Ektar or Tessar for a beautiful bokeh?

[norm the storm]

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]

They are the same. They are both Tessars as far as design goes.

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

[Louis Pacilla]

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]

"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 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]

"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 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]

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 interesting.

If you want strong blur, then you'll want to investigate real portrait lenses, which come in a great variety of designs modern and ancient.

[goamules]

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/garrett...481717/detail/ It shows the difference in three designs, one of which is a Sonnar, my favorite design.

[Mark Sawyer]

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]

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]

Don't forget the Xenars which are also Tessars and my single coated 480mm f 4.5 is rely a bokeh machine;--)))

Cheers Armin