Zeiss Tessar Coverage

[Gordon Moat]

Greetings LF Forum,

Finally got my ancient Zeiss 21cm f4.5 mounted onto a Linhof board and onto my Shen-Hao. I did a quick look on the ground glass, and find that I run out of movements prior to running out of coverage. A search through the archives here indicates a 45º angle of coverage for a Tessar design. However, it seems that I have much more than that coverage even wide open at f4.5.

So seeing as how I have a degree in fine art, and not optics nor math, am I imagining the coverage to be larger? I used as much swing and tilt as I could, but did not exceed the coverage, even at f4.5. Is the angle of coverage actually greater than 45º or could this be a lens for 5x7 or even 8x10?
:confused:

Thanks for any replies.
:)

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Arne Croell]

Gordon, I didn't check on where you found the 45°, but that is either a typo (45 instead of 55) or refers to an Apo-Tessar process lens. The official Zeiss numbers for the f/4.5 series were 55° wide open, and 60° stopped down.

[John Kasaian]

Gordon,

Some tessars are like that. The 450 Nikkor M and the 14" Kodak Commercial Ektar that I have exhibit huge image circles, and are sharp almost to the very edges, quite unlike the usual tessars that are sharp in the center of the image circle and rapidly go to the worms the farther you stray from the straight and narrow. I have no idea why this is, but its kind of nice, isn't it?

[Gordon Moat]

Thanks for the reply Arne. I noticed your name often when I did the search, and I still have that issue of ViewCamera (July/August 2003) with your article. My thought was that I might have a process lens, since it is in barrel, and does not match any specifications in the chart with the article. So now it seems I have a regular lens, but my front filter size is much smaller than the M67x0.75 of your chart.

Anyway, 55º makes much more sense for what I am observing. Just for reference, the lens is a 21cm f4.5 with 18 bladed aperture stopping down to f45.0. The serial number listed is Nr. 1638815, with Carl Zeiss Jena on the lens. Best I can tell this is pre-WWII.

Again, thanks for the help and quick reply. Now I need to go out and photograph something with this, maybe some night exposures.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Gordon Moat]

Gordon,

Some tessars are like that . . . . . sharp almost to the very edges, . . . . . I have no idea why this is, but its kind of nice, isn't it?

Hello John Kasaian,

Agreed on that. I am very surprised by this lens. If I would have known this, I would have made much more effort to get this lens mounted onto a board sooner. I even managed to find an aluminium Carl Zeiss Germany felt lined lens cap about a year ago . . . basically, this is my only shutter for this. Probably try some night exposures with this soon.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Arne Croell]

Thanks for the reply Arne. I noticed your name often when I did the search, and I still have that issue of ViewCamera (July/August 2003) with your article. My thought was that I might have a process lens, since it is in barrel, and does not match any specifications in the chart with the article. So now it seems I have a regular lens, but my front filter size is much smaller than the M67x0.75 of your chart.

Anyway, 55º makes much more sense for what I am observing. Just for reference, the lens is a 21cm f4.5 with 18 bladed aperture stopping down to f45.0. The serial number listed is Nr. 1638815, with Carl Zeiss Jena on the lens. Best I can tell this is pre-WWII.

Again, thanks for the help and quick reply. Now I need to go out and photograph something with this, maybe some night exposures.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

Hi Gordon, your lens is indeed pre -WWII, it was made in 1935. The design date is 1929, and thus it is the same design as most of the postwar 210mm f/4.5 Tessars, except for the coating. Barrel mounts can change over 50 years or more, the 67mm was based on some specimens I had and postwar catalogs. Most LF Tessars were sold in barrel, so this does not indicate a process lens here - and f/4.5 is not a value you usually see on process lenses.

Arne

[Ole Tjugen]

Most of the pre-war process Tessars were f:9 to f:15, and very clearly marked Apo-Tessar. The "normal" Tessars were mostly f:4.5 (in the common LF lengths) or f:6.3 (the very long ones, like my 50cm).

It's a (fairly) safe bet that a Tessar f:4.5 with a focal length between 135 and 360mm focal length will have 55 degrees coverage.

[Dan Fromm]

Ole, there were also shortish f/6.3 Tessars. For example my 130/6.3 and 150/6.3, both CZJ lenses and both made in 1912. And mid-1930s 150/6.3 that Jim Galli surprised me with. Shorter ones exist; I recently decided not to bid on a 90/6.3 CZJ Tessar of about the same vintage.

[Arne Croell]

Ole, there were also shortish f/6.3 Tessars. For example my 130/6.3 and 150/6.3, both CZJ lenses and both made in 1912. And mid-1930s 150/6.3 that Jim Galli surprised me with. Shorter ones exist; I recently decided not to bid on a 90/6.3 CZJ Tessar of about the same vintage.
Dan is right. A 135 and 210mm f/6.3 were continued after WWII, actually they were redesigns from 1947. Zeiss claimed 70° coverage for those, stopped down well I assume.

[erie patsellis]

Arne,
I have a 10.5cm tessar, that covers 4x5, I'm not sure how sharply, but covers with room to spare.


erie

[Gordon Moat]

Hello Arne and Ole,

Thanks for the comments and information. While I don't own an 8x10, it almost seems like this lens would just barely cover 8x10, though it seems it might have been originally sold for 5x7 (or continental size near that). Amazingly bright on the ground glass at f4.5. The only trouble I have is that it is very heavy, and i think hanging a shutter off the front would be too much weight. It would be nice to have a filter adaptor for it, but the thread size is very different than modern filters.

Thanks again to all for the help and comments.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Bill_1856]

No doubt about it, the Zeiss Tessar was, is, and apparently will be continue to be an extraordinary optic. Is the cemented pair in front or behind the aperture in the Zeiss version? Also in the Commercial Ektars?

[Gordon Moat]

Hello Wilhelm,

On the one I have, the 18 blade aperture is between the front two elements (individual), and the rear pair (doublet). I don't really know if that is the normal construction of what I now know is a barrel Tessar, or if other Tessar lenses are similar.

The lens had a protective layer of dust when I got it, but cleaned up very easily. I ended up using white out on the numerals for the aperture settings, but otherwise it just looks super old. Other than the weight, it is almost an unassuming lens . . . until I mounted it onto the camera and saw the image on the ground glass.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[CP Goerz]

Every once in a while I like to get the feel for the tessar so I take a Dagor and look at how wide and wonderful the image on the groundglass looks. I then take both hands and make a telescope like you did when we were kids and I squint my eye up while looking through the 'telescope' and...abracadabera! The Tessar look!! ;-)


CP Goerz.

[Ole Tjugen]

Gordon, if you look at my avatar you'll see a 300mm f:4.5 Xenar hanging on the front of a Technika 5x7" - held by yours truly. It's a truly massive lens - the Xenar was in a #5 Compound. The Xenar is a Tessar-type lens. And the Compound #5 has 23 aperture blades...

It was originally made for 18x24cm, the metric "equivalent" of 8x10". It covers 8x10" with a little bit of movements.

What you have described is indeed a "standard" Tessar. Any other construction is not a Tessar, but may well be a derivative - like many of the Leitz Elmar lenses which have the aperture between the two front elements.

[Ole Tjugen]

A little historical note, now that I've been proved wrong (again) about the f:6.3 Tessar:

In 1910 there were four "series" of Tessars: Serie Ic, f:3.5 in 21, 25 and 30cm focal lengths; Serie IIb f:4.5 in 12 to 50cm focal lengths; the f:6.3 (no Series designation) from 12 to 59cm; and the Apo-Tessar f:9 to f:15, 32 to 180cm.

:)

[Gordon Moat]

Good morning Ole,

I suppose there might be a shutter that would work on my 21cm, perhaps even a Compound 5 or similar sized shutter. Just getting the lens board set-up took lots of lucky finds and a little construction. I would be inclined to hang a shutter in front of the lens, since there is very little room left on the lens board; my guess is anything bigger might run into the lens board lock at the top, which is bevelled on the Shen-Hao.

So for now I just want to do a few test images. Since I do lots of night shots on transparency films, and these are often several minute exposures, these will be my first test runs. If the results seem promissing enough, then I might look for a shutter solution.

The other aspect is I have really very very little money into this lens, even with finding a lensboard and mounting ring. The few large leaf shutters I have seen often go for over $100, which would put this entire project too close to modern lens prices. A Packard shutter is another thought, though I am not too sure about front mount adapters. Another thought is those roller blind shutters, though I wonder if weight is an issue.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Ole Tjugen]

Based on my experience with the Schneider equvalent, the Xenar, there's a fair chance that your 210mm f:4.5 Tessar might mount easily in a #3 Compound. Unfortunately the threads are not quite the same as the Copal #3...

[Gordon Moat]

The mounting adapter ring I got is 60mm inside diameter threaded, which connects with the back of the barrel. This ring has four countersunk screw holes, so I was able to drill a 64mm Linhof board and place the adapter on that.

I found the larger image for your avatar on your website, and it does seem your 300mm is larger diameter than my 21cm Tessar. Just checking Compound #3 size, it almost seems like the correct diameter. I don't know how well something like that would work with a lens hanging off the front. The shutter diameter is near 90mm, which seems like a really tight fit . . . not much room left for putting the lensboard on the camera.

All the old pictures of a Tessar with shutter I have run across indicate the shutter placed where the aperture sits. Unfortunately my Tessar would not come apart and go together like that without some machining work, at which point it would then cost more than a used modern lens. So I could fit a shutter to either the back or front of the barrel.

A Copal #3 would be nice, except for the cost. It would allow flash sync and a nice range of speeds. I think a Compound shutter lacks flash sync capability, and is probably not very cheap on the used market. Anyway, until I see some results from this lens, I don't want to put any money towards a shutter.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Ernest Purdum]

Some Compound shutters do have flash synch, but you are right in thinking that a good large one will not be cheap.

[David A. Goldfarb]

A 210mm Tessar probably has plenty of image circle for 4x5", but you might want to try some tests to see just how much of the image circle is really sharp.

Once I was attempting to photograph a church with a relatively modern 150/4.5 Xenar using a lot of front rise, and even though I could see the cross on the steeple on the groundglass, no amount of refocusing or stopping down could make it sharp. I couldn't get the view I wanted by standing closer with a 90/8 Super-Angulon, and there wasn't a safe place to stand with the 210/5.6 Symmar, so I just passed on that shot that day.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

A Copal #3 would be nice, except for the cost. It would allow flash sync and a nice range of speeds. I think a Compound shutter lacks flash sync capability, and is probably not very cheap on the used market. Anyway, until I see some results from this lens, I don't want to put any money towards a shutter.

Gordon,

A Copal No. 3 shutter for this lens wouldn't make economic sense. Front mounting this lens (and other barrel mounted lenses) on a large Compound shutter would make more sense. Front mounting is much less expensive than central mounting, and lets you readily share a single shutter among several lenses. I have a Compound No. 5 I bought for just this purpose. It has no aperture diaphram - not a problem as front mounting uses the iris in the original barrel to set the aperture. Because of this, I didn't pay a lot for the shutter. As some of these old Compound shutters had diaphram blades made out if stiff paper, they are sometimes destroyed when DIY CLA is attempted by soaking them in lighter fluid (or other solvents). If you can find one without the aperture diaphram blades, it would be an affordable solution to use with your Tessar and other barrel lenses.

A couple years ago, I bought several late production (post 1984), barrel mounted Tessars in various focal lengths. They were dirt cheap and excellent values for the money. I use these with an old LUC shutter. This is similar to a Packard, but designed to be mounted on the front of the lens. It has three adjustable pins for fitting it to lenses of different diameters. This would be likely be the cheapest shutter for use with your lens, but like the Packard the speeds are limited. Also, I've never seen a LUC shutter with flash synch. I know synch can be added to Packard with a microswitch, but don't know if a LUC shutter would permit such modification.

