Schacht Question: 35mm Travegon vs. Travenar

[Univer]

Hello all,

I'm hoping a kind colleague will be able to answer a question about Schacht naming conventions. I've recently seen a few sample images from the 35mm f3.5 Travegon, and I've been thinking about adding one of those to my collection.

The thing is, I already own a 35mm f3.5 Travenar (M42 mount). It's a preset, in the later black-with-chrome-stripes Schacht style. Despite a determined search, I haven't been able to find any useful information about it. Specifically, I'd love to know whether its optical design is the same as the Travegon's.

It's difficult to say, comparing online photos of the Travegon to the Travenar in hand, whether they're optically identical. Element size looks close, as does overall length. The Travenar focuses more closely than the Travegon (judging, again, only by online photos), which might suggest that they're different designs. I have no desire to disassemble the Travenar to verify its optical scheme.

Anyway, I don't want to lash out and buy a Travegon if I've already got one in the cabinet under another name. Can anyone out there confirm the optical design of the 35mm Travenar?

Thanks so much for your help!

[calvin83]

From the data I gathered, the 35/3.5 Travenar is a triplet based retro-focus lens which has four elements in four groups. The 35/3.5 Travegon has six elements.

[Gerald]

It seems that many German lens manufacturers use the suffix "on" for their premium lenses, and the suffix "ar" for the entry-level ones. Examples: Componon vs Componar, Rodagon vs Rogonar, Summicron vs Summitar, etc. I suppose there must be a linguistic explanation for that.

[iangreenhalgh1]

Travegon:

[Univer]

Thanks, all, for the kind (and awfully helpful) replies! Much appreciated. The diagrams – graphically showing the difference between the 3.5 and 2.8 Travegons – are terribly useful.

Four elements "feels" right for the Travenar.

@Gerald: I'm aware of the ar/on convention, but my longstanding impression has been that manufacturers like Schacht and Steinheil were sometimes less than consistent in their naming practices. Cassaron, Quinon, Quinar...and then you've got the decidedly non-entry-level "-ar" lenses, like Summar, Summitar, Planar, Xenotar, etc.

For what it's worth, I ran across this little piece on lens naming a while back, at a language-focused site. Not exhaustive by any means, but interesting.

http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/174594/origin-and-meaning-of-the-tar-suffix-in-photography

Thanks again, everyone! Much appreciated. I'll set my sights on a Travegon to keep the Travenar company.

Cheers!

[Lloydy]

A. Schacht Ulm Travegar 100 / 3.3 It's nor a bad lens, and not that common.

[cyberjunkie]

The 100mm is a triplet, I guess it's very close to the Isco Cassarit.
I would be happy to test it alongside the Isco, but I don't own one. It's rather uncommon, and like other triplets under 135mm is not very cheap these days. A true pity, cause I like very much Schacht lenses, because of the way they are built (one of the most elegant barrel engineering, with beautiful DoF scale).
I came to this page because I'm testing the f/2.8 version of the Travenon 35mm.
I also own the 6-elements f/3.5 version, that was highly valued in its time and sold by Leica dealers in LTM version.
My curiosity about the last generation of Schacht lenses came from a sort of academic interest. Those optics were designed by (or released under the supervision of) one of the best optical designers ever: Dr. Bertele, the father of the Sonnar.
The interesting jpg's that were posted confirmed my guessing. I knew the design of the f/3.5 version, so I thought the 7-elements one should have a cemented triplet at the center.
Not so common and rather costly at the time. QC had to be tight enough cause decentering could easily ruin the performance of the lens.

I'd be very interested in any personal experience about the two 35mm's.
I've brought with me some vintage optics, and I am shooting with them similar subjects, trying to spot the differences in rendition.
Oddly enough, one of the three lenses I'm using these days is the early 8-elements version of the Super Takumar 1.4/50mm . Two out of three have cemented triplets, strange... The other one is the Meyer Primoplan 1.9/58mm.
Different focals, but all single-coated.
The Schacht seems to be less contrasty, shows less "punch" than the other two.
Resolution is not bad, but the images seem to be a little whashed-out, even if I'm shooting in the shade.
My example seems to be fine, so I tend to believe that's due to either design or inferior coating.
I am also curious about the difference with the f/3.5 version.
Any personal experience to share?

cheers

Paolo

[jamaeolus]

I have a copy of the travegon in 35mm and it is very sharp, has nice colors.

[cyberjunkie]

[luisalegria]

I have one of those S-Travegon 35/2.8's, in Exakta mount just as in the picture. Unfortunately its in bits as I have not succeeded in reassembling it after taking it apart to clean the glass.

These things are a bit complex!

[Pancolart]

[tb_a]

[spitzer]

Hello guyz!

Need your ideas about this comparing 'white' Travegon and Travenar, both 35 3.5:



Is it normally for travenar 35 3.5? My travenar hasn't coating of front lense. So we can see light flare over shot.
Travegon has damage coating on front lense, but contrast is good.

Is it problem with travenar?

Travenar on Pentax K-5, Travegon on Sony Nex 6 (Travegon hitting mirror on Pentax K-5), both camera's get light flare on Travenar, so massive test I did on two camera's

[caspert79]