Bought this on the Bay strictly on a whim and the fact that it seems in perfect shape but mainly that it cost me only $23. It is a Bausch & Lomb Tessar 1C 210mm EF f/4.5 in a nice chrome barrel.
What would this have been used for? What does the EF stand for? Why did it go so cheap?
I did find a post online that has 6 or 7 color photos taken with it and they seemed outstanding...
Thanks for your thoughts.
When I was 16 I thought my father the stupidest man in the world; when I reached 21, I was astounded by how much he had learned in just 5 years!
-appropriated from Mark Twain
I have no idea how much you paid for a normal lens for 5x7, so can't comment on why it might have cost so little. Or so much. EF means focal length.
You can find B&L catalogs at www.cameraeccentric.com
I'm appalled that you don't know what a Tessar is and is/is not good for.
I'd say you got a real bargain, because the seller was poorly informed. There's a reason why Tessars have stuck around for over 100 years.
Modern designs may do better with regard to coverage, but for scenes that don't require extreme view camera movements, it will be an excellent performer. Plus, it has an almost perfectly circular diaphragm. On 4x5 it makes a perfect portrait lens, and on 5x7 it will be a sweet lens for general use.
One of these in B&L lenses, 190mm, also coated like yours, came with the old Kodak 5x7 I purchased at an auction. It sat on my shelf as a paperweight until I decided to test it. I thought it was a junker... but was I surprised !
I have subsequently purchased other Tessars, both in barrel and in shutter. I really like them for portraits.
Doesn't that above look better now? Thanks for the cameraeccentric link...Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
I have no idea how much you paid for a normal lens for 5x7, so can't comment on why it might have cost so little. Or so much. EF means focal length.
You can find B&L catalogs at www.cameraeccentric.com
I'm appalled that you don't know what a Tessar is and is/is not good for.
When I was 16 I thought my father the stupidest man in the world; when I reached 21, I was astounded by how much he had learned in just 5 years!
-appropriated from Mark Twain
Thanks for your helpful reply, Ken. I, of course have heard of Tessars but was not familiar with their usual useage because I haven't had occasion to own one.
When I was 16 I thought my father the stupidest man in the world; when I reached 21, I was astounded by how much he had learned in just 5 years!
-appropriated from Mark Twain
Richard, apologies for missing the $23 in your text. The Tessar was for many years the quality option. This for two reasons. Tessars are, within their limitations, sharp and contrasty. Tessars have six air-glass interfaces, so have better transmission and, other things equal, less flare than more complex constructions such as dialytes, plasmats, and simple (4/4, 6/4) double Gauss types. The design dates from the turn of the 20th century. Since then, intensive development has increased the maximum aperture possible and improved faster (f/4.5, f/3.5) Tessars' coverage. But f/6.3ers were nearly as good as possible from the start.
I don't know why, but although dialytes were made for a variety of formats before coating came in, double Gauss types and plasmats didn't really take off for LF until coating was practical. Funny thing is, "Hollywood" used, e.g., TTH double Gauss lenses when still photographers wouldn't.
About Tessars' limitations. Coverage, coverage, and coverage. For f/4.5s, not much more than 50 degrees. Less for faster ones. For f/6.3s, the class of the lot, 60 to 70 degrees, depending on who's pushing what. There are very very few wide angle Tessars.
Modern anastigmats, mainly Tessars, drove the older types from the market.
Ken, one of these days I'll understand why serious people are so hung up on diaphragms. I mean, modern Copal shutters and Schneider barrels and ... have five blades.
Cheers,
Dan
"Ken, one of these days I'll understand why serious people are so hung up on diaphragms. I mean, modern Copal shutters and Schneider barrels and ... have five blades".
Given a choice between 2 otherwise identical lenses, I would choose the one with a more circular aperture, so that blurry highlights show up more rounded, rather than more polygonal. I don't always shoot subjects with blurry highlights, mind you, but I do from time to time.
Of course if one lens has 16 blades and another has 17 blades, the difference is inconsequential. But when one lens has 5 blades, and another 13, I'd prefer the rounder one, for those cases.
The image above was made with a 300mm Heliar on 5x7. I no longer own the lens, but if I recall correctly, the aperture has 15 blades, and the circular highlights look round.
Thanks very much for the detailed explanation, Dan. I guess I MAY be able to use this for portraits (tight ones) on WP. Otherwise, according to a quick calculation, the IC is a little less than 200mm making it useful for other than portraiture only for 4x5...
I suppose I could go around Toronto and make images like Atget (in truncation not quality!).
Cheers.
When I was 16 I thought my father the stupidest man in the world; when I reached 21, I was astounded by how much he had learned in just 5 years!
-appropriated from Mark Twain
"EF" stands for "Extra Fuzzy."
Brian Ellis
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
LOL but these, tken with a B&L 1C Tessar f/4.5:
don't look TOO bad...
When I was 16 I thought my father the stupidest man in the world; when I reached 21, I was astounded by how much he had learned in just 5 years!
-appropriated from Mark Twain
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks