Zeiss Jena Tessar 165mm f4.5

[Sorin Varzaru]

Anybody knows anything about this lens? Like coverage, sharpness, optimal apertu re, etc. I got one and since I can't use it on my 2x3 (physically too large) I d on't know what to do with it. To help deciding, I need to know what I have. (BTW , I know about the Tessar design specifics).

[Lloyd Frueh]

Zeiss Tessars were very good lenses with about 56 to 58 degrees of coverage. This will cover a 4x5 neg, but your movement will be extremely limited. Mount it and try it and you will see. If it is coated it is post WWII and if it is uncoated it is pre WWII. Your biggest problems may be the reliability of the shutter and the very limited movements.

[IanG]

Are you sure about that coverage.

A 135mm Tessar gives good coverage although limited movements on 5x4, so a 165 should be far better.

Ian

[Neil Purling]

I think that a Tessar type does better for coverage than 58deg.
I have a spreadsheet for calculating image circles from coverage & focal length.
The 165mm throws a circle of 183mm for 58deg coverage. My figure for a Tessar type of 62deg gives a 198mm circle.
However if you can't mount it on your 2x3 then it is no good to you.

[Ole Tjugen]

The 165mm tessar was made to give a little bit of movements on 10x15cm, which is quite a bit larger than 4x5" (about 9.8x12.6cm effective).

Indeed it was a common "normal lens" for "Postkartengrösse" (post card format) cameras.

[Kirk Fry]

I am not sure Zeiss ever made a bad lens in Germany. Someone correct me, but if it says Zeiss Jena, it was manufactured before the Goerz Zeiss merger in 1927, after that it was Zeiss Ikon. Tessar lenses are in general very good, they just have slightly less useful coverage than plasmats. People are paying over $500 for Kodak 14 inch and Nikkor 300mm tessars. They also have fewer elements than plasmats which were really not practical until coatings were invented due to internal flare. If not damaged, optically these lens are excellent. I have a 210mm Zeiss Jena Tessar that covers 8X10, I am not sure how good the cornerns are but there is light. As mentioned above, the problem will be the 70-100 year old shutter. The lenses come in compur or compound shutters that can usually be fixed, sometimes not. The elements do not directly fit in modern shutters, adapters have to be machined and usually by that time a modern lens and shutter purchased from Ebay makes more economic sense. K

[Per Madsen]

The 150 mm 4.5 tessars made in the late fifties for Linhof
by Carl Zeiss Oberkochen are extremely sharp and with
some movement.

[CP Goerz]

Actually a cheaper alternative to the Carl Zeiss Tessar and with better performance too is to use the bottom of an old glass Coke bottle. If you can find one and saw the bottom end off you'll be amazed and stunned at how no-one will be able to tell the difference!

[Bill_1856]

Actually a cheaper alternative to the Carl Zeiss Tessar and with better performance too is to use the bottom of an old glass Coke bottle. If you can find one and saw the bottom end off you'll be amazed and stunned at how no-one will be able to tell the difference!

In the deepest dungeon of a ruined castle, somewhere in Scotland, :) are the remains of three trash bins. It is still possible to barely make out the labels on them. The first says, "Coca-Cola glass," the second, "Zeiss Tessars," and the third, "brass-bound lenses of enormous focal lengths and uncertain ancestry." Someone has been rummaging through them for the past several years.

[CP Goerz]

EGADS! You swam the moat, stormed the walls, made your way through a labyrinth of corridors, through thick oak doors, bending ancient iron bars blocking your way to make it to the vault!!! You deserve a look ;-)

[Uli Mayer]

I am sure CP GOERZ's verdict on Tessars is well-founded and reproducible. As good testing practice calls for tools that are adequate to the object to be tested, for proper pairing he might go as far as to solely use Coke bottle bottoms as loupes when testing Tessars ( and sherds of Single Malt bottles for groundglass?) . :D

[Arne Croell]

I am not sure Zeiss ever made a bad lens in Germany. Someone correct me, but if it says Zeiss Jena, it was manufactured before the Goerz Zeiss merger in 1927, after that it was Zeiss Ikon.

The Zeiss Ikon Label was only used for cameras, not for lenses (or other optical instruments). The Carl Zeiss Jena label was used on lenses until the reunification in 1990, unless the lenses were made for a western market where the local laws gave the right to the Zeiss name to Zeiss Oberkochen in West Germany exclusively (after WWII). In that case, they were labeled "aus Jena" or similar (a few were even labeled "Ernst Abbe", actually quite fitting since he was the driving force behind Zeiss' achievements).

[Per Madsen]

I am sure CP GOERZ's verdict on Tessars is well-founded and reproducible. As good testing practice calls for tools that are adequate to the object to be tested, for proper pairing he might go as far as to solely use Coke bottle bottoms as loupes when testing Tessars ( and sherds of Single Malt bottles for groundglass?) . :D

Do I smell "Monty Python and The Holy Grail" here ?

[Uli Mayer]

Isn't it common knowledge that Zeiss used coconut halves (re-named "Unholy Jena Grails") for grinding lenses?