PDA

View Full Version : Zeiss Tessar



Mark Andes
29-Apr-2006, 14:26
I have a Carl Zeiss Tessar 13.5cm in an old Compur shutter. The shutter has speeds up to 200 and f 4.5.
1. What size is the hole in the lensboard?
2. If the shutter is bad, can I put the lens in a new Copal shutter?

I want to use it on my Tachihara. I know there will be little movements, but I am curios how this lens will work.

Thanks for all your advice.

Conrad Hoffman
29-Apr-2006, 14:48
No idea- measure the threaded area. It probably won't fit a Copal, but you can have the Compur serviced. I used to have this same lens, borrowed from a folder and transplanted to my old Calumet. It's quite sharp and has a very natural look, but it won't compete with a modern lens in terms of contrast or edge sharpness. It probably isn't coated. And no, you won't have any useful movements- watch out for dark corners!

Jack Flesher
29-Apr-2006, 14:52
I have an old Heliar (Tessar design) in a similar old Compur shutter -- mine fits perfectly in a #1 board but I have no idea if your Zeiss Tessar is the same.

Jack Flesher
29-Apr-2006, 14:55
I should have clarified, Heliar 135 f4.5 to 22 in a Compur T, B, 1 ~ 200 shutter. It fits in a #1 Copal board just fine.

Ole Tjugen
29-Apr-2006, 15:43
Is that a dial-set or a rim-set Compur? If it's rim-set, it's likely to be a "standard" #1 and the elements might fit in any #1 shutter. If it's dial-set, all bets are off.

Jack Flesher - the Heliar is NOT a Tessar type lens. Voigtländer vere among the first to adopt standardised shutter sizes.

Donald Qualls
29-Apr-2006, 17:01
I've got two Tessars of that specification in dial-set Compur shutters that run to 200 -- they fit a #1 Copal opening. However, the retaining rings are a different thread pitch from the common rings that fit more modern shutters (same diameter; the ring from my Polaroid Prontor-Press will screw on, but jams after about 1.5 turns, about what I'd expect if one thread were fractional inch pitch and the other the closest standard metric). Also, the glass uses a different thread from the standardized one in newer shutters, and I'm told it can even differ from lens to lens in the same shutter; the later rim-set Compur with 200 or 250 top speed at least had modern-standard threads for both lens cells and retaining ring.

By contrast, my 15 cm f/4.5 Tessar of the same era, in similar appearing shutter, appears to be a #2; both lens and shutter are significantly larger than the 13.5 cm version, but not as large as a #3 shutter. Disappointing, as that one is on an Ica Ideal bayonet mount, and won't interchange with the 13.5 cm Tessars on the same mount (but smaller diameter).

Jack Flesher
29-Apr-2006, 23:24
Jack Flesher - the Heliar is NOT a Tessar type lens. Voigtländer vere among the first to adopt standardised shutter sizes.

My appologies -- I stand corrected. Can you tell me the specific design of this Braunschweig Heliar 135 for my future reference?

Dan Fromm
30-Apr-2006, 07:48
Jack, a "heliar" (there's more than one type, just ask Ole) is essentially a tessar with the front singlet replaced by a cemented doublet.

Note that Heliar is a Voigtlaender trade name and that the current Cosina-made lenses engraved something or other-Heliar for 35 mm cameras have nothing in common with the original but the word Heliar.

Jack Flesher
30-Apr-2006, 10:32
Jack, a "heliar" (there's more than one type, just ask Ole) is essentially a tessar

I'm confused. Ole was the one who told me it isn't a Tessar and now you are telling me it is 'essentially' a Tessar which is what I thought originally, but to ask Ole...

If I have it right, it sounds like it is a 5-element, 3-group lens in Tessar configuration but with a doublet front -- but we can't call it a Tessar...

Dan Fromm
30-Apr-2006, 10:59
Heliar, 5 elements in four groups.

Tessar, 4 elements in three groups.

Not at all the same thing. But related. The heliar is in the tessar lineage. Or, depending on whose views you believe, both are in the Cooke triplet linage. Kingslake regards the tessar as a triplet derivative. Cox is with him. Rudolph, who invented the tessar, saw it as derived from the Protar, which he also invented. Choose your authority .

All names. What matters is that heliars typically have a bit less coverage than tessars BUT often (lotsa versions of the tessar, not so many of the heliars) better sharpness to the limit of coverage. Compare 101/4.5 Ektar (tessar type) with 100/3.5 Ektar (heliar type) as used on Medalists or 105/3.7 Ektar (ditto) as used on 2x3 Graphics.

Ole Tjugen
30-Apr-2006, 12:11
The Tessar seems to have evolved from a Protar, with an airspace introduced in one of the groups. So it's four elments in three groups.

The Heliar consists of two cemented pairs with a negative element somewhere close to midway between them. So in a way it resembles a Tessar where the single element is replaced by a cemented pair. But the placement of the negative element is much more similar to a triplet, ideally centrally between the outer positives. So the Heliar can also be seen as a triplet where the positive elements have been replaced by cemented pairs.

"There are different Heliars". Oh yes. Most of the Heliars you will see are strictly speaking Dynars - the only difference is the order of positive and negative elements in the cemented pairs. It seems that Voigtländer started marketing the Heliar, but then switched to the Dynar design while keeping the "hyped" name. The third version is the Oxyn, with one Dynar-type group and one Heliar-type. And then there's the Universal Heliar, with a movable negative element. I think these may actually be "real" Heliars, but I can't be sure since I haven't seen one.

As Dan Fromm mentioned, the modern Cosina Voigtlander Heliars have nothing in common with either type of Heliar - except the name.

Contrary to both common knowledge and published specifications, I have found my Heliars to have somewhat better coverage than Tessars. My 150mm f:4.5 Heliar (which normally sits on a Voigtländer Bergheil 9x12cm) just hits the corners of a 5x7" film at infinity. The sharpness is good all the way out until a few mm from the corners.

Arne Croell
1-May-2006, 09:58
"And then there's the Universal Heliar, with a movable negative element. I think these may actually be "real" Heliars, but I can't be sure since I haven't seen one."

You're right Ole, the Universal Heliars are "real" Heliars, not Dynars. I checked that on a late coated one (by counting and comparing the way reflections move when moving a light source). Interestingly, Voigtländer and Zeiss Ikon-Voigtländer showed the "real" Heliar diagram in the Heliar page of their brochures for the longest time, although all of their regular Heliars were Dynar types after WW II.

"As Dan Fromm mentioned, the modern Cosina Voigtlander Heliars have nothing in common with either type of Heliar - except the name."

That is true in general, also for many of the other lens names Cosina uses (e.g. Apo-Lanthar, Ultragon..). The one exception is the 50mm f/3.5 Heliar that was sold as limited edition for 2 special runs of the Bessa.

Jan_6568
2-May-2006, 16:15
I had probably exactly the same lens. It came with my old 9x12 cm format camera. When I got a Tachihara I put the Tessar into #1 lens board. It fits very well. You will have quite limited movements, much less then the camera gives to you. I must say I liked the Tessar very much, it was pretty sharp, but not too sharp, it had bokeh I liked, it gave nice sense of space. I sold it with the old camera and will probably buy another one.
Jan