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

Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar T 3.5/50
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:36 am    Post subject: Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar T 3.5/50 Reply with quote
This is the first pic I made with the 1952's little gem I bought some days ago.
Ony one pic because for a strange bulge it has on the mount, this lens does not work well with flanged M42 adapters. The flange prevents it from adhering to adapter base so the lens loses infinity. You need adapters with no flange for it, I took one from home but did not notice it was M39 not M42 Rolling Eyes
I have too many adapters Rolling Eyes

Anyway here's the pic, close up necessarily, I took it with the 5D, look at the bokeh of this lens, it is to die for, I was so in difficulty placing my copyright on the image because in every edge I would place it, it looked like it could ruin the bokeh effect. So I reduced copyright to minimum and placed ii in a strange place Rolling Eyes



I also tried a B&W conversion with it:



In case you don't remember the lens, it's this one:







PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Do not look only at bokeh though.
Look at the 3D effect !!!!!!!
-


PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 4:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Do not look only at bokeh though.
Look at the 3D effect !!!!!!!
-


Orio, you seriously took the words right out of my mouth. The dimensional quality is spectacular. I dare say this might be the best three-dimensional lens I've ever seen...

It looks sharp edge-to-edge. I think that the bokeh is contributing mightily to the dimensional effect, and I truly agree that the bokeh is simply outstanding.

Perhaps the leaf planes of reference that go away from the viewing axis also contribute to the dimensional effect; as the leaves "travel" away from the viewer, the softness increases extremely evenly, and provides a realistic image, as though seeing with my eyes.

I know it is silly of me, but I always marvel when such a "small" lens can take monumental images like this.

It looks like this could possibly be an amazing lens, Orio. I would love to see more images when you get a chance.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 4:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Laurence wrote:

Orio, you seriously took the words right out of my mouth. The dimensional quality is spectacular. I dare say this might be the best three-dimensional lens I've ever seen...


I agree. Also because I achieved this wide open. Which is usually _not_ the best way to achieve a 3D effect.

Quote:
It looks sharp edge-to-edge. I think that the bokeh is contributing mightily to the dimensional effect,


Absolutely yes, it does.
So does the micro-contrast (look at the pores on the wood and the grains in the rock).
And of course the lighting, the composition... it's a complex recipe. But without the right typo of bokeh and the right amount of microcontrast, the other ingredients alone can not make it.

Quote:
and I truly agree that the bokeh is simply outstanding.


It slowly dissolves the leaves into nothingness. I saw very few contemporary lenses that are able to do that so smoothly.

Quote:
Perhaps the leaf planes of reference that go away from the viewing axis also contribute to the dimensional effect


Indeed yes.

Quote:
I know it is silly of me, but I always marvel when such a "small" lens can take monumental images like this.


I personally wonder how we could lose the taste for this in favour of the stupid absolute "ultrasharpness" which is the only thing contemporary lenses seem to look for (with a very few notable exceptions such as Zeiss), at the expense of creating lenses with horrendous bokeh and total dullness and flatness (for flatness read= Canon EF lenses)

Quote:
It looks like this could possibly be an amazing lens, Orio. I would love to see more images when you get a chance.


Well, now me too!
I have to thank my instinct for this lens. When I saw it, it immediately felt like I had to have it. And luckily I did buy it. I searched for another M42 copy on Ebay: no trace. Only the Contaflex version is to be found. Looked for references in google: no trace. Looked for samples in main photosites: no trace.
It really seems this is a rare lens to find with M42 mount. And so I will have to treasure it more than other lenses, in order to preserve it.
I am so happy to have one.
-


PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 5:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Very, very nice Smile


PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 5:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
My word, the lens is even better than the box would have you believe. I am going to have to look much more closely into this whole tessar family.

patrickh


PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 6:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I realize theres a discussion concerning the industar 50-2 right now...but how do you think the tessar 3.5/50 would compare to the industar 3.5/50?

I imagine they are very very similar designs. Since both pancakes and a 4/3 element/group.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 6:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote in response to: It looks sharp edge-to-edge. I think that the bokeh is contributing mightily to the dimensional effect,

Quote:
Absolutely yes, it does.
So does the micro-contrast (look at the pores on the wood and the grains in the rock).
And of course the lighting, the composition... it's a complex recipe. But without the right typo of bokeh and the right amount of microcontrast, the other ingredients alone can not make it.


Thank you for pointing out the microcontrast as an element of contribution to the overall unique dimensional forte' of this lens. I suppose it may have been subconsciously within my senses, but I was unable to immediately recognize it. Now that it is referenced, I can wholly interpret the causality of the contrast at that level.

If one starts to explore that microcontrast, then it becomes an integral part of the image, and I can see what you are talking about regarding the microcontrast and bokeh holding together to create additional depth. It is particularly evident in the little "splashes" of light that seem to accentuate those microcontrast undercarriage elements.

Case in point: The major stem to the right, angling from lower right and up to those two flat leaves - note the way the bokeh slowly materializes into the speckled surface as you travel up the stem. And, just below the middle part of the stem, the ground has a "spotlight" of microcontrast that is bifurcated by the minor stem. To me, this type of schema is a contributor to the overall image, and can be seen to repeat throughout the image.

Another interesting phenomenon is the way the sharply delineated smaller leaf in the lower center 1/3 of the image seems to extrude away from the softened microcontrast - it truly "jumps".

The color image has its own particular singularities of three-dimensionality, and much of it is seemingly due to color contrasts. The black and white image then has its own unique method of creating dimensional aspects, particularly in the change of textures. The black and white forces study of the textures.


Orio wrote in response to: It looks like this could possibly be an amazing lens, Orio. I would love to see more images when you get a chance.

Quote:
Well, now me too!
I have to thank my instinct for this lens. When I saw it, it immediately felt like I had to have it. And luckily I did buy it. I searched for another M42 copy on Ebay: no trace. Only the Contaflex version is to be found. Looked for references in google: no trace. Looked for samples in main photosites: no trace.
It really seems this is a rare lens to find with M42 mount. And so I will have to treasure it more than other lenses, in order to preserve it.
I am so happy to have one.


In my view, it seems that you were able to tap into an instinctual propensity to recognize that this lens could be of high value. I'm not trying to "read into it", and perhaps I'm not interpreting your reactions correctly. But, the proof is in the showing of the images. I know the Web is a poor medium for gaining full clarification of "what an image is about", but at least the major contributions to a good image are present. I truly agree that you might do well to hang onto this lens and treasure it for its uniqueness and comparitive rarity. Well done, Orio! Wow!

Now all of a sudden that lens has a personality to me, and I look at the lens with a new realization; this, to me, is what the esthetic principal of collecting, and using, these lenses is all about. It seems that every once in a while, there is a plateau that is exceeded by a new "find" that seems to coordinate with an individual's center of mind. In this case, you may have found just that.

So, here we have a relatively simple composition that would normally be possibly passed over - but the excellence of the lens persuades the viewer to stop and look...


PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes, I think other CZJs has that extra "material" on the screw (I think the Carl Zeiss Biotar 1.5/75 too). Here http://www.praktica-users.com/cams/l/llcmanual.html at "Metering at taking aperture with pre-set diaphragm" you can see the difference between the two kind of M42 lenses.
Could be only for those made in the '50. The '62 Meyer Primagon 4.5/35 has normal screw mount.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 10:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
I have to thank my instinct for this lens. When I saw it, it immediately felt like I had to have it. And luckily I did buy it. I searched for another M42 copy on Ebay: no trace. Only the Contaflex version is to be found. Looked for references in google: no trace. Looked for samples in main photosites: no trace.
It really seems this is a rare lens to find with M42 mount. And so I will have to treasure it more than other lenses, in order to preserve it.
I am so happy to have one.


This Tessar looks like an impressive lens. Due to the small number of glass/air interfaces (less internal reflections), a good Tessar can produce an amazingly detailed image, like on this picture shot by Mike Elek from the 17th floor of a Building with an old Ikonta 520/2 equipped with an uncoated Tessar lens:
http://www.elekm.net/zeiss-ikon/american_club.html
Furthermore, most Tessar lenses made after WWII have beneficed from an extensive redesign thanks to the availability of improved glass types.

I looked for Orio's lens in the Vademecum and, if we set aside the fixed 50/3.5 Tessar found on some folding cameras like the Ikonta 528/18 and the Super-Nettel cameras, the first interchangeable F/3.5 50mm Tessar lens appears to have originated in 1932 as a collapsible lens intended for the Contax 35mm rangefinder camera. Here's a link to a page with a picture of this 1932 lens:
http://www.cameraquest.com/zconrf1.htm

The lens was produced in Contax mount for many years. The pre-war Contax version made in Jena was collapsible, while the post-war lens made in Oberkochen was available either in fixed mount (very rare) or in collapsible mount. Here's what the Vademecum says of this lens in Contax mount:
This is a late design f/3.5 design for good overall performance and is certainly a fine lens to match any other comparable lens on the market.

As far as I know, the F/3.5 50mm Tessar has never been made available for the Contaflex. The normal lens for the Contaflex was a f/2.8 50mm Tessar or a f/2.8 45mm Tessar for the Contaflex 126.

While Carl Zeiss in Oberkochen was producing its Tessar lenses in Contax mount, Carl Zeiss Jena, under the supervision of its new masters, started producing f/3.5 50mm Tessar lenses for Exakta cameras (like this overpriced lens offered on eBay: Click here to see on Ebay). Here's what the Vademecum says of this lens in Exakta mount:
This was an early post-war item for Exakta in plain manual iris alloy mount. These are a modern and extremely sharp optic and are a really welcome item.
There are said to be differences in types of Tessar , e.g. on SLR and Pentina cameras. The Jenaer Jahrbuch 1951 pp.55-56 seems to suggest a 25% reduction in aberrations due to post-war changes to new glass.

Ultimately, the 42mm screwmount f/3.5 50mm Tessar was made from 1952 to 1976 by Carl Zeiss Jena for the M42 SLR cameras (Praktica) produced by the Kamera Werkstätten VEB in Dresden, which eventually became the Pentacon Kombinat. This is Orio's lens. Here's a link:
http://www.praktica-collector.de/CZJ_Tessar_3.5_50.htm

There have been some copies of this lens made by other manufacturers, like the famous Industar-50 lens or the short lived Takumar F/3.5 50mm designed for the Asahiflex camera.

Cheers,

Abbazz


PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 10:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Wow Abbazz, you're better than an encyclopedia! Very Happy
Thanks for your research!


PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 10:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
montecarlo wrote:
Yes, I think other CZJs has that extra "material" on the screw (I think the Carl Zeiss Biotar 1.5/75 too). Here http://www.praktica-users.com/cams/l/llcmanual.html at "Metering at taking aperture with pre-set diaphragm" you can see the difference between the two kind of M42 lenses.
Could be only for those made in the '50. The '62 Meyer Primagon 4.5/35 has normal screw mount.


Great find, Cosmin! Yes, the mount is like the drawing there. In fact the seller said this lens is from 1952, so probably it's an old type. Anyway it gives no problem on the digital reflex, you can use it also on the 5D, the only requirement is that you have to use a flangeless adapter.
-


PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 6:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Cosmin and Abbazz: Excellent research!

It's these kinds of "finds" that are exciting.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 6:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
themoleman342 wrote:
I realize theres a discussion concerning the industar 50-2 right now...but how do you think the tessar 3.5/50 would compare to the industar 3.5/50?
I imagine they are very very similar designs. Since both pancakes and a 4/3 element/group.


Well, the Tessar 3.5/50 is the model the Industar-50-2 was copied from. Since the Soviets were excellent lens makers, I expect the Industar and the Tessar to perform about the same.

If some of you are interested in a direct comparison of the two lenses, I can make it.
-


PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 7:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Beacause of that extra "material" at the ends of the screw, can you mount it in you Bessaflex ? Can the light meter be used/activated ? As I know, the light meter turns on then you push the button at the left. This will activate the lever which, at its turn, pushes the diaphragm pin of the lens (if there is one). It might have the same mechanism like many Cosina made, SLR M42 mount cameras (like mine Porst Reflex TL).


PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 2:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
montecarlo wrote:
Beacause of that extra "material" at the ends of the screw, can you mount it in you Bessaflex ? Can the light meter be used/activated ?


No problem with the Bessie! Very Happy
Of course, stopped-down mode only.
-


PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 7:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Canon breech-lock macro lens FL 50mm f/3.5 is also a Tessar design. Any comments on its bokeh or general performance (including as reversed on the camera or bellows) ?

This can be mounted on a digital camera for macro work using an adapter or combination of adapters (such as the glassless Canon FD/FL to M42, + M42 to camera). As I don't have a digital camera yet (!), I haven't tried this in practice.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 7:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nice to see you here! Thank you for joining us!


PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 7:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Welcome, Bob, I think you're Bob #3 here. Wink

Bill


PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 7:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Katastrofo wrote:
Welcome, Bob, I think you're Bob #3 here. Wink
Bill


Yes we have to start tagging the Bobs somehow Laughing
Welcome! I am sorry, I'm not able to answer your question, I am ignorant about the Canon FD lenses.

-


PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A full CZJ Tessar 3.5/50 series coming in minutes! Very Happy

-


PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Time's up, where are they? Laughing


PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Katastrofo wrote:
Time's up, where are they? Laughing


uploading Embarassed
almost finished Very Happy


PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Here they are Smile

www.orio.ws/temp/czjtessar/index.html

-


PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Before you post any comment I'd like to point out that with this 1952 lens I am obtaining the same sharpness and clarity of image (or, if not same, very very close) that I obtain from Contax or Leica lenses.
-
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3