ones I've owned gave inferior performance so I sold them to hipsters who prefer looks to performance. The f/4.5s work fine, and are equal to the f/3.5s at realistic apertures (f/8 or smaller). Condition is everything; my 6X9 Zeiss cameras came from WW2 veterans who bought them at pawn shops in Berlin shortly after the close of the war. They must not have been used much because the springs are strong, the bed snaps right into place, the bellows are leak free, and the shutters - especially the Compur Rapid - run slow but are still consistent, even at 1 second! I doubt if my digitals will still work when they are 80 years old!

Helge · Sep 7, 2021

takilmaboxer said:
Yes, there were actually several subcontractors. We had a long thread here about this years ago but alas I don't remember the specifics, yes it could get confusing. Agfa produced more than one triplet as well but I have no knowledge of further details, I just use the Apotars, which work fine.
Anyway, the f/6.3 Novars were the least expensive version and the ones I've owned gave inferior performance so I sold them to hipsters who prefer looks to performance. The f/4.5s work fine, and are equal to the f/3.5s at realistic apertures (f/8 or smaller). Condition is everything; my 6X9 Zeiss cameras came from WW2 veterans who bought them at pawn shops in Berlin shortly after the close of the war. They must not have been used much because the springs are strong, the bed snaps right into place, the bellows are leak free, and the shutters - especially the Compur Rapid - run slow but are still consistent, even at 1 second! I doubt if my digitals will still work when they are 80 years old!

Big difference between 6x9 and 6x6 6.3 Novar.

hsandler · Sep 8, 2021

Your camera looks like a 517/2, later version with squared off sides to the viewfinder. I have the earlier version with sloped sides. The model number should be embossed in the leather on the back side, near the edge opposite the edge with the serial number. Perhaps it is worn away. If it has double exposure interlock, it's a 518/2. The O serial number would indicate 1956-57, which is consistent with the 518/2.

Zeiss Ikon Nettar 517/2, early version by Howard Sandler, on Flickr

Foto Ludens · Sep 8, 2021

Nice camera!

This may not be an issue, but looking at the photos I wonder if your bellows are light-tight (they seem quite worn). Shinning a flashlight through the inside (in a dark room) should help you find out (if you see light shinning through, then the bellows need to be fixed). I am currently fixing a could of folders that I've had for quite a few years, using this bellows patch kit from Bostick & Sullivan. It seems to be similar (if not identical) to liquid electrical "tape", and the bottle seems to hold a lifetime supply. I've fixed one camera by applying a couple of layers of it, and another is still drying after the 3rd coat. Seems to be good stuff, though I haven't used the cameras enough to know how the repairs will last.

Just throwing this out there in case it's helpful.

pbromaghin · Sep 8, 2021

I have it's little brother 6x6 Ikonta with the Novar and it's easy and fun to use. This generation of Novars is much better than the one on the 1948 Ikonta.

Edit to add: Here's Camera-wiki page on Zeiss serial numbers:
Carl Zeiss serial numbers - Camera-wiki.org - The free camera encyclopedia

Dismayed · Sep 8, 2021

A little vignette is often desirable. I often burned in the edges and corners of darkroom prints. So choose whatever aperture you like and shoot away!

Foto Ludens · Sep 8, 2021

Dismayed said:
A little vignette is often desirable. I often burned in the edges and corners of darkroom prints. So choose whatever aperture you like and shoot away!

Agreed!

Helge · Sep 8, 2021

Often there is a trade off between vignette and other optical ailments.
Vignette is cured easily in the darkroom or image editor.

Zeiss Ikon Nettar 105mm 1:6.3 folding Camera With Novar-Anastigmat lens

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency