Pros and cons of tessar design lens???

[stradibarrius]

I do not know much at all about lens design but I am curious about the good, the bad and the ugly of the tessar design.
What are it's strengths and weaknesses.
I am talking about a high quality Tessar like a Fujinon -W 150mm f/6.3 or other top maker.

[Alan Gales]

Google Ken Lee photography. Click on Ken Lee Photography-Photography in the Classic Tradition. Click on Tech at the top of the page. Scroll down about the middle of the page to Favorite Vintage Lenses for Portraits and Flowers. Ken gives some nice examples using Tessar lenses.

Also check out Ken's other photos for some great inspiration!

[stradibarrius]

Thanks for that info Alan! His work is excellent!

[Mark Sawyer]

The Tessar is one of the great classic designs for any format, but I feel like it fits large format especially well. Some are a bit limited in coverage, but not all. If you need "super-maximum" resolution, close down to f/22 or so, but I like them wide open.

[stradibarrius]

I was going to sell my Fujinon-W 150 f/6.3 which is a Tessar design but I am re-thinking it now. I also have a Symmar-s 180 f/5.6 and they are really close as far as focal length but not in design

[drew.saunders]

I have four LF Tessars: a 165/3.5 Zeiss Jena Tessar from about 1952, a 180/4.5 Schneider Xenar from 1960, a 250/4.7 Fuji Fujinar that I'm guessing is from about 1970 based on the type of Copal 3S shutter that it has, and a 200/8 M-Nikkor that I bought in about 2003 or so. The M-Nikkor is multicoated, the others all single coated. My sharpest lens of all the ones I own is the 200/8 Nikkor, my most "gentle focus" lens is the 165/3.5 Zeiss, but the 3 fast ones are all pretty sharp past f/8 or so. Of the three single-coated ones, only the Xenar is flare-prone, even with a hood. Even the fast ones are somewhat compact, especially in overall length, and the 200/8 Nikkor is barely larger than the shutter.

I have a 250/6.3 Fujinon-W and although the 250/4.7 Fujinar is heavier by 100g, it's quite a bit shorter, so I generally carry the Fujinar, even though the plasmat-design W has a much larger image circle, they're both more than enough for 4x5.

If the 150/6.3 Fujinon-W is indeed a Tessar, it'll have more limited coverage than a 150/5.6 plasmat design, but at a significant savings in weight and space. On the other hand, they don't go for a whole lot used, so keep it! Look here, about 1/3 of the way down, for information on your lens: http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/mid-rang.htm

[Kevin Crisp]

Other than less coverage I don't know of a downside to Tessars. Even uncoated ones can produce extraordinarily sharp photos. The little uncoated Zeiss gem on 1930's Rolleiflexes, for example.

[rdenney]

The tessar design is pretty flexible--probably any design objective could be achieved, with a couple of exceptions.

Those exceptions would include excellent lateral color correction at really wide apertures, and wide coverage. Of course, "normal" lenses for large format are plasmats, which are wide-angle designs derived from the dagor.

So, the pros are: Wide variety (versions can be found that would be appropriate for most applications), compact size for the focal length and aperture, low price.

And the cons are: Limited coverage, performance diminishes at edge of coverage (for older models), limited correction potential at very wide apertures (which is irrelevant for large format where the only lenses of such apertures are rarities).

Since most examples are older, their rendering of detail is not as crispy-fried as newer models, but that doesn't mean they don't render detail.

Rick "who owns a few tessars that are stinkers at some things" Denney

[BrianShaw]

Other than less coverage I don't know of a downside to Tessars. Even uncoated ones can produce extraordinarily sharp photos.

I was going to be even more brief than that... I know of no downside at all.

[E. von Hoegh]

Other than less coverage I don't know of a downside to Tessars. Even uncoated ones can produce extraordinarily sharp photos. The little uncoated Zeiss gem on 1930's Rolleiflexes, for example.

Yes, and they have a lovely character. In my experience the f6.3 versions are the best for large format, unless you want the look that the f4.5 versions give for portraits. The f3.5 coated version used on the Rolleiflex 3.5T was exceptional.

[Lynn Jones]

The most interesting thing about tessar type lenses is the contrast which is easily the highest of any conventional lens. It has just a bit more astigmatism than some other lenses (which you will never see unless you are an optical physicist) but the overall quality is superb, see Commercial Ektar, f 6.3 Caltar, Zeiss Tessars and the coverage is always around 55 or so degrees. Usually they don't like macro a lot, they will often soften up a bit at 1:1 or closer. When you compare these with some of the wide field type lenses, you may actually have to increase the development with WF lenses when compared to tessar types.

Lynn

[goamules]

The most interesting thing about tessar type lenses is the contrast which is easily the highest of any conventional lens. ...

Lynn

Except a Dagor. Or probably a Protar...or probably a....!

[Two23]

I have that f3.5 75mm Tessar on my 1951 Rolleiflex. It is a truly great lens. I also have a 1920s (?) 12 inch Wollensak Velostigmat, which I think is a Tessar. It too is a very nice lens that gives a very classy look.


Kent in SD

[E. von Hoegh]

Except a Dagor. Or probably a Protar...or probably a....!

The 355 MC Kern Dagors are in a class by themselves for contrast and color purity. One has to use one to understand this, though.

[Eric Rose]

I love Tessar's! If I could only use Tessar lenses I would be in a very happy place.

[CP Goerz]

'...the good, the bad and the ugly of the tessar '


Not much of the first, plenty of the second and lots of the third :-)

[John Kasaian]

Generally, Tessar designs will soften at the edges of a rather modest image circle, but not all Tessars are created equal.
The 14" Commercial Ektar is a superb lens and the 480mm Nikkor M is another truly great example with huge image circles and sharp even at the edges.

[E. von Hoegh]

I love Tessar's! If I could only use Tessar lenses I would be in a very happy place.

Whay can't you use a Tessar?

[Drew Wiley]

Tessars have six air/glass interfaces. Dagors have only four, so indeed, the late MC Kern
355 was probably the most flare-free LF lens ever made, and was remarkable for color purity too, though not quite equal to current plastmats in certain other respects. The late
Nikkor M lenses are superb too, also being multicoated. But whenever you take a lens
designation like either tessar or dagor, which have been made over generations in a great
variety of nuances, it's hard to make accurate generalizations. With older lenses in particular, you can have significant variation in quality control and shutter idiosyncasies.
I think the discussion would need to be narrowed somewhat to make it meaningful in real
world applications.

[Mark Sawyer]

I love Tessar's! If I could only use Tessar lenses I would be in a very happy place.


Why can't you use a Tessar?

As a wise man once said, "There's too many pretty women to love just one!"

[E. von Hoegh]

'...the good, the bad and the ugly of the tessar '


Not much of the first, plenty of the second and lots of the third :-)

Now now, I take exception to that! I understand the Tessar is a product of the dreaded $eiss, but Tessars are quite a nice lens, especially when one considers their origin.