f/4.5 Tessars

[genotypewriter]

Lots of manufacturers made lenses in the f/4.5 Tessar (4 elements in 3 groups) fundamental design in all sorts of lengths but are there performance differences between these (for similar focal lengths, of course)?

For example, are any particular ones that are better because of coatings or because of the use of better quality glass, etc.?

Thanks

[IanG]

My best all round Tessar is a T coated CZJ f4.5 150mm made 1953/4 and bough off this forum and have used extensively, the coating's excellent but has a distinctly blue bias. It's probable the later Voightlander Color Skopars are better in terms of coatings and colour rendering and they should be just as sharp. I also have a 135mm f4.5 Tessar on a Patent Etui.

It terms of other competitors Xenar lenses are equal in terms of quality I had an f4.5 150mm Xenar for a number of years and now have f4.7 135mm and f5.5 150mm Xenars. Many of the Kodak Ektars (and similar uncoated Anastigmats) are Tessar designs and have an excellent reputation, I have 2 101mm Ektars but haven't used them much.

If you move away from the f4.5 the best Tessars wwere the f6.3 which has better sharpness throughout the aperture range, corners tend to be sharper, it was sold for more critical work. I have 3 (one's in the post from the US) all made around 1913-18, one's a CZJ f6.3 165mm in a Compur, anoyher an f6.3 1700 Kodak anastigmat in a Velosto (renamed Baausch & Lomb Tessar, the Velosto is the export name for the Wollensak Optimo shutter), the third is a Bausch & Lomb Tessar in an Optimo approx 4" FL (yet to be seen)

I have other Tessars yet to be used, an CZJ f4.5 1800 in a weird Wollensak shutter (size #4) limited apertures and Instant only, an almost mint CZJ f5.3 (rare) 165mm and a set of Tessar type Congo f6.3 210 lens cells. That's the LF Tessars, I have a few on MF and 35mm cameras all quite capable.

Summing up the best Tessars are obviously the post WWII coated ones (although there's a few CZJ 150mm T coated from 1938 onwards), some of the 1930's Tessars used new optical glass that doesn't seem to age as well, Novars & Summars used it as well, some lenses can be clean & scratch free but soft and prone to flare. I've made some suberb images with old Tessars so they are worth thinking about at f22 they areas sharp as modern Plasmats and have more character at wider aperures than most modern lenses.

Have a look at some of the superb images Ken Lee has posted here on this forum made with Tessars

Ian

[Dan Fromm]

There were many redesigns. Visit www.dioptrique.info . It is not the case that all f/4.5 tessar types are equal.

Ian, take a close look at y'r 170/6.3 Kodak Anastigmat. All of the ones I've seen, including the one I have in a drawer, are dialytes.

[John Kasaian]

The lilttle Kodak 127mm Ektar is, optically, among the very best 4.5 Tessars I've used----but suffers from small coverage on 4x5 film.

[IanG]

There were many redesigns. Visit www.dioptrique.info . It is not the case that all f/4.5 tessar types are equal.

Ian, take a close look at y'r 170/6.3 Kodak Anastigmat. All of the ones I've seen, including the one I have in a drawer, are dialytes.

Good point Dan, the problem is Kodak used a 170mm f6.3 Tessar as well as a Dialyte both sold as Anastigmat, part of the confusion is markings differ depending on where sold, and WWI seems to break the formal link in terms of Patent Royalties with Zeiss. Some of these US made 170mm f6.3 lenses are marke Zeiss Kodak Anastigmat - and of Tessar design, and then there were the Bausch and Lomb 170mm f6.3 Tessars .

On double checking mine is in fact a Dialyte, the shutter's a Velosto No 1a WOCo, Rochester, USA- identical to an Optimo No 1a (internally as well) but these are marked as made by Wollensak Optical Co.

Ian

[Bernice Loui]

Kodak made some f4.5 tessars as Ektar, they are excellent in the coated versions.

The common Schneider f4.5 Xenar is very good. These usually do not sell for much on the market specially if they are in barrel. IMO, these are an excellent value for their cost.

Ilex Paragon f4.5..

Boyer Saphir would be another f4.5 tessar and there are many others.

The most common dis-like about tessars is image circle, this is a perceived limitation and not always significant as tessars are typically normal to longer than normal focal length lenses which many times have enough image circle for the majority of camera movements required.


Bernice

[mdm]

I have an f4.5 210mm Fujinar that has something special.

[Dan Fromm]

Boyer Saphir would be another f4.5 tessar and there are many others.

Bernice

Saphir is a Boyer trade name. Lenses Boyer sold as jes' plain Saphirs include tessar types (f/6.3, f/4.5, f/3.5, and more), 6/4 double Gauss types and a complex one (the Saphir f/1) that's hard to characterize. Apo-Saphirs (a somewhat different trade name, not exactly Saphir) are heliar types, except for the earliest ones, which are dagor types. Saphir B and BX (more slightly different trade names, not exactly identical to jes' plain Saphir) enlarging lenses are all 6/4 plasmat types, as are Color Saphir taking lenses.

To see Boyer lenses' cross-sections, visit http://www.dioptrique.info/base/m/m_boyer.HTM . To learn more about the company and its products, visit http://www.galerie-photo.com/boyer-lens-optic.html

[jp]

I've got one of those 4.5 210mm fujinars as well. It's real nice.

Other things being equal, aperture blade roundness is important to me as well. A copal3 will be smoother than a copal-1. A pre-war or oldish compound might be smoother yet. Some of the barrel ones are great too.

[Jody_S]

I am rather partial to the 135 Xenar, but my favorite was a MF lens, a SOM Berthiot Flor 105/4.5 on my Pontiac Bloc-Metal. However, like many SOM lenses, it suffered from a little bleeding in the cement in the rear group. So a couple of weeks ago, I decided to take it apart and re-cement it. I was quite surprised to discover that the lens is in fact 5 elements in 3 groups; the rear is 3 cemented lenses similar to a Dagor construction (inner curve not as pronounced). I do think the lenses we assume are 4/3 Tessars might be more varied than they appear.

[Dan Fromm]

Jody, several lens makers replaced the real Tessar's cemented doublet with a cemented triplet to get around Zeiss' patent. Ross, for example with the Xpres. But Xpres is really a trade name and later Xpres lenses were really tessar types.

Flor is an SOM Berthiot trade name, not a design type. I have in front of me some SOM Berthiot propaganda that shows cross sections. Flor includes tessar types, the cheating tessar type you described, 6/4 double Gauss types and 7/4 types derived from double Gauss.

[Jody_S]

Jody, several lens makers replaced the real Tessar's cemented doublet with a cemented triplet to get around Zeiss' patent. Ross, for example with the Xpres. But Xpres is really a trade name and later Xpres lenses were really tessar types.

Flor is an SOM Berthiot trade name, not a design type. I have in front of me some SOM Berthiot propaganda that shows cross sections. Flor includes tessar types, the cheating tessar type you described, 6/4 double Gauss types and 7/4 types derived from double Gauss.

This particular Flor was post-war, almost immediately post-war in fact as the Bloc-Metal's claim to fame was the aluminum/white metal body finished to look like leather, when leather was in short supply because of the war (plus, the lens' inner surfaces are coated, and rather soft like 100/3.5 Ektar on the Medalist). I gather the Zeiss patents had been declared null & void by then, and the Bloc-Metal was part of France's effort to seize a share of the post-war camera business given the vacuum left by the destruction of most German facilities. It is in fact a fine effort, as I said this is one of my favorite lenses; the 6x9 negs might not be the sharpest ever, but they have a beautiful tonality very much like my uncoated Dagors in fact. I assume the choice to use a triplet rear was just that, a choice, as they could by then have copied the Tessar exactly.

I have another as yet untested one on a Super Kinax III (?- not sure which version), which appears identical to the Flor but is labeled something else for some reason; everyone assumes it's the same lens.

[IanG]

Jody, several lens makers replaced the real Tessar's cemented doublet with a cemented triplet to get around Zeiss' patent. Ross, for example with the Xpres. But Xpres is really a trade name and later Xpres lenses were really tessar types.

It was a better lens Dan, after the outbreak of WWI the scenario changed and Ross no longer paid Zeiss any Royalties for the patents. I've an Air Ministry 141mm EWA f18 Ross lens that'sn clearly the same as the Ross Zeiss f16 Protar.

Reality is some Xenars are 5 element yet they all classed as Tessars, many Xpres lenses are 5 element and some are Tessars, as Ross had taken over Zeiss in the UK (Mill MillHill) during WW1 , there were no issues with getting around Patents, Germany was in ruins.

