Zeiss-Opton Tessar - not what I expected!

[abeku]

I have a Ikoflex IIa TLR with Zeiss-Opton Tessar 3.5/75 lens. I'm surprised of the performance of the lens. Severe vignetting and only sharp in the center even when stopping down to f8. See attached pictures. Looks more like an image made by an Holga rather than a Ikoflex TLR, right?
One could pressume that the previous owner have been fiddling around with the lens but the there are no scratches or marks indicating that the lens as been disassembled/reassembled. So I wonder if anyone of you have experienced any similar with a Tessar (or any lens)?

 

[Sirius Glass]

If I remember correctly the Zeiss-Opton lenses were from East Germany and generally lower in quality. See the references:

http://www.klassik-cameras.de/Zeiss_Fakes.html
Dead Link Removed
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3939083
https://frankglencairn.wordpress.com/vintage-zeiss-glass-on-modern-cameras/​

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Woof!

Check again to see whether something else is wrong. Is there a 120/220 setting for the pressure plate?

I have old Carl Zeiss Jena lenses for Exakta; they're good. I don't know about the Opton.

 

[abeku]

Thanks Sirius Glass! Your answer put me in the right direction and I found this thread regarding the Zeiss-Opton: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50800
I like the short answer: "The Zeiss Opton Tessars are fine regarding the glass bits, but the way they were mounted was unbelievably idiotic and prone to failure."

 

[abeku]

@ Theo Sulphate
Nope, just a simple pressure plate. Mechanically, everything looks nice.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Check to see if the rear cell is in the shutter. The cells are pretty easy to get out. You may want to check them to see if the glass is loose or missing. It is possible that someone put an element in backwards as well. Something is definitely going on with the lens though.

 

[Fixcinater]

Definitely not normal. I'd put $10 on the lens having a loose/misaligned element or something else wrong.

 

[MDR]

If I remember correctly the Zeiss-Opton lenses were from East Germany and generally lower in quality. See the references:

​

​

Did I miss something Opton is Oberkochen (West Germany) East German glass was from Jena. The Zeiss Ikoflex with Opton Tessar gives me results that equal those of the Rollei Tessars. What I have noticed though is that Zeiss Ikon seems to have prefered lower contrast than Rollei. The lenses are just as sharp but a tad less contrasty on the Ikoflex'

 

[shutterfinger]

This is the lens diagram from A Lens Collectors Vade Mecum for Zeiss Tessar from around 1939. There is no specific diagram mentioned when they list the 75mm f3.5 in post war production.

This pdf is linked to on another site and may be of interest.
http://www.arnecroell.com/zeissoberkochen.pdf

 

[apkujeong]

Just don't mention what the lens is and let lens bores think it's something more exotic than a Tessar. Which it is. The image quality has a certain languid charm.

 

[marbrog]

I have a pretty badly beat up IIa with the same lens, it is not as sharp as my Hasselblad Planar, but not nearly as bad as yours. Here is a wide open shot.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

I have a prewar Rolleiflex Automat with the uncoated Zeiss Jena Tessar, 75mm f3.5. It is extremely sharp, though more prone to flare than a modern lens.

 

[Ian Grant]

As above, the Opton Tessar was introduced because of quality issues at Carl Zeiss Jena after WWII due to shortages of specialist optical glass. It's the same lens as the ones used by Rollei so identical in terms of sharpness, contrast etc, Any differences now will be caused by wear and tear and general aging, perhaps slight internal fogging.

The Opton Tessar on my Automat is an excellent lens as good as the lens on my Yashicamat 124. My guess is the lens here has been tampered with as they are usually excellent.

Ian

 

[pentaxpete]

I bought an IKOFLEX New in Iserlohn Germany when I was there in the British Army in 1957 -- it was the equivalent of £ 15 British money where as a Rolleiflex 2.8 E Xenotar was about £75 -- well the Ikoflex had that 'Opton Tessar' and at first it was GOOD then suddenly after I was back in UK in about 1959 it developed very poor definition -- as the lens shown, very bad outside the centre -- I found out later the Opton Tessar was set in pitch or Glue and in a hot summer it softened and lens was well out of alignment.

 

[02Pilot]

This conversation is making me quite glad that the Ikoflex 1b I bought last year came with a CZJ Tessar in a conventional screw-in mount. I knew nothing of the problem with the Opton mounting, but it's certainly something to be aware of. Does this extend to all Opton Tessars, or just the Ikoflex units?

 

[antmar]

This is a quite common problem with TLR cameras when upper and lower lenses go out of alignment; this can happen by a fall or simply by pressure in a bag when the camera is focused closer than infinity. Try to test the camera with a ground glass at the film plane and with the film door open check if the upper lens in the WLF and the lower lens at the ground glass are focusing at the same point. It is better to do that with the lens aperture wide open.

 

[Nodda Duma]

Held in with pitch? Ouch!

