zeiss tessar f6.5/130mm

[brianT]

can anyone please advise of the quality of this lens

[brianT]

sorry, should be f6.3

[Sevo]

f/6.3 was the original Tessar design. It has a good reputation, and before WWI, it was at least as good as the faster f/4.5 variation. Coverage of Tessars (except for some later Tessar derived wide angles) is modest - a 130mm will have been intended for quarter plate without movements. After WWI, the f/4.5 version had caught up in quality, and replaced the f/6.3 on the market, but f/6.3 ones still were built for a long time, mostly as process or enlarger lenses. As these are optimized for close or even very close distance, they could be a disappointment in pictorial use. So it will really depend on what you have.

[Dan Fromm]

Sevo, by all accounts f/6.3 Tessars cover a larger angle and are sharper than f/4.5s. Arne Croell has reported that the 1911 f/6.3 Tessar prescription wasn't recalculated until after WW-II. Some "between-the-wars" examples were sold with front cell engraved Vergrosserung and rear cell engraved Verkleinerung to indicate how the lens should be oriented for enlarging/taking below 1:1 and making reductions/taking above 1:1. But as far as I I know all the same elements and spacing.

I shoot a 1912 130/6.3 Tessar extracted from a Folding Pocket Kodak on a 2x3 Graphic. My little 130/6.3 gives nothing away to my newer lenses of similar focal lengths. Can't address its usability on 4x5. The newer ones? 127/4.7 Tominon, 135/5.6 convertible Symmar, 135/6.8 Beryl and Perigraphe VIb. All of these are a little worse than my 135/10 Apo Saphir.