PDA

View Full Version : Ektar or Tessar for a beautiful bokeh?



norm the storm
30-Jan-2012, 08:46
Hi

Now, I'm less confused about format and focal lenght.

If you have choice between a Tessar or an Ektar lens (300mm) at for the bokeh.
What will be your choice?

E. von Hoegh
30-Jan-2012, 08:54
They are the same. They are both Tessars as far as design goes.

Edit. http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses-primer/

Louis Pacilla
30-Jan-2012, 08:55
Both are Tessar formula. A four element lens made up of air spaced front group with a glued pair in the rear.

If your looking for a portrait lens mostly I would go with a Tessar Ic f4.5 Zeiss Tessar/B&L Tessar/Emil Glyptar/ Voigtlander Skopar /Wollensak Vellostigmat II are all about the same as tessar Ic.

If however your looking for an all around performer then go with the Commercial Ektar Or the Various forms of the Tessar IIb f6.3.

rdenney
30-Jan-2012, 10:10
"Beautiful" is subjective. And even within the "tessar" category, differences abound. I have made a specific bokeh test with small-format lenses (generally), but I did include a Bausch and Lomb Tessar Ic f/4.5 in the group. Its bokeh was ugly, with bright edges and a bright center spot on out-of-focus highlights. So, there you have it: Two people in as many posts recommending and not recommending the same lens based on a subjective evaluation.

Here's the deal with bokeh: Some like swirly patterns and all sorts of artifacts, and others prefer the broadest and smoothest rendering possible. I'm of the latter camp, but many, many large-format photographers just love those swirly patterns.

And there are other aspects, too. I like lenses that smoothly transition from focused details to unfocused details. Some lenses snap to focus which seems to me an effect that calls attention to itself rather than subtly supporting some other effect. Again, that is a subjective comparison and others might with equal validity and better examples argue the opposite.

There are few general truths, in my experience. Some plasmats are quite pleasing while others are harsh. In general, I revere the Sonnar design for its ultra-smooth rendering, but some lenses supposedly of that design do not provide pleasingly smooth bokeh at all. I've come to the conclusion that I just have to try a lens, and if it doesn't produce the smooth bokeh I prefer, I use it for sharp images only or I sell it. It's hard to predict whether I'll like the effect beforehand.

One lens I like in that regard in my collection: An old Ilex Paragon 8-1/2" f/4.5. It provides a vintage look while still being able to go quite sharp. It's a tessar design that makes a much smoother look than does that Bausch and Lomb of supposedly similar design.

Here's my article (http://www.rickdenney.com/bokeh_test.htm) on the topic, but it's centered on smaller formats and says nothing about lenses that produce noticeable patterns that many may desire. It reflects my own subjective evaluations.

Rick "an Ektar is a tessar, but there are tessars and there are tessars" Denney

E. von Hoegh
30-Jan-2012, 10:19
"Beautiful" is subjective. And even within the "tessar" category, differences abound. I have made a specific bokeh test with small-format lenses (generally), but I did include a Bausch and Lomb Tessar Ic f/4.5 in the group. Its bokeh was ugly, with bright edges and a bright center spot on out-of-focus highlights. So, there you have it: Two people in as many posts recommending and not recommending the same lens based on a subjective evaluation.

Here's the deal with bokeh: Some like swirly patterns and all sorts of artifacts, and others prefer the broadest and smoothest rendering possible. I'm of the latter camp, but many, many large-format photographers just love those swirly patterns.

And there are other aspects, too. I like lenses that smoothly transition from focused details to unfocused details. Some lenses snap to focus which seems to me an effect that calls attention to itself rather than subtly supporting some other effect. Again, that is a subjective comparison and others might with equal validity and better examples argue the opposite.

There are few general truths, in my experience. Some plasmats are quite pleasing while others are harsh. In general, I revere the Sonnar design for its ultra-smooth rendering, but some lenses supposedly of that design do not provide pleasingly smooth bokeh at all. I've come to the conclusion that I just have to try a lens, and if it doesn't produce the smooth bokeh I prefer, I use it for sharp images only or I sell it. It's hard to predict whether I'll like the effect beforehand.

One lens I like in that regard in my collection: An old Ilex Paragon 8-1/2" f/4.5. It provides a vintage look while still being able to go quite sharp. It's a tessar design that makes a much smoother look than does that Bausch and Lomb of supposedly similar design.

Here's my article (http://www.rickdenney.com/bokeh_test.htm) on the topic, but it's centered on smaller formats and says nothing about lenses that produce noticeable patterns that many may desire. It reflects my own subjective evaluations.

Rick "an Ektar is a tessar, but there are tessars and there are tessars" Denney

And just to keep the tetrapyloctomy at a high level, there are Ektars that are Tessars, Ektars that are Artars, Ektars that are all sorts of formulae. The faster Tessars generally but not always have harsher oofas. The word "bokeh" is not in my lexicon. ;)

Ken Lee
30-Jan-2012, 10:35
As Rick shows so well, different lenses - with the same name or designation - give different blur rendition.

Perhaps by coincidence, the large format Tessars lenses I have tested, do very nicely: no double-lines, no coma. You might find this brief article (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/lenses/index.php#Vintage) interesting.

If you want strong blur, then you'll want to investigate real portrait lenses (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/lenses/index.php#PortraitLenses), which come in a great variety of designs modern and ancient.

goamules
30-Jan-2012, 10:59
I like the look of both the IC and the IIB B&L Tessars, but I haven't done extensive tests on the out of focus areas. It's interesting how subjective bokeh is, like the two esteemed photographers above discuss. Some like a wild, in your face effect. Others like not being able to even notice the out of focus areas. Here is a test I did of three 50mm Canon rangefinder lenses (funny how we don't se LF lens tests for bokeh very often) http://www.flickr.com/photos/garrettsphotos/sets/72157628955481717/detail/ It shows the difference in three designs, one of which is a Sonnar, my favorite design.

Mark Sawyer
30-Jan-2012, 12:52
A beautiful Tessar that's seldom talked about is the single-coated ("Luminized") 12-inch Ektar f/4.5. Quite a different lens than the f/6.3 Commercial Ektar, less clinical-looking, but still with fine resolution, and the extra stop delivers something that the choked-down lens can't, at least for those ho appreciate such things. I suspect it was the competition for Wollensak's late single-coated ("Wolcoated") Velostigmat II and Raptar 12" f/4.5 lenses.

Hmmm, maybe I'll dig mine out of the lens dumpster today...

rdenney
30-Jan-2012, 13:33
I suspect it was the competition for Wollensak's late single-coated ("Wolcoated") Velostigmat II and Raptar 12" f/4.5 lenses.

And Ilex's Paragon. They even had a 12" f/4.5 Paragon with "focusable" front element to provide a graduated soft-focus effect.

Rick "often cheap when they appear, too" Denney

Armin Seeholzer
30-Jan-2012, 17:02
Don't forget the Xenars which are also Tessars and my single coated 480mm f 4.5 is rely a bokeh machine;--)))

Cheers Armin

John Berry
31-Jan-2012, 00:17
Pick a shutter that has some blades in it.

John Kasaian
31-Jan-2012, 00:25
Nor are all Ektars Tessars. .

Duane Polcou
31-Jan-2012, 01:58
I once had a college professor
Who would never let me second guess her
Then one day while showing an old pic
I was just too quick
For I knew a plasmat from a tessar

John Kasaian
31-Jan-2012, 02:51
WF Ektars are double gause, the 203 f7.7 is a dialye and the Aero Ektars were Biotars. :)

Mike Anderson
31-Jan-2012, 20:17
... tetrapyloctomy...

Excellent. I can't wait to work that one into casual conversation.

Ole Tjugen
1-Feb-2012, 00:37
Don't forget the Xenars which are also Tessars and my single coated 480mm f 4.5 is rely a bokeh machine;--)))

Cheers Armin

Nor are all Xenars Tessars. Admittedly I think it's only the very old Xenar Typ D f:3.5 which isn't, but..


Anyway there are so many variables (degrees of freedom) in the basic Tessar construction that it is impossible to generalise about bokeh or indeed anything else. Bokeh is a design decision, or influenced by other design decisions, and can be anything even in a basic simple Tessar-type lens.

IanG
1-Feb-2012, 02:23
Nor are all Xenars Tessars. Admittedly I think it's only the very old Xenar Typ D f:3.5 which isn't, but..


Also the 5 element pre-WWII S-Xenar f2.8.

Ian

Lynn Jones
1-Feb-2012, 10:14
Tessars tend to be more contrasty with better tone separation than plasmats and other wider angle lenses. I have had some problems with Xenars over the years and of course I grew up with Commercial Ektars as the stars in the photo world. However, with Calumet and Ilex, their tessars were an improvement on Commercial Ektars based on some new optical glasses and computer design. You can find them as f 6.3 Caltars, Ilex paragons, B&J Acutars, and BBOI Acu-Tessars.

With lenses such as 4 element tessars, there is no particular advantage to multi coating, single coating is just as good. The only reason some of these were multi-coated were because is because the puplic expected it assuming that they would be better which, of course, that wasn't necessarily true.

Lynn

E. von Hoegh
1-Feb-2012, 10:19
With lenses such as 4 element tessars, there is no particular advantage to multi coating, single coating is just as good. The only reason some of these were multi-coated were because is because the puplic expected it assuming that they would be better which, of course, that wasn't necessarily true.

Lynn

A Tessar has 4 internal sufraces, and there is (under some conditions) a noticeable difference between single coated and multicoated Schneider Xenars.

IanG
1-Feb-2012, 10:33
A Tessar has 4 internal sufraces, and there is (under some conditions) a noticeable difference between single coated and multicoated Schneider Xenars.

There might be but unfortunately Schneider never Multi coated the Xenars even those released in the begining of the last decade (2000).

Comparing an early 1950's CZJ 150mm f4.5 T coated Tessar to one of the last 150mm f5.6 Xenars produced both have excellent coatings but the Tessar has a distinct blueness which would need filetering out for colour work. I've used both lenses in conditions where the Zoom lenses on my Canon's have flare issues and both have been flare free so that may say a lot about the design.

Ian

Armin Seeholzer
1-Feb-2012, 10:44
A Tessar has 4 internal sufraces, and there is (under some conditions) a noticeable difference between single coated and multicoated Schneider Xenars.

But much less then with plasmats!

Armin

E. von Hoegh
1-Feb-2012, 10:49
There might be but unfortunately Schneider never Multi coated the Xenars even those released in the begining of the last deacade

Ian

I used a 210/6.1 Xenar that I could swear was multicoated. Maybe not...

IanG
1-Feb-2012, 11:19
I used a 210/6.1 Xenar that I could swear was multicoated. Maybe not...

The coating on my 150mm Xenar is excellent and at first glance could appear multi coated.

I think compared to a 1950's Xenar I had the later versions have substantially better coating, at some point Schneider significantly improved their coating and three of my non MC Super Angulons (75mm, 90mm & 165mm) aren't far behind MC lenses in terms of flare resistance, an early 65mm SA is OK but not quite as well coated.

Ian

Dan Fromm
1-Feb-2012, 13:51
Xenar coatings aren't mentioned here https://www.schneideroptics.com/pdfs/photo/Xenar_data.pdf and "MC" can't be seen on the lenses' barrels. Not conclusive, but very suggestive.

IanG
1-Feb-2012, 15:58
Schneider never made a secret of the Xenars and G-Clarons not being Multi coated and around a decade ago the main companies selling the last ones made the single coating a selling point suggesting it was better for B&W work.

It's perhaps interesting that the last two batches were only sold through a very small number of dealers, in the UK that was Robert White and MrCad.

Ian

Armin Seeholzer
3-Feb-2012, 11:27
Hi

Just have a look here:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=86529&highlight=bokeh


:) :) :)

drew.saunders
3-Feb-2012, 13:29
I have four LF Tessars:
c. 1958-1960 Zeiss Jena 165/3.5 Tessar, see avatar to the left. T coating (single coated). Very nice bokeh, I haven't had many flare problems with this lens.

1960 (gotta love Schneider's serial number web page) Schneider Xenar 180/4.5. Single Coated, Nice bokeh, very flare prone, but I've only used it once. I have a Lee hood w/ filter holders anyway.

Post 2001 Nikkor-M 200/8, MC. OK bokeh (a little double-line "problem" for areas behind the plane of focus), very very sharp, no flare.

Maybe 1970-ish Fujinar 250/4.7 Single Coated. Very nice bokeh, I haven't noticed much flare with this lens.

I do like that my older SC Tessars have "gentle" focus (as opposed to soft focus) and they're all very nice for portraiture. If I were to go shooting with just one lens, it's the Nikkor-M.

From my examples, it looks like fast tessar + single coating is a good combo for nice bokeh. This shouldn't be too surprising.

Drew