Makes me want to get my hands on one and recenter & remount the optics. Just out of professional embarrassment for whoever came up with that idea.

 

[Ian Grant]

This conversation is making me quite glad that the Ikoflex 1b I bought last year came with a CZJ Tessar in a conventional screw-in mount. I knew nothing of the problem with the Opton mounting, but it's certainly something to be aware of. Does this extend to all Opton Tessars, or just the Ikoflex units?

Just to get confusing it's thought that some Opton Tessar lenses were in fact made by CZJ then subject to stringent testing by Zeiss Ikon in the West. Rolleiflex had been concerned about optical quality variations at CZJ. So we can't really draw too many conclusions.

Strangely I have a mint looking Linhof Carl Zeiss 150mm f4.5 Tessar from around 1957 that I was given for the cost of postage that isn't sharp, there's no evidence of anything ever being tampered with. My 1953/4 CZJ 150mm f4.5 Tessar (T coated) is sharp as should be expected at f16 and particularly f22

Ian

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Just to get confusing it's thought that some Opton Tessar lenses were in fact made by CZJ then subject to stringent testing by Zeiss Ikon in the West. Rolleiflex had been concerned about optical quality variations at CZJ. So we can't really draw too many conclusions.

Strangely I have a mint looking Linhof Carl Zeiss 150mm f4.5 Tessar from around 1957 that I was given for the cost of postage that isn't sharp, there's no evidence of anything ever being tampered with. My 1953/4 CZJ 150mm f4.5 Tessar (T coated) is sharp as should be expected at f16 and particularly f22

Ian

Interesting. I was recently given an Automat, an early K4B2 that seems to have been made about late 1945 or early '46. It has an Opton Tessar, which was spotless and clear when I got it. I had to clean and lube the shutter to get slow speeds, and I can assure everyone that this example, at least, is mounted in the usual Zeiss manner. It's also a very nice lens, very sharp with more than adequate contrast.

Incidentally the exposure guide on the back is in French, and the case bears the prewar Rollei logo. The leather is of the poorest quality I have ever seen on a Rollei case. Judging by the wear on the pressure plate, this camera has had miles of film go through it. The plating on the curved spring that tensions the film roll is also gone, exposing what seems to be phosphor bronze. Far from worn out though - cleaning and lubricating the transport and focus mechanisms left it gratifyingly smooth, frame spacing good, etc.

 

[BobMarvin11225]

My understanding is that the "Zeiss Opton" lenses were made early on in the west, at a time when it was unclear whether Zeiss Oberkochen had the right to the "Carl Zeiss" name. Absent any damage the quality of Zeiss Opton, Carl Zeiss (later W. German) and Carl Zeiss Jena (E. German) Tessars should be roughly the same.

 

[Ian Grant]

Interesting. I was recently given an Automat, an early K4B2 that seems to have been made about late 1945 or early '46. It has an Opton Tessar, which was spotless and clear when I got it. I had to clean and lube the shutter to get slow speeds, and I can assure everyone that this example, at least, is mounted in the usual Zeiss manner. It's also a very nice lens, very sharp with more than adequate contrast.

My understanding is that the "Zeiss Opton" lenses were made early on in the west, at a time when it was unclear whether Zeiss Oberkochen had the right to the "Carl Zeiss" name. Absent any damage the quality of Zeiss Opton, Carl Zeiss (later W. German) and Carl Zeiss Jena (E. German) Tessars should be roughly the same.

Initially the Zeiss Opton lenses where made by a subsidiary company of Carl Zeiss Jena in Oberkochen set up in 1946. When Zeiss Jena was Nationalised the companies separated but hoped to re-unite and co-operated into the 1950's. Arne Croel's excellent series of articles on Zeiss LF lenses has some details but doesn't specifically cover the Tessars used by Rollei and Zeiss Ikon.

Ian

 

[Kyle M.]

In my opinion either there's something fishy with that lens (i.e. it's been out and apart and not reassembled correctly or it's just a dud). I've also heard of Opton Tessars having issues with the elements separating over time. I just recently acquired an early 50's Rolleiflex Automat with a 75mm Opton Tessar and am very pleased with it. Here is an example from mine at f8.

 

[outwest]

There's certainly nothing wrong with the Opton Tessar in my Ikoflex.

 

[abeku]

Wow! Thank you all! I expected results like what Kyle and Outwest has shared in this thread. I'll have a closer look at the lens elements during the weekend. At a first glance, the looked perfect...

 

[Sandeha Lynch]

Examples I've seen of 4 element lenses where the middle element has been reversed by accident have had far more pronounced aberrations. This seems more of a focusing softness, and I think the first culprit would be a mismatch between the two lenses. With the Rolleicords there was a simple screw adjustment of the viewing lens, perhaps this needs doing on the Ikoflex if you find out how. You'll need a small ground glass (and a loupe) to check the focus of the taking lens.