Protar vs. Tessar

[Brassai]

I've been vacillating lately between getting a Protar or another Tessar. They are both of the same period, but have somewhat different designs. Here's my question. Will I notice any difference between an image made with a Tessar vs. a Protar? Anybody can see the difference between images from a Petzval and a Tessar, and a Dagor from a Heliar, but is there much (if any) difference between a Protar and Tessar?

[IanG]

It's going to depend on which Tessar & Protar lenses you're comparing, what apertures you use etc. A good Tessar of any age is capable of excellent results but some are better than others, the slower CZJ Tessars like the f6.3 and f5.3 are the best in terms of coverage and edge sharpness. followed bt the f4.5.

Ian

[jcoldslabs]

I have shot with Zeiss Tessars from the 1920s for years and love them, but I recently acquired an early B&L Zeiss Protar and the sharpness out to the corners and reduced flare/increased contrast are evident on the ground glass. I haven't shot with the Protar yet so I don't have any side-by-side images to share, but to me there is a notable difference. My guess is a Protar will show its advantages over a Tessar when used wide open; stopped down the differences between the two lenses (coverage not withstanding) will be less evident.

Jonathan

[Seele]

Sorry for coming in late.

There were a very extensive range of lenses made under the Protar name, with quite different designs and performance characteristics. Without being specific about which Protar one uses, it would be difficult to extrapolate its results to another one.

That said, I have been using early Tessars and Protars of all descriptions, from the first release models with four to five elements, to the Double-Protars; in fact I have a Compur-mounted Double-Amatar which may also be considered as related. Used within their limits I feel they are all totally satisfactory, even for today's more stringent demands.

[Ari]

I, too, recently bought a B&L Zeiss Protar convertible; I have only used it sparingly so far, as the rear elements are in the shop for re-cementing.
In my very limited use of it, all I can say is that it seems to offer a contrast and tonal smoothness that is quite different in look from the Tessars I own.
Sharpness, edge-to-edge coverage, flare, etc I don't know about.

[E. von Hoegh]

I've been vacillating lately between getting a Protar or another Tessar. They are both of the same period, but have somewhat different designs. Here's my question. Will I notice any difference between an image made with a Tessar vs. a Protar? Anybody can see the difference between images from a Petzval and a Tessar, and a Dagor from a Heliar, but is there much (if any) difference between a Protar and Tessar?

Quite a bit, actually. The Tessar has six air-glass surfaces, four of them internal. The Tessar in asymmetric. The Protar (I'm going on the assumption that you're referring to the most common, convertible Protar) has four air-glass surfaces, ony two are internal - plus it is a symmetrical lens, meaning the corrections are likely good over a wider range of ratios than the Tessar. The Protar will have better coverage, better corner sharpness, less flare, and better contrast with a smoothness that is more like a Dagor.

[Ian Greenhalgh]

So why did the Tessar replace the Protar if the Protar is better?

[goamules]

That's what I was going to say; a Protar VII is a lot like a Dagor, and better corrected if only one element is used. Yes, I can see a difference, but it's more so between the f4.5 Tessar and the F6.3 Protar than between that and the F6.3 Tessar. If both are uncoated the contrast will be higher with a Protar VII.

[goamules]

So why did the Tessar replace the Protar if the Protar is better?

The Tessar didn't replace the Protar, for decades they were sold side by side. Like a lot of lens choices, it was balancing cost with other tradeoffs. Here's a 1941 catalog (fm Cameraeccentric (http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/bauschlomb_2.html)) where B&L are explaining when to use either lens. This being about 40 years after both designs were invented. An 8x10 Protar VII set was $257, an 8x10 Tessar IIb was $182.

http://www.cameraeccentric.com/img/info/bauschlomb_2/bauschlomb_2_08.jpg

[Dan Fromm]

So why did the Tessar replace the Protar if the Protar is better?Price, speed, ease of manufacture. Re this last, the more elements cemented, the more difficult centering them is.

[Dan Fromm]

If both are uncoated the contrast will be higher with a Protar VII.

Interesting. Why?

[E. von Hoegh]

Interesting. Why?

See post number six.

[goamules]

See post number 12.
come on Dan, air-glass surfaces!

[Dan Fromm]

Emil, Garrett, sorry, I misread post # 8 to say that a Protar VII has better contrast than a Dagor.

[E. von Hoegh]

See above.
And Dan, even if both lenses are coated - the Protar will have the edge regarding contrast and flare. A single coated Protar (or Dagor) is as good as a multicoated Plasmat, perhaps better, as far as flare goes.

[E. von Hoegh]

Emil, Garrett, sorry, I misread post # 8 to say that a Protar VII has better contrast than a Dagor.

It will, if the Protar is coated and the Dagor isn't.

[John Kasaian]

"is there much (if any) difference between a Protar and Tessar?"

