Another Macro Question/Observation

[Steve Hamley]

Reading the other "macro vs process lens" thread got me thinking about what I've seen used. Many people seem to use tessar-formula lenses, like Ansel Adam's "Driftwood and Rose", and there have been at least two artists mentioned in "View Camera" using a Schneider 210mm Xenar f:6.1 for at least "close" work. I seem to remember seeing that maybe Edward Weston (probably) also used a Zeiss Tessar close up.

The thought was what did photographer's use before macro lenses? All the professional photographers I know are sensitive to things like distortion and shortcomings in lenses under conditions of actual use, so I find it unlikely that so many are using tessars for close up work.

So is anyone using tessars for macro or close work and how are they doing? Or am I thinking I'm seeing something that isn't there?

Cheers, Steve

[Dan Fromm]

Steve, the Tominon lenses for the Polaroid MP-4, the 17/4 excepted, are all tessar types. The 135 is a normal tessar (two singlets between diaphragm and subject), I don't know what the 105 is, and the 75, 50, and 35 are reversed tessars (two singlets between diaphragm and film). My wonderful 100/6.3 Neupolar is a reversed tessar, so is the 90/6.3 Mikrotar. And then there are the B&L Micro Tessars ...

And there are some fine tessar type process lenses that ought to be good from 1:1 to 1:4 at least, e.g., TTH Apotals and f/9 Copying Lenses. There are also, e.g., tessar type Apo-Nikkors, genuine Zeiss Apo-Tessars, FSU copies, ...

FWIW, I've also used a 105/4.5 Comparon, essentially an enlarging Xenar, for macro (below 1:1) and its just fine. I was so pleased with it that when I could get a 150/5.6 for pennies I did.

In the bad old days photographers used what was available. We're much richer in lens types than the ancients were. Don't forget that f/6.3 Tessars, including the f/6.1 Xenar, are better lenses than faster Tessars. I just shot a post-WWII coated 158/6.3 B&L Tessar against a 160/5.6 Pro Raptar. The Wolly won but I wouldn't feel badly deprived if I were forced to use the Tessar.

Cheers,

Dan

Oh, yeah, small apertures tend to reduce the differences between lenses' performance.

[Peter K]

Steve, if a Tessar made for pictural work is turned with the back lens to the subject it can be used for close-up work too. But used in the normal way field curvature can be a problem.

Macro-lenses where made at least at the end of the 19th century, often from the Tessar-type. E. g. the Luminar 25mm and the second design 100mm are Tessars. The older design is a triplet.

Peter

[Dan Fromm]

Asymmetric or not, if the lens is designed for use at magnfications below 1:1 it should be reversed only when working at > 1:1.

[Ken Lee]

"So is anyone using tessars for macro or close work and how are they doing? Or am I thinking I'm seeing something that isn't there?"

Here are a few close shots made on 4x5 or 5x7 with Tessars. Some coated, some not. All pretty old. They all have something about them that is just... sweet

http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/te...x.html#Vintage

It may not be entirely rational, but many of us like to fiddle with lenses.

Some men have several cars, and some women have more than one pair of shoes. They may all get you from Point A to Point B, but each one "wants to be driven".

[Steve Hamley]

Ken,

Nice work! I think the tessars are doing pretty well. I'm wondering about the Nikkor 200M - seems like a logical choice.

Cheers, Steve

[Ken Lee]

Notice that these photos are made from a reasonable distance, mostly 1:3 or larger.