| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 3754
Location: Argentina
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 2:18 pm Post subject: tessar ? sonnar ? planar ? Differences ? |
 |
|
estudleon wrote:
I read some threads in some forums (here most often), and sublies run the question of the characters of the differents designs
Thus if you are looking for a 135 mm lens. What shall you find in the tessar (eg. 4/135 for rollei), sonnar (eg. 2,8/135 for c/y) or planar (eg. 2/135 for c/y)?
What about the wide open best, the more contrast, the more sharp at wide open and at F/ 5,6 or 8. Which is better and at which aperture?
I think that it's an usefull date to buy the lens that we are looking for, and here are a lot of member that have the lenses and can know that information.
Rino.
_________________
Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 29545
Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 2:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
Tessar (or better said tele-tessar if we are talking of tele lenses) design are rather slow lenses, they provide sharp images when stopped down and a good bokeh.
Sonnar design lenses are faster than Tele-tessar, they provide very smooth bokeh and are usually sharper than Tele-Tessar wide open
Planar design lenses are the fastest, sharp wide open, they provide the best microcontrast and 3D, their bokeh can be "busy" especially with the highlights.
_________________
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 |
|
|
LucisPictor
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 17633
Location: Oberhessen, Germany / Maidstone ('95-'96)
Expire: 2013-12-03
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LucisPictor wrote:
Tessar = 4 lenses, very sharp in the centre but not very fast.
Sonnar = faster than a Tessar design, only 6 reflective surfaces.
Planar = Double-Gauss type, an even faster design, but many reflective surfaces, so it needs excellent coating.
EDIT: Oops, Orio was faster.
_________________
Personal forum activity on pause every now and again (due to job obligations)!
Carsten, former Moderator 
Things ON SALE
Carsten = "KAPCTEH" = "Karusutenu" | T-shirt?.........................My photos from Emilia: http://www.schouler.net/emilia/emilia2011.html
My gear: http://retrocameracs.wordpress.com/ausrustung/
Old list: http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=65 (Not up-to-date, sorry!) | http://www.lucispictor.de | http://www.alensaweek.wordpress.com |
http://www.retrocamera.de |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Abbazz
Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1098
Location: Jakarta
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 2:41 pm Post subject: Re: tessar ? sonnar ? planar ? Differences ? |
|
|
Abbazz wrote:
| estudleon wrote: |
I read some threads in some forums (here most often), and sublies run the question of the characters of the differents designs
Thus if you are looking for a 135 mm lens. What shall you find in the tessar (eg. 4/135 for rollei), sonnar (eg. 2,8/135 for c/y) or planar (eg. 2/135 for c/y)?
What about the wide open best, the more contrast, the more sharp at wide open and at F/ 5,6 or 8. Which is better and at which aperture?
I think that it's an usefull date to buy the lens that we are looking for, and here are a lot of member that have the lenses and can know that information. |
There's many litterature on the web. For example, you might want to check:
Frank Mechelhoff's webpage about Planar vs. Sonnar
Rick Denney's bokeh test
Dominique Guebey's page about fast lenses (extremely interesting, but in French  )
Last but not least, the good old Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeiss_Planar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeiss_Sonnar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tessar
Cheers!
Abbazz
_________________
Il n'y a rien dans le monde qui n'ait son moment decisif, et le chef-d'oeuvre de la bonne conduite est de connaitre et de prendre ce moment. - Cardinal de Retz
The 6x9 Photography Online Resource:
http://artbig.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 3754
Location: Argentina
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
Thanks Orio and Carsen.
Another difference, the tele-tessar seems to have (for me) less CA or images very corrected in the PP 
At f/ 5,6 to 11 the sonnar lenses have the same (or near) sharpness than the planar. I read it too.
Rino.
_________________
Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 29545
Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 3:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
| estudleon wrote: |
Another difference, the tele-tessar seems to have (for me) less CA or images very corrected in the PP
|
answer is: very corrected in PP
CA in long non-apo tessar teles can be awful. I returned my Tele-Tessar 300mm right because of that.
What I am going to say it's a generalization, and probably also a banalization, but it contains a bit of truth: one of the main reasons why lens designers put more glass elements in lenses, is to correct aberrations and other optical problems.
So you can say that, as a broad rough statement, a lens with few glass elements is a lens with a higher risk of non corrected aberrations compared to a lens with more glass elements.
Tessar scheme only has 4 glass elements (which become 5 or 6 in tele-tessar), this means it has higher risk of aberrations.
_________________
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 |
|
|
Spotmatic
Joined: 18 Aug 2008
Posts: 4045
Location: Netherlands
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Spotmatic wrote:
I hope to see the differences with my own eyes soon. I'm in the process of buying a Takumar 58mm f/2 (yes, the one and only 35mm SLR Sonnar standard lens) and will compare it with the later 55mm Takumars of the same speed (but of Double-Gauss type).
_________________
Peter - Moderator
Pentax K-5 + Pentax 645 + Canon 5D + Bessa RF 10,5cm Heliar, and a 'little' bag full of MF lenses. The lens list is * here *.
