Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 29 of 29

Thread: 150mm/4.5 Xenar vs. Tessar

  1. #21

    Re: 150mm/4.5 Xenar vs. Tessar

    Quote Originally Posted by IanG View Post

    The Geronar is a Triplet so not a Tessar type lens. Good luck with the one you've bought.

    Back to your original question I used to have a 150mm f4.5 Xenar, I now have a 150nn f5.6 Xenar and there's no noticeable difference to my 150mm f4.5 CZJ Tessar I've used both extensively.

    Ian
    Hi Ian, at least in this Comedy of Errors, I do know that the Geronar is a Cooke Triplet. I like Cooke Triplet and own 2 from the 1920s so I think I will be very happy with it. Indeed, if I have known that a modern Triplet exists I would probably have started there! Thanks.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    1,856

    Re: 150mm/4.5 Xenar vs. Tessar

    I get the idea that you are trying to buy a lens for its defects, and then are going about it by trying to find the most modern, developed version you can. If it's defects that you are specifically looking for, you're doing it backwards. The whole history of photographic progress is one of trying to make today's stuff better than yesterday's stuff, eliminating the very types of defects you are wanting. Just having the same old name in a modern lens will not guarantee you the same bad qualities you are looking for that were characteristic of the earlier types! Likewise with being concerned about things like coverage--going for coverage will drag you into more modern, less desirable lenses. I think the Geronar is actually quite a good lens, and I bet you won't get what you want from it.

    That said, if I'd seen this earlier I'd have recommended an Ilex Paragon ( a Tessar forumla) of some sort. For 5x7 portraits my 300mm f/6.3 Paragon is the best lens I have; for 4x5 my favorite is the 210/4.5 Paragon. Both have the sharp/diffused look you want, when used at wider openings, and they're relatively cheap. The 165mm version, which I have but haven't yet boarded up and tried (too short for portraits, in my opinion), is usually under $100. Another cheapie of the same type is the 190mm (7-1/2") Raptar, which I have but haven't tested on portraits.

    Also, if you think you will be using any of these lenses stopped down more than a stop you might as well keep what you have. The "good" stuff in a Tessar goes away quickly when you get to around f8 or so.
    Thanks, but I'd rather just watch:
    Large format: http://flickr.com/michaeldarnton
    Mostly 35mm: http://flickr.com/mdarnton
    You want digital, color, etc?: http://www.flickr.com/photos/stradofear

  3. #23
    Dominik
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Austria
    Posts
    248

    Re: 150mm/4.5 Xenar vs. Tessar

    I find it amusing when people say get a Tessar for the softer look, the Tessar was once one of the sharpest lenses in production even today the centersharpness is on par with many planar and plasmat types off center and corner sharpness wide open is another matter but in the center they are very very sharp. Also not all Tessars even those from Zeiss are equal they sometimes can be quiet harsh (harsh non flattering contrast) especially the coated ones. For portraits softness a triplet is a better choice imo as a small general purpose lens where you don't want to use a lot of movement a Tessar is hard to beat though. For portraits the Commercial Ektar has a good name other than that I would prefer a pre-war uncoated Xenar for portraits. (Schneider was a second tier mfg before the war so the lenses were not always as sharp as Zeiss lenses but had often a more rounded pleasing look better suited for portraiture than the razor sharp Tessars)

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,490

    Re: 150mm/4.5 Xenar vs. Tessar

    A good point. Many, many years ago I was talking with a Portrait photographer and the subject of Tessar lenses came up -- he referred to them as "ugly sharp."

    Quote Originally Posted by MDR View Post
    I find it amusing when people say get a Tessar for the softer look, the Tessar was once one of the sharpest lenses in production even today the centersharpness is on par with many planar and plasmat types off center and corner sharpness wide open is another matter but in the center they are very very sharp. Also not all Tessars even those from Zeiss are equal they sometimes can be quiet harsh (harsh non flattering contrast) especially the coated ones. For portraits softness a triplet is a better choice imo as a small general purpose lens where you don't want to use a lot of movement a Tessar is hard to beat though. For portraits the Commercial Ektar has a good name other than that I would prefer a pre-war uncoated Xenar for portraits. (Schneider was a second tier mfg before the war so the lenses were not always as sharp as Zeiss lenses but had often a more rounded pleasing look better suited for portraiture than the razor sharp Tessars)

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,901

    Re: 150mm/4.5 Xenar vs. Tessar

    Tessar as a family of optics design does produce high definition images... when stopped down and if the specific optic is properly designed and manufactured. As with all optics, Tessar has it's specific set of trade offs.

    What a really good Tessar design can offer is nice rounded out of focus rendition at larger apertures ( about f11 to f8 and larger) at apertures f11 to f16 and smaller, Tessar designs can be extremely high resolution and more. There is nothing "soft focus" about a proper Tessar optic.

