Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Tessar Pancake
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 12:42 pm    Post subject: Tessar Pancake Reply with quote

Yesteday in the mail I received a Tessar Pancake that I got for relatively cheap considering the crazy prices that this lenses has reached in the last year (I saw some sold for more than 200 Euros!)

This lens is relatively rare to find, so when I had the occasion, I got it.
I have read lukewarm reviews of this lens, often described as overrated. My experience is completely different. I shot a series of photos yesterday and the results have pleased me greatly.

Having owned the Tessar 2.8/50 Carl Zeiss Jena, I was expecting a similar lens, that is, soft wide open. But this Contax is completely different. It is sharp wide open, in a way that most of the times, I don't feel the need to apply any sharpening at all, in spite of the Canon's antialiasing.

This is one of the pictures I took yesterday, first the whole image resized:



Then the original size, completely untouched (not sharpened, not saturated, not anything):

www.orio.ws/temp/tessarpancake.htm

But the thing that most impressed me, is: I am getting pictures that completely remind me of my father's Super Ikonta (now for repairs), which sports a 2.8/80 Tessar. The same old type of images. Sharp, but not exceedingly. Details, but sweet at the same time. Hard to explain. I had forgotten about that type of images, but now I recalled them, and I can't wait to get the Super Ikonta back.
For the moment, here's one of the pictures took with the pancake that exactly remind me of the Super Ikonta image quality:



_


PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 1:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

congrats
according to
http://www.jcolwell.ca/photography/lens$db/reviews-v07.pdf
it have a excellent flare resistance
I like the rich color and nice bokeh and of course the small size
It's a good alternative to industar 50 3.5.
I took mine in april for 1 euro more than yours


PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 3:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Congrats for your new toy, look pretty promising lens.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 5:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That tessar pancake formula does a beautiful job of balancing sharpness with creamy boke. It seems to get micro-contrast right which helps with the 3D look


patrickh


PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 5:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

patrickh wrote:
That tessar pancake formula does a beautiful job of balancing sharpness with creamy boke. It seems to get micro-contrast right which helps with the 3D look
patrickh


You're absolutely right, although I have to admit that the bokeh in the Contax Tessar isn't as smooth as the bokeh of CZ Jena Tessar (on the other hand, the CZJ Tessar is much softer).

Personally, what captivates me in this little Tessar is the fact that the images have that "old time" feeling that is often very difficult to achieve with digital cameras.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 7:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I feel like an old record - check out the nikkor 45/2.8. Tessar pancake and beautiful


patrickh


PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 7:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

patrickh wrote:
I feel like an old record - check out the nikkor 45/2.8. Tessar pancake and beautiful
patrickh


I looked for it, but so far I could only see it at hair-rising prices Shocked - pretty much like this contax. As soon as it approached a reasonable price, I got it. Now I am also waiting for a good Industar copy from Attila so I guess I'm done with pancakes for a while Smile But you never know, when a good deal presents itself I always consider to get it!


PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 8:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Unfortunately Nikon discontinued the lens a year or so ago and it took on something of a cult status, raising the already high new price in the used market. Crying or Very sad I was lucky enough to get a reconditioned one from Cameta at half price a couple of years back. Smile Keep looking, it is a lens with its own special character.

patrickh


PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 6:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The 45 mm Tessar is a very nice lens, and it is a pity that it cannot be used on a 5D when infinity focus is required - at the edges it would be sharper even than the f/1.7 Planar. At the center, the very finest detail is somewhat subdued at f/5.6, but at f/2.8 it is on par with the Planar at f/1.7 and the sides are again better although at about 12 mm from the center the finest detail is very subdued, which of course doesn't much matter on a crop body. The f/2.8 40 lp/mm MTF curve published by Zeiss is very strange - it is reasonably good at the center, drops then to almost abysmal at 12 mm from the center, peaks to exceptionally good at 18 mm (much better than the Planar at f/5.6!) and dives very steeply down, which would affect only FF corners.

One of these days I'll check whether it is completely hopeless to try to use it on the 5D. It is a question of 0.1-0.2 mm only, and it just might be possible to do something. I can, of course, use it on the nice Contax 139Q which I bought for 50e including the motor drive.

Veijo


PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 9:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Veijo, what you say sounds strange to me. I have just finished taking some samples with the 5D and it works perfectly at infinite with my Tessar.
Perhaps I am using a thicker adapter than yours?

About MTFs - for the Tessar, I have only the one made by Zeiss:

http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/Tessar2.8_45mm_e/$File/Tessar2.8_45mm_e.pdf

But it only displays figures for f/2.8 and f/5.6

On the contrary, this Italian site:

http://www.geocities.com/ilprode/TestZ.htm

seems to have access, for many Contax lenses (but not the Tessar, unfortunately) to MTFs that display the figures for all apertures. A thing that I find extremely useful, in order to know well the lens and what it can give you.
I think I'll write this guy and ask him how he could obtain these more complete MTFs - I wonder if the source is official (Zeiss) or third-party. The results for compatible apertures adhere completely to those from Zeiss so I'd think that Zeiss might also be the source for these more complete data.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 9:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Isn't that amazing!

Such great results can be achieved with a lens design that has originally been calculated by Paul Rudolph in 1902!!

Those gentlemen were magicians of light!

Congratulations, Orio! What a great new member of your collection.

The well-known Rollei 35 ows its fame mainly to the Tessar lens.

More here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tessar

http://www.allerlei.gmxhome.de/history.htm (Scroll down to 1902)


PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 9:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orio wrote:
... I wonder if the source is official (Zeiss) or third-party. The results for compatible apertures adhere completely to those from Zeiss so I'd think that Zeiss might also be the source for these more complete data.


Due to "Zeiss Camera Lens News Nr. 19" (March 2003), Kyocera orders the MTF data from Zeiss for all the Contax lenses (no matter if 645, N, G or RTS).


PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 10:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

LucisPictor wrote:

Due to "Zeiss Camera Lens News Nr. 19" (March 2003), Kyocera orders the MTF data from Zeiss for all the Contax lenses (no matter if 645, N, G or RTS).


Unfortunately, in the Contax PDF brochures that are downloadable at Zeiss, only the figures for the widest aperture and f/5.6 are reported.

While it is greatly interesting -at least to me- to read about the lens behaviour at all apertures. For instance, one could know exactly how much quality he's going to give up when stopping down a wide angle completely (a thing that I often like to do to obtain the maximum DOF).


PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 12:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orio wrote:
Veijo, what you say sounds strange to me. I have just finished taking some samples with the 5D and it works perfectly at infinite with my Tessar.
Perhaps I am using a thicker adapter than yours?


In this case the adapter isn't the problem. For infinity focus, the lens itself must get close enough to the sensor plane. The Tessar I have has a low frame around the back element, and at about 4 m distance position the 5D mirror hits this frame. It just might be possible to modify the frame, but it would leave very little leeway between the back element and the mirror, maybe 0.2 mm or even less, and I don't feel very comfortable about that.

Quote:
About MTFs - for the Tessar, I have only the one made by Zeiss:

http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/Tessar2.8_45mm_e/$File/Tessar2.8_45mm_e.pdf

But it only displays figures for f/2.8 and f/5.6


I've got the same pdf, all the Zeiss specs are like that. However curves are curves, and there is so much variation between individual lenses, even those made by/for Zeiss, that I wouldn't put too much emphasis on them. In this case, it is nice to have the curves to explain the slightly anomalous behaviour of the Tessar at 40 lp/mm, and having the curves is certainly better than having a few spot readings. However, on the basis of those curves, it really is impossible to predict what happens at f/8 or f/11. You'll just have to test with a suitable target.

Veijo


PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

vilva wrote:

In this case the adapter isn't the problem. For infinity focus, the lens itself must get close enough to the sensor plane. The Tessar I have has a low frame around the back element, and at about 4 m distance position the 5D mirror hits this frame. It just might be possible to modify the frame, but it would leave very little leeway between the back element and the mirror, maybe 0.2 mm or even less, and I don't feel very comfortable about that.


Veijo, I don't think that my copy of the lens is different from yours. So the fact that I am able to shoot with the lens at infinite position may depend from the adapter that I am using: a just slightly thicker adapter may raise the lens of just that little bit that allows for the mirror to clear. Doesn't it sound like a logical explanation? If not, then we have to conclude that either my 5D or my copy of the lens are different from yours.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orio wrote:
Veijo, I don't think that my copy of the lens is different from yours. So the fact that I am able to shoot with the lens at infinite position may depend from the adapter that I am using: a just slightly thicker adapter may raise the lens of just that little bit that allows for the mirror to clear. Doesn't it sound like a logical explanation?


If my adapter were even slightly thicker, I wouldn't be able to reach infinity focus at all, in fact I hope I had a slightly thinner adapter because my shorter Contax lenses have problems reaching infinity wide open. It is the focusing part of the lens body which is hitting the mirror, and a thicker adapter would prevent it from reaching the infinity position.

Quote:
If not, then we have to conclude that either my 5D or my copy of the lens are different from yours.


I think there is a difference somewhere,

Veijo


PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 10:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I took this one today. I swear the colours all come from the lens. Not even a 0.0001% saturation adjustment on my part:



This is a 100% crop. If you consider that it's not sharpened and that it's either 800 or 1600 Iso (can't remember), and aperture at f/4 or f/4.5, I'd say it's not bad at all:



Note that although this was an extremely difficult situation for the lens (dark building object in strong backlight) CA is virtually absent, you have to size up to 200% to glimpse it. Try to get this CA performance in any non-APO zooms if you're able to Razz


PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 10:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wow cool stuff.

Any chance of a picture of the lens?


PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 10:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orio wrote:
... I'd say it's not bad at all...


That's some understatement! This lens obviously is great, Orio!


PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 11:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

spkennedy3000 wrote:
Wow cool stuff.

Any chance of a picture of the lens?


Sure, it's featured on my newborn site:
www.timelessphotography.eu


PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 11:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orio wrote:
I took this one today. I swear the colours all come from the lens. Not even a 0.0001% saturation adjustment on my part:



This is a 100% crop. If you consider that it's not sharpened and that it's either 800 or 1600 Iso (can't remember), and aperture at f/4 or f/4.5, I'd say it's not bad at all:



Note that although this was an extremely difficult situation for the lens (dark building object in strong backlight) CA is virtually absent, you have to size up to 200% to glimpse it. Try to get this CA performance in any non-APO zooms if you're able to Razz


Wow. Now that is something that's a challenge to capture and get right. It's nice to see a natural colouration like that instead of the glaringly artificial colourings coming out of Photoshop and the like, which are so common now.

(I don't know why, but half the time the imageshack links don't work - the first half appears, but not the actual pic link)


PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 11:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Farside wrote:

Wow. Now that is something that's a challenge to capture and get right. It's nice to see a natural colouration like that instead of the glaringly artificial colourings coming out of Photoshop and the like, which are so common now.


Yes. Since I started to use Russian and German lenses, I have forgotten about the saturation control. 99% of the times I get the perfect photograph immediately out of the lens.
When I was using Canon EF lenses, the first thing immediately I had to do when raw processing was to boost the saturation because all pictures looked vampirized (i.e. pale). The problem is, if you don't know exactly how to do it, boosting saturation in post processing causes the images to look unnatural. Which is many photographers seem to like anyway today. I personally get bored very quickly by looking at images whose all colours appear obviously to have boosted to the max in post processing. But that's my personal taste.

Farside wrote:
(I don't know why, but half the time the imageshack links don't work - the first half appears, but not the actual pic link)


Yes, imageshack sucks Sad But since imageshock has gone, it remains the quickest and more comfortable way to get links for the forums.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 3:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought all Tessars were of 4 elements,
not 3, like the Cooke triplets.

Bill


PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 7:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Katastrofo wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought all Tessars were of 4 elements,
not 3, like the Cooke triplets.
Bill


Yes, Tessar has four elements, it is a development of the Cooke triplet original scheme.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 8:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orio wrote:
Katastrofo wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought all Tessars were of 4 elements,
not 3, like the Cooke triplets.
Bill


Yes, Tessar has four elements, it is a development of the Cooke triplet original scheme.


See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tessar

Veijo