Kerry

[David A. Goldfarb]

I have a shutter that is like a Luc shutter (and may in fact be a Luc shutter) with flash sync added by Frank Marshman. It was a fairly easy modification and not too expensive.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

I have a shutter that is like a Luc shutter (and may in fact be a Luc shutter) with flash sync added by Frank Marshman. It was a fairly easy modification and not too expensive.

Gitzo also made a similar shutter - and much more recently. I'll have to check mine to see if it has a flash synch. I don't use flash. So, I never notice these things until somebody asks.

A slightly more expensive, but far more versatile solution, is to adapt a Sinar shutter to your camera. I did this with my 7x17 Franken-ARCA to use barrel mounted process lenses with a "real" shutter. I got an older Norma style Sinar shutter in unused condition, in the original box with the dedicated cable release for just over $200. I probably spent about another $125 for the bits and pieces needed to adapt it to my ARCA-SWISS front standard, but I ended up with an accurate, reliable shutter with speeds from 8 sec to 1/60 sec that I can use with a wide variety of barrel mount lenses. Even newer style Sinar shutters seem to go for around $400 on eBay these days. Not cheap, but not much more than a Copal No. 3 - and you only have to buy one for all your barrel mount lenses.

Kerry

[Gordon Moat]

Hello David and Kerry,

When I used the front and rear swing with my Shen-Hao to the limit stops, the image on the ground glass was still sharp, and stayed in focus. I tried the same with the tilt movements, and the image edges were sharp; interesting thing is that the bellows blocked the view on the ground glass prior to running out of movement. Last test was using all the rear shift and rise possible on the Shen-Hao, and still n vignetting, and everything still sharp and in focus. While I did only test this on the ground glass, and with a TOYO 3.6x loupe, I think that indicates a fairly good amount of coverage.

I remember the mention in a previous View Camera article about the LUC shutter. However, it is nice to know that a Compound #5 is what I should be looking to find. The idea behind a flash sync was that I could use the very short flash duration to stop action, while a slower shutter timing would allow balancing ambient light. If a Compound #5 has okay faster shutter speeds (even 1/30 or 1/15 could be workable), then I could probably work with that. Not a huge hurry to find a shutter; better to find a good deal. Thanks for the information about the aperture blades.

What amazes me a little lately is the crazy prices for some very old lenses and shutters. I don't know if that means several individuals battling it out for 8x10 and larger capable gear, or some odd trend. There does not seem to me to be much reason for spending a great deal on very old gear for 4x5 usage, since there are so many reasonably priced more modern lenses and shutters on the market.

Finally, an related question on this. I run across some odd roller blind shutters every once in a while. So far not many good prices, though some prior auctions had reasonable results. A Google and Yahoo search just are not helping me on these, so I cannot find much information about them. Are these types something common, and what issues would I encounter? Would the weight be excessive on front of a barrel lens? Thanks for any information.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Gordon Moat]

Yeah, I looked at a Sinar shutter a few years ago, prior to having this lens. I could almost kick myself now for not getting it. At the time I was working on a superwide medium format camera mounting Nikon 35mm lenses, and needed some sort of shutter solution. I found the Sinar shutter on Craig's List for $40, but for some stupid reason did not get it . . . oh well.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Gordon,

Oops, I just went back and re-read your original post and see that you are using a 4x5 Shen-Hao. The front standard is definitely too small to accomodate a Sinar shutter and the lens board may be too small for a Compound No. 5 shutter. The nice thing about the Compound No. 5 is that even though it has a very large diameter, it isn't overly heavy. I'll check mine tonight to see if it can be mounted on a Linhof style board.

Kerry

[Gordon Moat]

Okay, so now I don't feel so bad about passing up that Sinar shutter.
:)

[Arne Croell]

Gordon,

Oops, I just went back and re-read your original post and see that you are using a 4x5 Shen-Hao. The front standard is definitely too small to accomodate a Sinar shutter and the lens board may be too small for a Compound No. 5 shutter. The nice thing about the Compound No. 5 is that even though it has a very large diameter, it isn't overly heavy. I'll check mine tonight to see if it can be mounted on a Linhof style board.

Kerry
Gordon and Kerry, a Compound V does not fit on a Linhof board. The Compound IV is the largest that can be used there. However, the Compound IV I have has a front thread of 68mm diameter. Since Gordon's lens is in an N60 barrel mount, I think, with 60mm mounting thread, front mounting on a Compound IV with an adapter ring should be feasible.

[Gordon Moat]

Hello Arne,

The barrel on my Zeiss does indeed have N60 stamped on it, and threading measures approx. 60mm. I suppose a Compound IV shutter sounds more likely. Is there a reliable way to identify these, other than finding out the opening threading size (markings, numbers, etc.)? Would I be better off with one of those roller blind shutters? Thanks in advance.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Gordon and Kerry, a Compound V does not fit on a Linhof board. The Compound IV is the largest that can be used there. However, the Compound IV I have has a front thread of 68mm diameter. Since Gordon's lens is in an N60 barrel mount, I think, with 60mm mounting thread, front mounting on a Compound IV with an adapter ring should be feasible.

That sounds like the way to go. I believe Compound No. 4 shutter are also more plentiful and less costly than the No. 5 size. There just aren't a lot of No. 5 shutters floating around and they tend to command premium prices. There are some big, desirable lenses that just won't fit in anything smaller. The only reason I got a good deal on mine was the missing aperture diaphram made it unusable for central mounting some big, exotic lens with massive coverage (like a 24" Dagor).

The huge 171mm lens boards on my ARCA-SWISS makes me forget just how small those Linhof boards are. In general, I prefer small and light, but when it comes to ULF, some of the lenses are just too darn big to fit in those small boards - especially some of the more affordable long focal length process lenses.

On a side note, does anyone know where I can get some reasonably priced replacement flanges for the Zeiss barrel mounted Tessars? One of my lenses came without a flange and the N60 and N70 size from my 210mm and 250mm Tessars are currently being shared with two other barrel lenses (270mm Graphic-Kowa and 480mm f11 APO Ronar-CL) I'm using on the 7x17. I do have have an adjustable iris clamp, but for the heavier lenses, I'd prefer a dedicated rigid mounting flange.

Kerry

[Gordon Moat]

Hello Kerry,

The EBAY seller I got my flange mount from is called artinprogress (http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQfgtpZ1QQfrppZ25QQsassZartinprogress). I originally ordered what I thought was the correct one, but was the wrong size. This seller has an exchange policy, and after a few e-mails to confirm my metric measurement and his standard measurement, he sent me another flange ring in exchange. The replacement was an exact fit. They seem to have many of these flanges.

Now if I could find a filter that fit on the lens, or figure out what might work, then I would be better off. However, maybe I want to hold off on that in case I front mount a shutter. It would be nice to know what the filter mount is supposed to be, since it seems non-standard (or at least not like modern sizes). Or maybe I have the front threading figured out wrong, and this is supposed to take a slip-on filter (Series size something or other)?

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Gordon,

Thanks, I'll check it out. They certianly have a lot of flanges for sale. Hopefully, they'll have something to fit my lenses. I need a couple N60 and one N70 flanges. Do you recall what size he specified that was a perfect fit for your 210mm Tessar with N60 mount?

Thanks,
Kerry

[Gordon Moat]

Hello Kerry,

Unfortunately I don't have many notes on the exchange left. The first one I got was listed as 2.45", which was too large. As best I can recall, the correct replacement was 2.42". Part of our e-mail exchange I mentioned possible sizes, and threading was a questionable aspect, but the seller seemed to think he had exactly the one I needed, and sent it; turns out he was right. I don't know how good their records are for sales or exchanges, but maybe the seller remembers my name; so feel free to mention me. A strange aspect of the replacement item is that it has a decal with Germany written on it.

I think on the measurement that including the thread depth might help. The seller had an error margin of + or - 0.025". I would think finding another N60 would be easy, though not sure on the N70. Hope that helps.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Kirk Fry]

Gordon,

I have one of these babies in a dial set compur that Grimes rebuilt. I put it on my 8X10 assuming it would cut the corners or make mush out of them. It seemed to cover. I used my loupe and it looked sharp in the corners but I never actually tried it on film. I figure mine is pre-WWI. Did Zeiss ever make a bad lens?

K

[Arne Croell]

Hello Arne,

The barrel on my Zeiss does indeed have N60 stamped on it, and threading measures approx. 60mm. I suppose a Compound IV shutter sounds more likely. Is there a reliable way to identify these, other than finding out the opening threading size (markings, numbers, etc.)? Would I be better off with one of those roller blind shutters? Thanks in advance.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

Gordon, the Compound IV has 1/75th of a second as fastest speed, the no. III 1/100th, and the no. V 1/50th, so that way you can distinguish them. In addition, the air brake on top is the same size for all of them, so if you have seen a few, it is easy to tell them apart by the size relation between shutter body and air brake housing.

[Gordon Moat]

Danke sehr Arne,

Great information on the Compound Shutters. Definitely 1/75 second would work fine for most of the shooting I do.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Arne Croell]

Gordon, here is a size comparison of the III, IV, and V Compound shutters, from left to right. Note that the air brake stays the same size.

Arne

[Ole Tjugen]

Again referring to my avatar, that 300mm Xenar is in a #5 Compound. It worked just fine hand held, until my arms started to shake from the 8kg weight.

The photo I shot on that occasion is here: http://www.bruraholo.no/bilder/handheld.jpg
Looking at the negative, the branches of the small birch tree in front of the tallest waterfall are absolutely sharp. Some of the smaller twigs may have been lost, but all in all it's not bad for a 300mm at 1/75, hand held...

[Gordon Moat]

Hello Arne,

Okay, so the top mechanism is largely the same, while the overall diameter changes. It seems to me that your 24cm is about the size of my 21cm, so a Compound IV would be a good match. Looks like you have a flash sync post on two of these, unless that is something else?

Ole, I don't think I will be shooting handheld, unless maybe I get a Fig Rig (http://www.manfrotto.com/webdav/site/manfrotto/shared/_images/Manfrotto/product_images/zoom/595B_system.jpg) to try that. Anyway, the idea of the shutter speeds was simply to stop some motion. I did a lifestyle shoot recently at 1/8 second off a tripod, though the strobes actually stopped the motion of the talent on this shoot. I think people shots are fine at 1/15 second, at least somewhat reliably.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Arne Croell]

Hello Arne,

Okay, so the top mechanism is largely the same, while the overall diameter changes. It seems to me that your 24cm is about the size of my 21cm, so a Compound IV would be a good match. Looks like you have a flash sync post on two of these, unless that is something else?

A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

Gordon, yes those are sync posts. Compounds were manufactured until at least the late 1960's, and except for the earliest ones (like my 210mm) all of the postwar Compounds have sync posts.

[Gordon Moat]

Hello LF Forum,

Just a short update to my original post. I ran some tests with the lens, and I am really amazed at the results. While the fastest I can manage is 2 seconds with my lens cap shutter and hand, this is something that works well for the moment. Checked on one old shutter already, but after what Arne mentioned on sync posts I think that will work better; though no need to rush that. Next thing is for me to get a filter adapter set-up for this lens, then some more tests. Anyway, thanks for all the help.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Ole Tjugen]

Gordon, yes those are sync posts. Compounds were manufactured until at least the late 1960's, and except for the earliest ones (like my 210mm) all of the postwar Compounds have sync posts.

I've only ever seen Compounds with "regular" PC sockets. Was the sync posts a variety for the US market?

[Kirk Fry]

So I dug my Zeiss Tessar Jena 6.3 f out No 277606 in a Dial Set Compur and looked at it.
Yikes, the front element is screwed in to a brass adapter that is screwed into the shutter. I would guess it has been remounted in the shutter. So I take everything back about prewar Zeiss lenses being in Dial Set Compurs. Not this one. But is does cover a 8X10. Kirk

[omnibook2100]

Arne,
I have a 10.5cm tessar, that covers 4x5, I'm not sure how sharply, but covers with room to spare.


erie

Have you ever made any tests with it? I'm asking as it seems I have the same one. I've tried it on a 4x5 and it works, as it projects on the gg without vignetting, but my film back has an issue and i haven't been able to make further tests to determine the actual sharpness on film.

Thanks.

[Dan Fromm]

Have you ever made any tests with it? I'm asking as it seems I have the same one. I've tried it on a 4x5 and it works, as it projects on the gg without vignetting, but my film back has an issue and i haven't been able to make further tests to determine the actual sharpness on film.

Thanks.

You are grasping at straws. You've been told, and not just by me, that illuminate doesn't mean cover and that 105/4.5 Tessars don't cover 4x5.

I appreciate that you want a cheap wide angle lens that will cover 4x5 and allow movements. A 105/4.5 Tessar won't do what you want. Accept reality and go forward.

[omnibook2100]

You are grasping at straws. You've been told, and not just by me, that illuminate doesn't mean cover and that 105/4.5 Tessars don't cover 4x5.

I appreciate that you want a cheap wide angle lens that will cover 4x5 and allow movements. A 105/4.5 Tessar won't do what you want. Accept reality and go forward.

I'm sorry but I sense a bit of irritation in the way you wrote. If I hadn't seen "covers 4x5" and also "with room to spare" by Erie patsellis I wouldn't have bothered asking again. If you see my original post regarding this I asked whether it works on 4x5 or if it useless.

So far I have been receiving different replies and the only thing that they agree with is probably the lack of sharpness. And by the way I have moved on as I have ordered a lens.

I would generally say though that keeping a cool head is very important when trying to help someone that knows less than you. You can imagine yourself first starting with photography in general.

Thanks though for all the help you have offered.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dan Fromm]

Oh, dear, that must have stung a little.

There's a reason why no one who responded to your question about a w/a lens (I think you asked about 90 mm) for 4x5 suggested a Tessar. We use 127 mm Tessar types that just barely cover 4x5. Shorter ones don't.

We've had discussions about whether to purge badly incorrect or misleading posts. It won't happen. Until it does, i.e., for ever and then some, please please be skeptical about everything you read on the internet, including on this forum.

If there were hope that beginners would start at the beginning by reading this site's FAQs I'd write one "Apparently good ideas that just don't work." One of them is that lenses with focal lengths shorter than normal for 4x5 are all wide angle lenses for 4x5. People keep asking about, for example, 75 mm lenses extracted from oscilloscope camera. Cheap, cheerful, won't cover 4x5. People keep asking about lenses for from Polaroid gelcams and such and MP-4 lenses. Cheap, cheerful, won't cover 4x5. And they keep asking about ~ 100 mm triplets and Tessar types harvested from 6x9 folders. Sing the refrain again.

We all want really inexpensive w/a lenses for 4x5 and larger formats. Every once in a while one of us finds a grossly underpriced w/a lens for 4x5 or a larger format. Not often, though. In general, the world isn't providing them. I wish it were so.

[erian]

A little historical note, now that I've been proved wrong (again) about the f:6.3 Tessar:

In 1910 there were four "series" of Tessars: Serie Ic, f:3.5 in 21, 25 and 30cm focal lengths; Serie IIb f:4.5 in 12 to 50cm focal lengths; the f:6.3 (no Series designation) from 12 to 59cm; and the Apo-Tessar f:9 to f:15, 32 to 180cm.

:)

Le Rêve Edition Krauss dossier includes also mentioning of 60cm f:6:3 Tessar that was made by Krauss by Zeiss licence and also 100cm f:6:3 Tessar that was made for aerial photography.