Praktisix Tessar question

strl · Joined: 28 Dec 2008 Posts: 11

Hello all and Merry Christmas (although a bit later).

I ran into an old 80mm Tessar in Pentacon Six mount.
The focusing ring is leather-covered, so I assume it is from the Practisix times.
Is this lens any good for shooting, or should I consider the cheaper Biometar n the same mount?

Thanks a lot.

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

Welcome nice to see you here!

I have this lens , very rare I seen only one copy (mine) till this time.
I think more less same than Biometar if you not excited about this rare piece please offer here to sell and buy a cheaper and more common Biometar.

http://www.mflenses.com/gallery/v/german/zeiss/Carl+Zeiss+Jena+Biometar/
http://forum.mflenses.com/carl-zeiss-jena-tessar-2-8-80mm-p6-t13011,highlight,tessar.html#109535

strl · Joined: 28 Dec 2008 Posts: 11

Thank you. It appears to be a very nice lens, and the fact that it is rare makes it even more interesting. I'll give it some more thought.

PaulC · Joined: 23 Dec 2008 Posts: 2318

I just got one attached to a Pentacon yesterday. It was made in 1956 and discontinued within a year to be replaced with the Biometar, apparently because it wasn't considered good enough. Mine has some damage to the rim and the lens barrel, so maybe the position of the lenses has been disturbed; however when I ran tests on it today attached to my 5D I was disappointed with the performance. The centre was sharp enough, but the image quality deteriorated significantly in the corners - and remember, this is a 35mm sensor, not a 6x6.

The Biometar is a Planar-design, which seems generally to be considered superior to the Tessar.

Funny that two 80mm Tessars should come out of the woodwork on the same day, isn't it?

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

PaulC · Joined: 23 Dec 2008 Posts: 2318

80mm ... this one:

You can see some damage above "Carl Zeiss" and slight flattening of the outer barrel in front of the f11 stop mark.

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

Now it is clear Pentacon Six, thank you!

Rob Leslie · Joined: 20 Mar 2007 Posts: 1103 Location: UK Swindon

The Tessar was a simple 4 element design which was designed in 1902.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tessar
It gained popularity from the 1930�s as it was better than the majority of the Triplet lenses used on cameras. A simple design was always good but during the 30s, 40�s and 50�s the main problem was quality of glass and cost of precision machining. Things improved in the late 50�s and the Tessar became a relatively common and cheap lens. By the mid and late sixties many people (Myself included) were using much better lenses and the Tessar lost its reputation.
My first SLR had a f2.8 Tessar and at the time I thought it was fantastic. Then I had a Pentax fitted with the Super Takumar f1.8 55mm. My eyes were opened. I still have and use the f1.8 55mm and I have a Tessar. A f3.5 50mm Industar!
The poor old Tessar doesn't even come close to later designs. it was the very best before the WWII but things never stay the best or even good. Its very simple 4 element triplet design made it real easy to manufacture and a lot of companies made a good profit from it. It paid them to Hype it up as a great lens and they got away with it for years.

http://www.panix.com/~zone/photo/czlens.htm

PS If you are ever tempted to buy a Tessar (Perhaps one of the nice looking silver models) always check the lens with a flash light. Lens cement wasn't very good years ago and you find a lot of these lenses look a bit fogged because the cement has gone off. Tessars of the 1950's are well known for it. I was young when I mounted mine on the enlarger to try it out. It lasted about two minutes!

strl · Joined: 28 Dec 2008 Posts: 11

Wow, thanks muchly, this was a really informative and useful post!

A G Photography · Joined: 11 May 2008 Posts: 1480 Location: Bologna - Italy

Hmmm I guess I have to post some example with my Tessars as I found out that they're not so low quality and surpassed.

Yeah sure they had planariety problems at corners but as in most things good copies still fight well with the most expensive lenses (as also some triplets).

Btw, russian macros like the Volna 9 and the Industar 61 are made with a Tessar design (and, surprise surprise, also the pretty recent Leica Elmar-M 50mm f/2,8 ). Sure they have ricalculated optics and use of special glasses but the optical scheme is 4 lens Tessar (http://www.luciolepri.it/lc2/marcocavina/articoli_fotografici/kiev_volna9/00_pag.htm unfortunately in italian but schemes are international Very Happy

).

Just a sample of what a Tessar design can still produce nowadays, Volna 9 in action:

strl · Joined: 28 Dec 2008 Posts: 11

Alessandro, this is some really nice example you are showing in here!

However, comparing a lens design and an actual lens implementation is a different matter.

I would assume the [macro] Volna has "real-world" value as a quality shooting lens, while the 50's Tessar is more valuable for collectors as a rarity.

A G Photography · Joined: 11 May 2008 Posts: 1480 Location: Bologna - Italy

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

Surely! All are masterpieces! Especially with black background!

strl · Joined: 28 Dec 2008 Posts: 11

Nice ones again, Alessandro, but.. there is a BUT that you should have noticed already.
I am talking about a particular Tessar lens here, and it is the same as the one PaulC has (see picture above).
Not to mention that you are providing resized images with subjects placed always in the center.

Anyway, you got me intrigued, and I think I'm just going to get myself that P6 Tessar and test it on film just for the heck of comparing it to the Biometar, then we can talk some more Smile

A G Photography · Joined: 11 May 2008 Posts: 1480 Location: Bologna - Italy

If you believe me I can tell you that a Zebra tessar 50/2.8 spanked a new Nikkor 50/1,8 sharpness wise, and that Nikkor is praised for its sharpness.

This is the only one with that I really made a pixel-peeping comparison, not a thing I usually do because there's a lot more than sharpness to judge a lens.

Unfortunately I don't own a P6 Tessar, I have a Tessar 80 in m42 mount but they're pretty different.

The problem with Tessars is image coverage. In good designs (and good lenses) the borders are well out of the film size, with middle format probably they kept the borders too near the film size, so there could be some sharpness and aberration problems, especially at the corners of a 6x6 film.

The Biometar has better image coverage for its focal length.

Rob Leslie · Joined: 20 Mar 2007 Posts: 1103 Location: UK Swindon

I don�t think you can compare a computer designed lens to an old basic 1900�s design just because it has four elements. Is every four element design a Tessar!
The Elmar is a variant influenced by the original Tessar Todays Elmar is an update of the classic Elmar (c.1925 and that is a variant of the old, Tessar design of 1902 The very early f3.5 Elmar was the nearest to a basic Tessar.
However I quote.
�The Tessar design patent was held by Zeiss for two decades, and licensed to Rollei in Germany, Bausch & Lomb in the United States and to Krauss in France. Only licensed manufacturers were allowed to use the brand name "Tessar". However, Tessar-type lenses were widely made by many manufacturers under different trade names. The Leitz Elmar 50/3.5 is a famous Tessar designed by Max Berek for the Leica rangefinder camera. The Minoxar 35/2.8 lens on the Minox M.D.C and GT-E is the fastest and widest Tessar type lens achieved so far by using lanthanum glass elements. The picture quality was outstanding. Other Tessar-type lenses include the Schneider Xenar, Agfa Solinar, Rodenstock Ysar, Kodak Ektar, Yashica Yashinon 80mm (twin-lens-reflex design), and Minolta Rokkor 75mm (twin-lens-reflex design).[3]
There are some great names there.
Following the logic it does seem as if I have a f3.5 50mm Elmar bought from a boot sale for �3 ! laugh. Surprised

http://jay.fedka.com/index_files/Page444.htm

Both Nikon and Pentax took the Sonnar design with 5 elements in 3 groups, and produced some great lenses all of them very different. Nikon and others then took the same five elements and put them in four groups improving on the earlier Sonnar formula. Are any of these lenses Sonnar? No they only have an origin in the Sonnar design, in a similar way to a Mercedes orientated from a horse and cart! But we can kid ourselves!
I think it is great that you are satisfied with the results you get from an old Tessar. Labelled as a Tessar

I was dissatisfied with the results from my Zeiss Tessar f2.8 50mm (Silver preset lens) back in 1968 but I suppose things change.

My �3 boot sale Novelty f3.5 50mm Industar (/Elmar) produces fair results untill you put it next to any good lens.

A G Photography · Joined: 11 May 2008 Posts: 1480 Location: Bologna - Italy

Rob, you were the one who was talking about how the Tessar design is old and surpassed, and not about single lenses and models.

Just read your previous message.

I won't overgeneralize, because you had a bad alu Tessar in the sixties doesn't mean all Tessars and Tessars scheme based glasses suck, just like because I have some good copies doens't mean that every Tessar around is the final and ultimate lens.

There also a lot of Sonnars and Planars that are sucky.

Tessars have problems with image coverage and planariety at borders, just like a lot of other lenses (especially wide ones).

Large format users knows it well and they happily still use Tessars, Xenars, Tele Xenars and the like because they know how to use them and what to expect from them.

P.S. Planar design is older than Tessar one if I remember well.

PaulC · Joined: 23 Dec 2008 Posts: 2318

Ooohhh yummy! A Tessar vs Tessar photo contest!

Here are my entries, using the beaten-up 80mm lens shown in the picture with the Pentacon Six (but to take these I attached it to a 5D):

Pretty good, huh? The first one is cropped out of the centre of the frame, the second one (using a short extension tube) is the entire 5D frame (and it looked pretty good at full, original size, too). So, clearly, the 1956 Tessar can take perfectly acceptable pictures.

That still doesn't make it a good lens. Set it up to photograph a flat brick wall and you will see the defects, photograph a coffee cup and you won't. The trouble is, you can't always guarantee that the picture you want to take isn't going to test the edge of the lens.

Another thing that needs to be borne in mind is expectations. My expectations of lens performance may be quite different from yours. Something that I think of as poor performance might be perfectly acceptable to somebody else.

A G Photography · Joined: 11 May 2008 Posts: 1480 Location: Bologna - Italy

If I had to shoot a wall I'd use a repro lens on a bellow, like the Rodagon, not a Tessar neither a Planar.

PaulC · Joined: 23 Dec 2008 Posts: 2318

In fairness to my lens, there is not a hint of CA on the high contrast borders in those shots, which is pretty impressive.

The wall may be an unfair test but it certainly gives a good indication of the lenses limitations.

Do I take it, then, that the implication is that my Tessar is performing as expected for that lens design? Maybe the super results I have had from a couple of Sonnars and Flektogons have spoiled me Smile

A G Photography · Joined: 11 May 2008 Posts: 1480 Location: Bologna - Italy

Rob Leslie · Joined: 20 Mar 2007 Posts: 1103 Location: UK Swindon

I agree which is always why I make the effort to post links that perhaps explain things better than I do.
I agree there is nothing worse than somebodies often flawed opinion based on their own limited experience or knowledge.
The link to the Elmar/Tessar relationship was in my original post for all to see from the start. If anybody comes across a nice silver body Tessar in a Charity shop or boot sale for �10 it is well worth having. If buying one for MF then I doubt the limits of the lens would be pushed with the average user and the small enlargement that is required of it.

PaulC Nice coffee picture and a good explanation. I sometimes use less than the best lens for nice pictorial effects, resolution isn't always everything, who wants sharp coffee!
Many of the lesser lenses do well, especially if you know it is doubtful the shots will be wanted for good prints.

A G Photography · Joined: 11 May 2008 Posts: 1480 Location: Bologna - Italy

Actually Rob from my limited experience is pretty the opposite.

Tessars have problems with medium format cameras because for the normal MF focal length (80mm) they display too much of the poor rendered borders they have. That's why both Hasselblad and Pentacon switched to other lens schemes (Planar and Biometar respectively).

But if you have central subjects, like portraits, they perform well. I remember a lot of shots made with Tessar equipped Rolleiflex which still look fantastic (Richard Avedon first shots for example). Btw Tessars on TLRs performs a lot better than on MF SLRs probably because they're closer to the film (I'm not such an optical expert to be sure of it).

In large format they normally use Tessars as tele lenses, using the central projection of the lens, so there are little problems there, also in 35 mm Contax-Zeiss long teles were Tessar schemes until modern days.

With 35mm you have less problems than in MF, still I wouldn't use a Tessar for something that needs to be perfectly sharp from corner to corner, a Biotar or also a cheap M44 would be a lot better.

Still Tessar is very very crisp at center, its simple design avoid a lot of problems (like CA), offer a good tridimensionality (the less the light is bounced around the better is) and especially the old alu with 12 blades offer a great bokeh for my tastes (the newer black ones has a wilder bokeh which can look interesting in a pictorial way).

I used it with very difficult light situations where a newer Planar would have failed me (like the glass shot I posted as example), look how it kept the image from falling apart, also the little leaf is perfectly sharp, despite being the lens wide open with a strong light in front of it, and rendered beautiful color transitions.

They're useful instruments with a very distinctive character that imho the new plasticky lenses lack.

PaulC · Joined: 23 Dec 2008 Posts: 2318

I must say, I really appreciate all this information, Alessandro. It's making me rethink my views on that old lens.

I notice, though, that on your Flickr Pentacon Six gallery you used the 50mm Flektogon constantly. Was that for the angle of view or for the sharpness across the frame? (Or just because it was what you had with you?).

A G Photography · Joined: 11 May 2008 Posts: 1480 Location: Bologna - Italy