I've been vacillating lately between getting a Protar or another Tessar. They are both of the same period, but have somewhat different designs. Here's my question. Will I notice any difference between an image made with a Tessar vs. a Protar? Anybody can see the difference between images from a Petzval and a Tessar, and a Dagor from a Heliar, but is there much (if any) difference between a Protar and Tessar?
It's going to depend on which Tessar & Protar lenses you're comparing, what apertures you use etc. A good Tessar of any age is capable of excellent results but some are better than others, the slower CZJ Tessars like the f6.3 and f5.3 are the best in terms of coverage and edge sharpness. followed bt the f4.5.
Ian
I have shot with Zeiss Tessars from the 1920s for years and love them, but I recently acquired an early B&L Zeiss Protar and the sharpness out to the corners and reduced flare/increased contrast are evident on the ground glass. I haven't shot with the Protar yet so I don't have any side-by-side images to share, but to me there is a notable difference. My guess is a Protar will show its advantages over a Tessar when used wide open; stopped down the differences between the two lenses (coverage not withstanding) will be less evident.
Jonathan
Sorry for coming in late.
There were a very extensive range of lenses made under the Protar name, with quite different designs and performance characteristics. Without being specific about which Protar one uses, it would be difficult to extrapolate its results to another one.
That said, I have been using early Tessars and Protars of all descriptions, from the first release models with four to five elements, to the Double-Protars; in fact I have a Compur-mounted Double-Amatar which may also be considered as related. Used within their limits I feel they are all totally satisfactory, even for today's more stringent demands.
I, too, recently bought a B&L Zeiss Protar convertible; I have only used it sparingly so far, as the rear elements are in the shop for re-cementing.
In my very limited use of it, all I can say is that it seems to offer a contrast and tonal smoothness that is quite different in look from the Tessars I own.
Sharpness, edge-to-edge coverage, flare, etc I don't know about.
Quite a bit, actually. The Tessar has six air-glass surfaces, four of them internal. The Tessar in asymmetric. The Protar (I'm going on the assumption that you're referring to the most common, convertible Protar) has four air-glass surfaces, ony two are internal - plus it is a symmetrical lens, meaning the corrections are likely good over a wider range of ratios than the Tessar. The Protar will have better coverage, better corner sharpness, less flare, and better contrast with a smoothness that is more like a Dagor.Originally Posted by Brassai
One man's Mede is another man's Persian.
So why did the Tessar replace the Protar if the Protar is better?
That's what I was going to say; a Protar VII is a lot like a Dagor, and better corrected if only one element is used. Yes, I can see a difference, but it's more so between the f4.5 Tessar and the F6.3 Protar than between that and the F6.3 Tessar. If both are uncoated the contrast will be higher with a Protar VII.
Garrett
flickr galleries
The Tessar didn't replace the Protar, for decades they were sold side by side. Like a lot of lens choices, it was balancing cost with other tradeoffs. Here's a 1941 catalog (fm Cameraeccentric) where B&L are explaining when to use either lens. This being about 40 years after both designs were invented. An 8x10 Protar VII set was $257, an 8x10 Tessar IIb was $182.
Garrett
flickr galleries
Price, speed, ease of manufacture. Re this last, the more elements cemented, the more difficult centering them is.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks