Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta C (530/2) Compur Rapid/Tessar f4.5, "demo"

[buze]

I certainly don't shoot this 1934 camera for the sharpness. It's a great camera, but well, 1934 Tessar, uncoated.... sharpness ? huhu..

huhu ?

Think again...

I just got a slap in the face this afternoon when scanning a TMax 100.

First is the image, resized from 8080 x 5165 (or "40 megapixels") next are the "crop" of the original...

Crops

 

[DougGrosjean]

Yup.

I'm not surprised. I've got one, too, though mine is 1950's era so prolly has coated lenses and such.

But still - when I get focus and exposure right, it does very well.

Not so good for closeups - then an old TLR is better. But for anything else, it's great.

 

[elekm]

The old uncoated Tessar is one of the sharpest lenses I've encountered on the 6x9 cameras. Your results are very close to mine.

Dead Link Removed

 

[vet173]

Hey, hey, hey, Let's not let that cat out of the bag. Now that you know I guess you have to find someone local to show you the secret handshake.

 

[Jadedoto]

I love my 1929 Ikon 555!

I seem to find the uncoated tessar a bit too contrasy on mine, however.

 

[Nancy]

You can't beat that for sharpness.
I have a Novar on my 6x9 and while not as sharp as yours, it's still pretty amazing.

 

[Ole]

I love my 1929 Ikon 555!

I seem to find the uncoated tessar a bit too contrasy on mine, however.

That's a new one - most people seem to believe that old uncoated lenses are weak on contrast. Maybe you should develop the films a bit less?

I'm not at all surprised by the sharpness, though. I use Tessar (and Tessar-type lenses) on all formats from 35mm to 30x40cm, focal lengths from 50mm to 500mm, ages spanning a full century. They are ALL bitingly sharp!

 

[Stephanie Brim]

Some of you may be interested in THIS:

http://cgi.ebay.com/VINTAGE-ZEISS-I...3QQihZ016QQcategoryZ11717QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

I had no clue that there was a 75/2.8 Ikonta. If someone could clue me in I'd be much appreciative.

 

[buze]

Tessars were designed for f4.5 really; f3.5 was already stretching it a bit and I find that f2.8 makes it more or less useless at that aperture...

 

[Stephanie Brim]

I dunno...If I had the money I'd buy the camera to check it out, but I don't.

 

[Ole]

Tessars were designed for f4.5 really; f3.5 was already stretching it a bit and I find that f2.8 makes it more or less useless at that aperture...

That depends a bit on the focal length. The 5cm/2,8 on my Welti is great, even wide open. So is the 7,5cm/3,5 on my Zeiss Ikon. And the various 135, 150, 180, 210 and 300mm f:4.5 lenses, and the 50cm/6,3 one. Shorter focal lengths can have larger max aperture without undue loss of definition.

 

[Jim Jones]

Tessars were designed for f4.5 really; f3.5 was already stretching it a bit and I find that f2.8 makes it more or less useless at that aperture...

This may be true in larger formats. However, two of the sharpest lenses for 35mm I ever checked were a Leitz Elmar 50mm f/2.8 and the GN-Nikkor 45mm f/2.8.

 

[Mike Kovacs]

There was a reason why the Zeiss slogan for the Tessar was "The Eagle Eye of the Camera".