Ian

[Domingo A. Siliceo]

I own a Rodenstock Ysar 1:4.5 15cm. It's my first Tessar, so I can't compare its performance and/or mood with others, but I'm happy with it.

[Dan Fromm]

Jody wrote:


This particular Flor was post-war, almost immediately post-war in fact

Then its older than the SOM Berthiot propaganda I mentioned. Berthiot offered all of the Flor types I described at the same time, i.e., around 1950.

Ian, what do Protars have to do with Tessars?

Why do you say that the Xpres, any version, is better than the Tessar, any version? I ask because I have a Selfix 820 with the renowned 105/3.8 Xpres. I've never got a satisfactorily sharp shot with the wretched thing. I've checked, the lens is properly collimated. And I've checked, the lens' rear group is a doublet, not a triplet, so it is an echt tessar type. I've got satisfactorily sharp shots with the humble 101/4.5 Ektar (uncoated) (Kingslake calls it a reverse Tessar, says it isn't an echt tessar type) that came with my little Speed Graphic.

All of which points to what is probably the right answer to the OP's question, viz., that design type isn't always a good predictor of how well a lens that conforms to the type will perform. The prescription matters. When Usenet's rec.photo groups were active, Richard Knoppow made the point repeatedly that the computations that led to Wollensak's latest tessar type Raptar contained an error; the design was poorly corrected for coma, had to be stopped down more (two stops more, he said) than the comparable tessar type Ektar to match the Ektar's image quality in the corners. Build quality matters. And, for elderly used lenses, condition matters.

[E. von Hoegh]

It was a better lens Dan, after the outbreak of WWI the scenario changed and Ross no longer paid Zeiss any Royalties for the patents. I've an Air Ministry 141mm EWA f18 Ross lens that'sn clearly the same as the Ross Zeiss f16 Protar.

Reality is some Xenars are 5 element yet they all classed as Tessars, many Xpres lenses are 5 element and some are Tessars, as Ross had taken over Zeiss in the UK (Mill MillHill) during WW1 , there were no issues with getting around Patents, Germany was in ruins.

Ian

But then you have for instance the American Gundlach Radar, a 5 element lens made to get around the Tessar patent.

[BrianShaw]

But then you have for instance the American Gundlach Radar, a 5 element lens made to get around the Tessar patent.

... and what a sweet lens that is!

[IanG]

Ian, what do Protars have to do with Tessars?

Both were Zeiss lenses made under licence by Ross, but Ross stopped paying Royalties and continued making the EWA Protar without the name during and after WWI.


Why do you say that the Xpres, any version, is better than the Tessar, any version? I ask because I have a Selfix 820 with the renowned 105/3.8 Xpres. I've never got a satisfactorily sharp shot with the wretched thing. I've checked, the lens is properly collimated. And I've checked, the lens' rear group is a doublet, not a triplet, so it is an echt tessar type.

I didn't say every version, rather Xpres lenses in general, actually the Xpres on the Selfix is unusual because it's cell focussing and not a Large format lens, I have two and both mine are very sharp, you must be unlucky with yours.

The Xpres on my Microcord is better than the Tessars or Xenars on Rolleiflex's and a touch sharper than my Yashicamat 124 at wider apertures, this matches magazine test repots but from practical experience. Stopped down there's nothing between thase lenses and moderm plasmats i practical use.

I've had some very poor lenses over the years and from supposedly good manufacturers, so there can be the odd poor samples, none were Teassar type :D


All of which points to what is probably the right answer to the OP's question, viz., that design type isn't always a good predictor of how well a lens that conforms to the type will perform. The prescription matters. When Usenet's rec.photo groups were active, Richard Knoppow made the point repeatedly that the computations that led to Wollensak's latest tessar type Raptar contained an error; the design was poorly corrected for coma, had to be stopped down more (two stops more, he said) than the comparable tessar type Ektar to match the Ektar's image quality in the corners. Build quality matters. And, for elderly used lenses, condition matters.

Same goes for CZJ Tessars after WWII when specialist optical glass was hard to obtain by CZJ and lenses were constantly being re-computed by hand to suit teh available glasses..

Ian

[patrickjames]

The Rodenstock Ysarex that came on the Polaroid 110 cameras is an excellent Tessar. Coverage is bare, but it has a unique tonality.