More important, will any difference between the Protar and the Tessar help or hinder your photographic vision?
Speed, coverage, sharpness (if sharpness is important) physical size, cost, coating(or at least the potentiality to minimize flare) and reliability of the shutter in any given lens are, for me, are more critical issues than the marketing hype of the design. YMMV, of course!
Aside from wanting a "back up" or say a different focal length, use what you've already got unless you've got a pressing reason for making a change.
My 2-cents anyway (and likely worth about a bit less than that)

[goamules]

Or if you want more contrast and sharpness, or want to see for yourself the difference, get the Protar.

[Taija71A]

Price, speed, ease of manufacture. Re this last, the more elements cemented, the more difficult centering them is.

____

Dan is of course correct! :)
--
Like they say... "Newer is NOT Always Better!!!"
Even back then, the 'Bottom Line' was sometimes... $$$ :(

________

[Vaughn]

"is there much (if any) difference between a Protar and Tessar?"

More important, will any difference between the Protar and the Tessar help or hinder your photographic vision?...

But will an Artar between the eyes spark the imagination, or just dim the lights for a little while? Do the brass barrelled RD's still make a bigger impact than those in the newer Al barrels?

[Jim Andrada]

Silly question Vaughn - we all know that brass, being heavier, has higher contrast. To prove it, get a piece of each - maybe a cube six inches on a side - and drop each one onto your big toe from a height of one meter. The contrast between the level of pain before and after the drop will be much greater with the brass.

[E. von Hoegh]

But will an Artar between the eyes spark the imagination, or just dim the lights for a little while? Do the brass barrelled RD's still make a bigger impact than those in the newer Al barrels?

This of course depends on the focal length of the Artars in question and the velocity at impact. For instance, a brass-barrel 6" Artar will never have the kinetic force of say a 24" aluminum barrel (for equal velocities, of course). Also, the 16 1/2" f:9.5 and the 19" f:11 were mounted in barrels of the same size, so a 16 1/2 in brass will have more energy than a 19 in aluminum! If you're comparing shuttered Artars, it gets more complicated.

[Vaughn]

...For instance, a brass-barrel 6" Artar will never have the kinetic force of say a 24" aluminum barrel (for equal velocities, of course)...

A 24" to the forehead will certainly leave a mark, brass or Al...perhaps that is where the term "Red Dot" comes from. I know they were not made in India...

[E. von Hoegh]

A 24" to the forehead will certainly leave a mark, brass or Al...perhaps that is where the term "Red Dot" comes from. I know they were not made in India...

Now that I think of it, even the tiny 4" would leave a mark...

And, (just to stay somewhere in the vicinity of the topic) a good Tessar, particularly the slower ones can be stunningly sharp as long as you don't expect too much in the way of coverage. A 14" f:6.3 on 8x10 would give some movements, and a good one would be very sharp all over at say f:11

[Taija71A]

This of course depends on the focal length of the Artars in question and the velocity at impact. For instance, a brass-barrel 6" Artar will never have the kinetic force of say a 24" aluminum barrel (for equal velocities, of course). Also, the 16 1/2" f:9.5 and the 19" f:11 were mounted in barrels of the same size, so a 16 1/2 in brass will have more energy than a 19 in aluminum! If you're comparing shuttered Artars, it gets more complicated.



A 24" to the forehead will certainly leave a mark, brass or Al...perhaps that is where the term "Red Dot" comes from.

____

It's about time!!! :D
Finally, something is being written on the Forum... That makes 'Perfect Sense!'

But, this still doesn't explain where say a 'Gold Dot Dagor' or a 'Blue Dot Trigor'... Would fit into the equation? :)

-Tim.
_________

[E. von Hoegh]

____

It's about time!!! :D
Finally, something is being written on the Forum... That makes 'Perfect Sense!'

But, this still doesn't explain where say a 'Gold Dot Dagor' or a 'Blue Dot Trigor'... Would fit into the equation? :)

-Tim.
_________

They don't. They're far too expensive to throw at someones head.Or anything else.

[Taija71A]

They don't. They're far too expensive to throw at someones head. Or anything else.


+1 :)

[E. von Hoegh]

There's something very strange going on in the way the capitalisation in that quote changed / inverted. !

cut & paste - Originally Posted by { e. Von hoegh

they don't. They're far too expensive to throw at someones head.or anything else }

[Brassai]

More important, will any difference between the Protar and the Tessar help or hinder your photographic vision?
Speed, coverage, sharpness (if sharpness is important) physical size, cost, coating(or at least the potentiality to minimize flare) and reliability of the shutter in any given lens are, for me, are more critical issues than the marketing hype of the design. YMMV, of course!
Aside from wanting a "back up" or say a different focal length, use what you've already got unless you've got a pressing reason for making a change.


Here's what my project is. Starting about this time last year, I began buying a few of each type of the first generation of lenses. these are very short focal length and small lenses. I have a 90mm early Petzval, 50mm Darlot achromatic doublet, and 100mm E&HT Anthony rapid rectilinear. I am having SK Grimes put them in F-mount so I can use them on my Nikon D7100. This is fun! I am mostly after a very vintage look, both the look the lens has AND the look the lenses give the images. I am thinking of buying a short FL Protar, from the 1890s. I don't need a shutter since the Nikon already has one. I focus using live view. If a lens is too sharp, it doesn't appeal to me.


Kent in SD