    With this in mind, consider the elements of what makes a classic photographic portrait. Point of focus is at the eyes, with the areas of focus falling off by the tip of the nose and cheek to ears, at the area of focus behind the sitter should be softly and roundly out of focus. Two classic optics known for this personality would be the Tessar and Heliar both of which has been used for this style of portraiture. The other group would be the entire world of speciality "soft focus" optics such as the Pinkham Smith, Kodak Portrait Ektar, Imagon and a host of many others.

    Paul Rudolph developed the Tessar while at Zeiss about 1900's. This resulted in Zeiss being the first to produce this design. At some point, Zeiss stopped making the Tessar in longer focal lengths for sheet film. Schenider also produced the Tessar design as Xenar long after Zeiss stopped production of their Tessar optics. Kodak began production of Tessar optics (Commercial Ektar f6.3 and f4.5 Ektar) post WW-II using Lanthanum glass and coated to improve light transmission.
    Of these three, my faves are Kodak C. Ektar, Schneider Xenar (post war production and coated in the later style with click stop aperture dial) last would be Zeiss Tessar due partly to when they were designed and produced and their overall optical performance. Zeiss might have been the first to produce this design, time and optics technology does move on resulting in others significantly improving the initial design and work.

    To this day the Tessar remains one of my all time fave optics along with the Dagor for normal to slightly longer focal length sheet film images.



    Benice


    Quote Originally Posted by MDR View Post
    I find it amusing when people say get a Tessar for the softer look, the Tessar was once one of the sharpest lenses in production even today the centersharpness is on par with many planar and plasmat types off center and corner sharpness wide open is another matter but in the center they are very very sharp. Also not all Tessars even those from Zeiss are equal they sometimes can be quiet harsh (harsh non flattering contrast) especially the coated ones. For portraits softness a triplet is a better choice imo as a small general purpose lens where you don't want to use a lot of movement a Tessar is hard to beat though. For portraits the Commercial Ektar has a good name other than that I would prefer a pre-war uncoated Xenar for portraits. (Schneider was a second tier mfg before the war so the lenses were not always as sharp as Zeiss lenses but had often a more rounded pleasing look better suited for portraiture than the razor sharp Tessars)

  6. #26
    IanG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Aegean (Turkey & UK)
    Posts
    4,122

    Re: 150mm/4.5 Xenar vs. Tessar

    Quote Originally Posted by Bernice Loui View Post
    Zeiss might have been the first to produce this design, time and optics technology does move on resulting in others significantly improving the initial design and work.

    To this day the Tessar remains one of my all time fave optics along with the Dagor for normal to slightly longer focal length sheet film images.

    Benice
    Some of he LF Zeiss Tessars were reformulated a few times over the years, newer glass was used in some of them around the time Compur switched from the Dial set to the rimset shutters and and again just before WWII when the first T coated Tessars were made. In addition the LF Tessar was offered in a number of maximum aperures f3.5, f4.5, f5.3 and f6.3 and the slower the speed the higher the optical quality.

    I've 2 post WWII Xenars and they are no better than similar post WWII Tessars CZJ or Carl Zeiss ((Oberkochen). My CZJ 150mm f4,5 T coated Tessar was probably destined for Linhof it's SN dates it to the time that Linhof switched to Carl Zeiss (Oberkochen) Tessars but was designed around 1937.

    The biggest difference though is between an un-coated Tessar and a post WWII coated Tessar or Xenar, that's from practical experience as I have a lot of Tesaar and type lenses. Like you I enjoy using my Tessars as I do my Dagor.

    I also like Cooke Triplets.

    Ian

  7. #27
    Mark Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Stuck inside of Tucson with the Neverland Blues again...
    Posts
    6,268

    Re: 150mm/4.5 Xenar vs. Tessar

    Quote Originally Posted by macolive View Post
    Hi Richard, this may be an interesting article for you.

    http://www.largeformatphotography.info/portrait-lenses/
    Quote Originally Posted by richardman View Post
    Macolive: thanks! That's exactly the page where I got the idea of getting a Xenar from :-)
    If you read the comments on that article, you'll see that a lot of people thought it was a train wreck. The author went back and rewrote a lot of bad information after people corrected him, and the moderators eliminated a lot of the negative comments about it. But it's still a pretty questionable article at best.
    "I love my Verito lens, but I always have to sharpen everything in Photoshop..."

  8. #28

    Re: 150mm/4.5 Xenar vs. Tessar

    Well, I have a 150/4.5 Tessar (CZJ) and a 150/6.3 Geronar coming next week, and I have a 7 1/2" Series II Cooke and the 9" Cooke PS945. I have a Fujinon 150/5.6 as the Plastmat standard. May be I will do some "test-off"

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    South Texas
    Posts
    1,837

    Re: 150mm/4.5 Xenar vs. Tessar

    That will be interesting to see, Richard.

Similar Threads

  1. Rodenstock Geronar 6.3/150mm MC vs old Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 150mm f4.5 lens
    By freddenacka in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 29-Nov-2013, 03:22
  2. Xenar 150mm 3,5? Why is it similar to my modern Rodenstock 150mm 5.6?
    By joshdaskew in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 10-Apr-2009, 03:51

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •