View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Oldhand
Joined: 01 Apr 2013 Posts: 5999 Location: Mid North Coast NSW - Australia
|
Posted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 10:19 pm Post subject: CARL ZEISS JENA TESSAR 50/2.8 |
|
|
Oldhand wrote:
Greetings CZJ Tessar users.
Is there any difference in performance between the various CZJ Tessar models apart from the influence of coatings on the lenses themselves.
I am interested in acquiring a copy of this lens but am unsure which variant to seek.
Thanks in advance
OH |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Excalibur
Joined: 19 Jul 2009 Posts: 5017 Location: UK
Expire: 2014-04-21
|
Posted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 10:40 pm Post subject: Re: CARL ZEISS JENA TESSAR 50/2.8 |
|
|
Excalibur wrote:
Oldhand wrote: |
Greetings CZJ Tessar users.
Is there any difference in performance between the various CZJ Tessar models apart from the influence of coatings on the lenses themselves.
I am interested in acquiring a copy of this lens but am unsure which variant to seek.
Thanks in advance
OH |
Is there any reason why you prefer a M42 CZJ 50mm f2.8 Tessar over the M42 Pentax Tak 55mm f1.8...I know which one I prefer. _________________ Canon A1, AV1, T70 & T90, EOS 300 and EOS300v, Chinon CE and CP-7M. Contax 139, Fuji STX-2, Konica Autoreflex TC, FS-1, FT-1, Minolta X-700, X-300, XD-11, SRT101b, Nikon EM, FM, F4, F90X, Olympus OM2, Pentax S3, Spotmatic, Pentax ME super, Praktica TL 5B, & BC1, , Ricoh KR10super, Yashica T5D, Bronica Etrs, Mamiya RB67 pro AND drum roll:- a Sony Nex 3
.........past gear Tele Rolleiflex and Rollei SL66.
Many lenses from good to excellent. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oldhand
Joined: 01 Apr 2013 Posts: 5999 Location: Mid North Coast NSW - Australia
|
Posted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 10:42 pm Post subject: Re: CARL ZEISS JENA TESSAR 50/2.8 |
|
|
Oldhand wrote:
Excalibur wrote: |
Oldhand wrote: |
Greetings CZJ Tessar users.
Is there any difference in performance between the various CZJ Tessar models apart from the influence of coatings on the lenses themselves.
I am interested in acquiring a copy of this lens but am unsure which variant to seek.
Thanks in advance
OH |
Is there any reason why you prefer a M42 CZJ 50mm f2.8 Tessar over the M42 Pentax Tak 55mm f1.8...I know which one I prefer. |
Do you have both?
Thoughts on the Tessar......... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Excalibur
Joined: 19 Jul 2009 Posts: 5017 Location: UK
Expire: 2014-04-21
|
Posted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 10:55 pm Post subject: Re: CARL ZEISS JENA TESSAR 50/2.8 |
|
|
Excalibur wrote:
Oldhand wrote: |
Excalibur wrote: |
Oldhand wrote: |
Greetings CZJ Tessar users.
Is there any difference in performance between the various CZJ Tessar models apart from the influence of coatings on the lenses themselves.
I am interested in acquiring a copy of this lens but am unsure which variant to seek.
Thanks in advance
OH |
Is there any reason why you prefer a M42 CZJ 50mm f2.8 Tessar over the M42 Pentax Tak 55mm f1.8...I know which one I prefer. |
Do you have both?
Thoughts on the Tessar......... |
Well remember I'm a film user The Tessar is sharp...but the Pentax is also sharp, but better for low light, although I haven't compared them for pixel peeping sharpness, for me a shot using a Tak tends to look better esp as it can give more chance of pop.
For similar comparison it would be like comparing a Helios 44-XX with a Meyer 50mm Oreston...the Meyer shot looks better. _________________ Canon A1, AV1, T70 & T90, EOS 300 and EOS300v, Chinon CE and CP-7M. Contax 139, Fuji STX-2, Konica Autoreflex TC, FS-1, FT-1, Minolta X-700, X-300, XD-11, SRT101b, Nikon EM, FM, F4, F90X, Olympus OM2, Pentax S3, Spotmatic, Pentax ME super, Praktica TL 5B, & BC1, , Ricoh KR10super, Yashica T5D, Bronica Etrs, Mamiya RB67 pro AND drum roll:- a Sony Nex 3
.........past gear Tele Rolleiflex and Rollei SL66.
Many lenses from good to excellent. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oldhand
Joined: 01 Apr 2013 Posts: 5999 Location: Mid North Coast NSW - Australia
|
Posted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 11:03 pm Post subject: Re: CARL ZEISS JENA TESSAR 50/2.8 |
|
|
Oldhand wrote:
Excalibur wrote: |
Oldhand wrote: |
Excalibur wrote: |
Oldhand wrote: |
Greetings CZJ Tessar users.
Is there any difference in performance between the various CZJ Tessar models apart from the influence of coatings on the lenses themselves.
I am interested in acquiring a copy of this lens but am unsure which variant to seek.
Thanks in advance
OH |
Is there any reason why you prefer a M42 CZJ 50mm f2.8 Tessar over the M42 Pentax Tak 55mm f1.8...I know which one I prefer. |
Do you have both?
Thoughts on the Tessar......... |
Well remember I'm a film user The Tessar is sharp...but the Pentax is also sharp, but better for low light, although I haven't compared them for pixel peeping sharpness, for me a shot using a Tak tends to look better esp as it can give more chance of pop.
For similar comparison it would be like comparing a Helios 44-XX with a Meyer 50mm Oreston...the Meyer shot looks better. |
Thank you for your feedback.
I know that the Tessar is a simpler design than many other lenses in the standard range and as a result displays what has been described as unusual bokeh and unique character
The Tessar lenses are usually cheap and easily found .... so ...............
What I am interested to hear is if there are differences between the various iterations of the Tessar - are some more ..... are some less ...... in many areas:
quality of build
reliability
image quality
etc
Which of the Tessars most has the Tessar look in its imaging ......... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 11:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
It's silly to say lens X is better than lens Y when talking about 50mms - they are all more than good enough if used properly.
The Tessar 2.8/50 is a very good lens, a big bargain for the price it fetches. If using on an APS-C camera, it's sharp across the frame even wide open.
The postwar 2.8/50s all perform about the same, I've had a dozen of them, still got 3 or 4. I'd go for an older one, the Aluminium 1950s/early 60s ones look nicest and have the best build quality, they have 8 aperture blades, later ones have 6. The Zebra late 60s/early70s one would be my second choice. The later ones are a tricky purchase because of how many of them have stuck apertures, I'd say at least half of the ones you see for sale have stuck apertures. Apparently not too difficult to fix, but I'd just play safe and make sure you get a working one.
They are all single coated, and that's all the Tessar needs, it only has 6 air-glass surfaces so contrast is good enough without multi-coatings. They have a well recessed front element so flare isn't a problem either. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oldhand
Joined: 01 Apr 2013 Posts: 5999 Location: Mid North Coast NSW - Australia
|
Posted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 11:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oldhand wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
It's silly to say lens X is better than lens Y when talking about 50mms - they are all more than good enough if used properly.
The Tessar 2.8/50 is a very good lens, a big bargain for the price it fetches. If using on an APS-C camera, it's sharp across the frame even wide open.
The postwar 2.8/50s all perform about the same, I've had a dozen of them, still got 3 or 4. I'd go for an older one, the Aluminium 1950s/early 60s ones look nicest and have the best build quality, they have 8 aperture blades, later ones have 6. The Zebra late 60s/early70s one would be my second choice. The later ones are a tricky purchase because of how many of them have stuck apertures, I'd say at least half of the ones you see for sale have stuck apertures. Apparently not too difficult to fix, but I'd just play safe and make sure you get a working one.
They are all single coated, and that's all the Tessar needs, it only has 6 air-glass surfaces so contrast is good enough without multi-coatings. They have a well recessed front element so flare isn't a problem either. |
Gratias Ian.
Appreciate your thoughts and experiences.
OH |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Excalibur
Joined: 19 Jul 2009 Posts: 5017 Location: UK
Expire: 2014-04-21
|
Posted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 11:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Excalibur wrote:
You can't go wrong with the Tessar for a cheap price...I rarely use mine, as I have better 50mms e.g Canon 50mm f1.4 but have found these close up shots using a Tessar CZJ 50mm f2.8...and I've tried to focus on the scab:-
wide open
F5.6
_________________ Canon A1, AV1, T70 & T90, EOS 300 and EOS300v, Chinon CE and CP-7M. Contax 139, Fuji STX-2, Konica Autoreflex TC, FS-1, FT-1, Minolta X-700, X-300, XD-11, SRT101b, Nikon EM, FM, F4, F90X, Olympus OM2, Pentax S3, Spotmatic, Pentax ME super, Praktica TL 5B, & BC1, , Ricoh KR10super, Yashica T5D, Bronica Etrs, Mamiya RB67 pro AND drum roll:- a Sony Nex 3
.........past gear Tele Rolleiflex and Rollei SL66.
Many lenses from good to excellent. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 11:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Really, it's wrong to say one good lens is better than another good lens, they are just different.
Zebra Tessar 2.8/50 on NEX-3.
_________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Excalibur
Joined: 19 Jul 2009 Posts: 5017 Location: UK
Expire: 2014-04-21
|
Posted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 11:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Excalibur wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
It's silly to say lens X is better than lens Y when talking about 50mms - they are all more than good enough if used properly.
|
So why have you got a Pancolar, Hexanon etc if the Tessar is all you need...and why does anybody buy a 50mm f1.4 or F1.2 and then we go on to Sonnars and double gauss lenses etc _________________ Canon A1, AV1, T70 & T90, EOS 300 and EOS300v, Chinon CE and CP-7M. Contax 139, Fuji STX-2, Konica Autoreflex TC, FS-1, FT-1, Minolta X-700, X-300, XD-11, SRT101b, Nikon EM, FM, F4, F90X, Olympus OM2, Pentax S3, Spotmatic, Pentax ME super, Praktica TL 5B, & BC1, , Ricoh KR10super, Yashica T5D, Bronica Etrs, Mamiya RB67 pro AND drum roll:- a Sony Nex 3
.........past gear Tele Rolleiflex and Rollei SL66.
Many lenses from good to excellent. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DR.JUAN
Joined: 08 Feb 2013 Posts: 661
|
Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 1:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
DR.JUAN wrote:
1-if you need to use smaller apertures, at f/11 and 16 the tessar design shoul be sharper than the planar, xenon, etc ones.
2- in tessar design srl lens you have the alimium, black, zebra and MC M42, c/y tessar 45/2,8, the icarex tessar (skopar?), and no Zeiss like the xenar and isconar Schneider, skopar voogtlander, ysarex rodenstock, solinar agfa, ektar kodal, cassarit, elmar leica (RF), and some japanese 4/3 lenses. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lloydy
Joined: 02 Sep 2009 Posts: 7787 Location: Ironbridge. UK.
Expire: 2022-01-01
|
Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 1:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lloydy wrote:
I like my zebra Tessar a lot, as Ian points out it is sharp across the frame on a crop sensor. The word on the street is that it, and possibly all of its iterations, are soft in the corners / edges, but that's not a problem for most digital camera users.
Is it better or worse than any other 50ish lens I've got? who knows?
I just like it, I've got sharper lenses, I've got lenses with different bokeh and rendering, I've got lenses that I won't part with, and this is certainly one of those. _________________ LENSES & CAMERAS FOR SALE.....
I have loads of stuff that I have to get rid of, if you see me commenting about something I have got and you want one, ask me.
My Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/mudplugga/
My ipernity -
http://www.ipernity.com/home/294337 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 1:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Excalibur wrote: |
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
It's silly to say lens X is better than lens Y when talking about 50mms - they are all more than good enough if used properly.
|
So why have you got a Pancolar, Hexanon etc if the Tessar is all you need...and why does anybody buy a 50mm f1.4 or F1.2 and then we go on to Sonnars and double gauss lenses etc |
Because, like many people, I bought far more lenses than I actually need. All I actually need is one good 50 for each camera system I own.
I stand by what I said, all 50mm lenses are good enough if you use them properly, even triplets like the Trioplan and Meritar. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DR.JUAN
Joined: 08 Feb 2013 Posts: 661
|
Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 1:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
DR.JUAN wrote:
Lloydy wrote: |
I like my zebra Tessar a lot, as Ian points out it is sharp across the frame on a crop sensor. The word on the street is that it, and possibly all of its iterations, are soft in the corners / edges, but that's not a problem for most digital camera users.
Is it better or worse than any other 50ish lens I've got? who knows?
I just like it, I've got sharper lenses, I've got lenses with different bokeh and rendering, I've got lenses that I won't part with, and this is certainly one of those. |
Do you need a critical sharpness across the whole sensor? Use f/11-16.
More sharpness, better colors and contrast.
__
Only a center sharpness is enough? Well f/8 is OK. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 1:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
At what aperture would one expect to see diffraction affect sharpness on a 14mp APS-C senor?
I think it's somewhere between f8 and f11, but I forget exactly now. I can certainly see a very slight loss of sharpness to diffraction at f16 on my NEX-3, so I try not to use smaller than f11, but honestly, I've made shots recently at f16 with an Industar-61 2.8/53 that were amply sharp enough, even though very slight diffraction induced reduction in sharpness could be discerned if you looked very closely at 100% in Photoshop.
Here's one of those shots:
_________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 29545 Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 1:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
At what aperture would one expect to see diffraction affect sharpness on a 14mp APS-C senor?
I think it's somewhere between f8 and f11, but I forget exactly now. |
f/8 is already problematic on APS-C at "medium density" of pixels such as 14 MP. Better to stay with f/5.6 when possible. _________________ Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 2:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Orio wrote: |
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
At what aperture would one expect to see diffraction affect sharpness on a 14mp APS-C senor?
I think it's somewhere between f8 and f11, but I forget exactly now. |
f/8 is already problematic on APS-C at "medium density" of pixels such as 14 MP. Better to stay with f/5.6 when possible. |
I can't get the required DOF for some shots without using f8-11 sometimes, but as a rule of thumb, I try to use f5.6, yes.
I'd say I do 80% of my shooting on my APS-C digital cameras at f4, f5.6 and f8. I only shoot wide open when testing lenses, and I only stop down past f8 when I really need deep dof for 'mise en scene' compositions such as that bridge. I took a while to setup that shot, using the 14x zoom assist to check what aperture placed the closest parts of the bridge that fell within the framing in sharp focus. Hence I ended up using f16 because it's a stitch of four images vertically and the closest part of the bridge that fell into my framing was less than 2m away. I decided to accept a little loss of resolution to diffraction as preferable to having the closest parts of the bridge rendered out of focus.
If you can suggest a better method or point out any flaws in my reasoning, please do, I'm always keen to improve my technique. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
enliten
Joined: 20 Sep 2011 Posts: 201 Location: Perth, WA
Expire: 2014-07-03
|
Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 4:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
enliten wrote:
I have 2 zebra tessars, both have stiff focus rings.
If you plan on taking them apart, be aware that they have some fiddly bits inside. (I can't get one of mine back together).
-Ben _________________ www.craftedbyben.com
Digital: Canon EOS 7D
Film SLRs: Zenit 122, Nikon F55, Nikon FM2, Pentax Spotmatic, Pentax ME Super, Pentax K1000, Minolta SR1
Rangefinders: Konica Auto S2, Zeiss Ikon Contessa LKE, Zeiss Ikon Continette, Zeiss Ikon Ikonta 521/16, Fed 5B
50's: Super Takumar 50 f1.4, Helios 44-m6,, Minolta MD 50 f1.4, Meyer Optik Oreston 50 f1.8, Olympus 50 f1.4, Industar 55 f2.8 (RF), Jupiter-3 50 f1.5 (RF), Yashinon DS 50 f1.4, Zeiss Jena 50 f2.8, Zeiss Pancolar 50 f1.8
Med Tele: Jupiter-11 135 f4 (RF), Mamiya 120 f4 Macro (645), Meyer Optik Trioplan 100 f2.8, Jupiter-9 85 f2
Tele: Jupiter-21a 200mm f4
Wide: Rikenon 35 2.8, Rikenon 28 f2.8, Minolta MD 28 f2.8, Minolta MD 24 f2.8, Pentacon 30 f3.5, Enna Werk Munchen Lithagon 35 f4.5
Autofocus: Canon 50 1.8, Sigma 50 1.4, Tokina 11-16 2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oldhand
Joined: 01 Apr 2013 Posts: 5999 Location: Mid North Coast NSW - Australia
|
Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 4:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oldhand wrote:
This has been a most useful discussion.
Not to try to muddy the waters, but as a side note, is there any advantage/disadvantage to using the 50mm f2.8 Tessar as compared to the 50mm f3.5 Tessar? ( say both have a common mount - M42)
ie are they essentially the same lens?
OH |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Excalibur
Joined: 19 Jul 2009 Posts: 5017 Location: UK
Expire: 2014-04-21
|
Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 8:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Excalibur wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
Because, like many people, I bought far more lenses than I actually need. All I actually need is one good 50 for each camera system I own.
I stand by what I said, all 50mm lenses are good enough if you use them properly, even triplets like the Trioplan and Meritar. |
.....but why buy a CZJ Tessar 50mm f2.8 for £10 when you can buy a Zuiko 50mm f1.8 for as low as £10, Minolta 50mm f1.7 for £20, Hexanon 50mm f1.7 £20 and so on......and it wouldn't surprise me if you had bought a Nikon 50mm for £20 _________________ Canon A1, AV1, T70 & T90, EOS 300 and EOS300v, Chinon CE and CP-7M. Contax 139, Fuji STX-2, Konica Autoreflex TC, FS-1, FT-1, Minolta X-700, X-300, XD-11, SRT101b, Nikon EM, FM, F4, F90X, Olympus OM2, Pentax S3, Spotmatic, Pentax ME super, Praktica TL 5B, & BC1, , Ricoh KR10super, Yashica T5D, Bronica Etrs, Mamiya RB67 pro AND drum roll:- a Sony Nex 3
.........past gear Tele Rolleiflex and Rollei SL66.
Many lenses from good to excellent. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 11:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Excalibur wrote: |
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
Because, like many people, I bought far more lenses than I actually need. All I actually need is one good 50 for each camera system I own.
I stand by what I said, all 50mm lenses are good enough if you use them properly, even triplets like the Trioplan and Meritar. |
.....but why buy a CZJ Tessar 50mm f2.8 for £10 when you can buy a Zuiko 50mm f1.8 for as low as £10, Minolta 50mm f1.7 for £20, Hexanon 50mm f1.7 £20 and so on......and it wouldn't surprise me if you had bought a Nikon 50mm for £20 |
What point are you trying to make? Honestly, you don't make any sense. Most of the 50mm lenses I've bought came with cameras or cost less than 10 quid.
I'll say it yet again, the Tessar is a very good lens in it's own right and it's wrong to say Lens X is better than Lens Y when both are more than good enough. Different lenses with different characteristics, but both equally worth having. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Excalibur
Joined: 19 Jul 2009 Posts: 5017 Location: UK
Expire: 2014-04-21
|
Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 12:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Excalibur wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
Excalibur wrote: |
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
Because, like many people, I bought far more lenses than I actually need. All I actually need is one good 50 for each camera system I own.
I stand by what I said, all 50mm lenses are good enough if you use them properly, even triplets like the Trioplan and Meritar. |
.....but why buy a CZJ Tessar 50mm f2.8 for £10 when you can buy a Zuiko 50mm f1.8 for as low as £10, Minolta 50mm f1.7 for £20, Hexanon 50mm f1.7 £20 and so on......and it wouldn't surprise me if you had bought a Nikon 50mm for £20 |
What point are you trying to make? Honestly, you don't make any sense. Most of the 50mm lenses I've bought came with cameras or cost less than 10 quid.
I'll say it yet again, the Tessar is a very good lens in it's own right and it's wrong to say Lens X is better than Lens Y when both are more than good enough. Different lenses with different characteristics, but both equally worth having. |
Well my point is:- you can get at better lens i.e. more versatile for a few £££s more over a Tessar f2.8 without compromising quality e.g. sharpness......you could try a Minolta 50mm f1.7 on your film camera (as you know it's FF) and compare it with your Tessar in all conditions from low light to sunshine and see what you think. _________________ Canon A1, AV1, T70 & T90, EOS 300 and EOS300v, Chinon CE and CP-7M. Contax 139, Fuji STX-2, Konica Autoreflex TC, FS-1, FT-1, Minolta X-700, X-300, XD-11, SRT101b, Nikon EM, FM, F4, F90X, Olympus OM2, Pentax S3, Spotmatic, Pentax ME super, Praktica TL 5B, & BC1, , Ricoh KR10super, Yashica T5D, Bronica Etrs, Mamiya RB67 pro AND drum roll:- a Sony Nex 3
.........past gear Tele Rolleiflex and Rollei SL66.
Many lenses from good to excellent. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 2:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I am well aware of the Minolta 1.7/50, I've owned it in MD and AF, used it on film and digital, it's a good lens, does the job well.
It's not available in M42 or Exakta or Werra or Altix, and for those I have Tessars, good lenses that do the job well.
The Tessar is a good lens that does it's job well, it's not inferior, it's just different. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
vanylapep
Joined: 03 Jan 2014 Posts: 312
|
Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2014 1:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
vanylapep wrote:
OP, can you post a photo of your lens, i am curious as i have a zebra one.
Thanks, |
|
Back to top |
|
|
atiratha
Joined: 07 Mar 2009 Posts: 77 Location: Czech Republic, Prague
|
Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2014 2:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
atiratha wrote:
Tessar 50/2.8 is a very different beast. I already had several fast 50s. This one is neither fast, not very sharp. Yet, there is something about its tonal gradation and contrast that just makes it delightful to shoot with in the depressing autumn/winter overcast days. Also, mine is very easy to focus (the image simply pops into focus) and it focuses to 35 cm which is great for close ups. They say Tessar 50/3.5 is generally a better lens. Anyway, the 2.8 used at 5.6 is a blast to work with. Not the best but very entertaining. _________________ In my bag: Fuji X-T20, Samyang 12/2, Voigtlander Ultron 28/2, Voigtlander Nokton Classic 40/1.4, Mitakon Speedmaster 35/0.95, 7artisans 50/1.1, Canon LTM 100/3.5, Canon LTM 135/3.5. www.vh-photo.tk |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|