My fast 80s: Asahi-Kogaku Takumar 83mm f/1.9 - Super-Takumar 85mm f/1.9 - FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited - Cyclop 85/1.5 (Helios-40 innards) - Komura 80mm f/1.8 - Meyer Görlitz Primoplan 7,5cm 1:1.9 - Carl Zeiss Jena 80mm f/1.8 Pancolar - Canon 85mm f/1.8 S.S.C. - Canon 85mm f/1.2 S.S.C. Aspherical |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mflex-on
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mflex-on wrote:
| Spotmatic wrote: |
| I'm in the process of buying a Takumar 58mm f/2 (yes, the one and only 35mm SLR Sonnar standard lens) |
Wie dann was denn wo denn? That sounds very interesting ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spotmatic
Joined: 18 Aug 2008
Posts: 4045
Location: Netherlands
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Spotmatic wrote:
| mflex-on wrote: |
| Spotmatic wrote: |
| I'm in the process of buying a Takumar 58mm f/2 (yes, the one and only 35mm SLR Sonnar standard lens) |
Wie dann was denn wo denn? That sounds very interesting ... |
What sounds interesting? That I'm buying it or that it is of the Sonnar type?
Nice lens though... Pictures of Frank Mechelhoff:
_________________
Peter - Moderator
Pentax K-5 + Pentax 645 + Canon 5D + Bessa RF 10,5cm Heliar, and a 'little' bag full of MF lenses. The lens list is * here *.
My fast 80s: Asahi-Kogaku Takumar 83mm f/1.9 - Super-Takumar 85mm f/1.9 - FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited - Cyclop 85/1.5 (Helios-40 innards) - Komura 80mm f/1.8 - Meyer Görlitz Primoplan 7,5cm 1:1.9 - Carl Zeiss Jena 80mm f/1.8 Pancolar - Canon 85mm f/1.8 S.S.C. - Canon 85mm f/1.2 S.S.C. Aspherical |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kuuan
Joined: 14 Jan 2008
Posts: 4569
Location: right now: Austria
Expire: 2014-12-26
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kuuan wrote:
| Spotmatic wrote: |
What sounds interesting? That I'm buying it or that it is of the Sonnar type?
|
both..
but specially that you FOUND one, buy one!
CONGRATS Peter!
_________________
my photos on flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/collections |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spotmatic
Joined: 18 Aug 2008
Posts: 4045
Location: Netherlands
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Spotmatic wrote:
| kuuan wrote: |
| Spotmatic wrote: |
What sounds interesting? That I'm buying it or that it is of the Sonnar type?
|
both..
but specially that you FOUND one, buy one!
CONGRATS Peter! |
Thanks! And no wonder, just like you I like the early Takumars. I cannot wait to try it out.
_________________
Peter - Moderator
Pentax K-5 + Pentax 645 + Canon 5D + Bessa RF 10,5cm Heliar, and a 'little' bag full of MF lenses. The lens list is * here *.
My fast 80s: Asahi-Kogaku Takumar 83mm f/1.9 - Super-Takumar 85mm f/1.9 - FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited - Cyclop 85/1.5 (Helios-40 innards) - Komura 80mm f/1.8 - Meyer Görlitz Primoplan 7,5cm 1:1.9 - Carl Zeiss Jena 80mm f/1.8 Pancolar - Canon 85mm f/1.8 S.S.C. - Canon 85mm f/1.2 S.S.C. Aspherical |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LucisPictor
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 17633
Location: Oberhessen, Germany / Maidstone ('95-'96)
Expire: 2013-12-03
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LucisPictor wrote:
| Spotmatic wrote: |
| kuuan wrote: |
| Spotmatic wrote: |
What sounds interesting? That I'm buying it or that it is of the Sonnar type?
|
both..
but specially that you FOUND one, buy one!
CONGRATS Peter! |
Thanks! And no wonder, just like you I like the early Takumars. I cannot wait to try it out. |
Well, with this nick you'd better love them, "Takuman".
_________________
Personal forum activity on pause every now and again (due to job obligations)!
Carsten, former Moderator
Things ON SALE
Carsten = "KAPCTEH" = "Karusutenu" | T-shirt?.........................My photos from Emilia: http://www.schouler.net/emilia/emilia2011.html
My gear: http://retrocameracs.wordpress.com/ausrustung/
Old list: http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=65 (Not up-to-date, sorry!) | http://www.lucispictor.de | http://www.alensaweek.wordpress.com |
http://www.retrocamera.de |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 3754
Location: Argentina
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 7:18 pm Post subject: Re: tessar ? sonnar ? planar ? Differences ? |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
| Abbazz wrote: |
| estudleon wrote: |
I read some threads in some forums (here most often), and sublies run the question of the characters of the differents designs
Thus if you are looking for a 135 mm lens. What shall you find in the tessar (eg. 4/135 for rollei), sonnar (eg. 2,8/135 for c/y) or planar (eg. 2/135 for c/y)?
What about the wide open best, the more contrast, the more sharp at wide open and at F/ 5,6 or 8. Which is better and at which aperture?
I think that it's an usefull date to buy the lens that we are looking for, and here are a lot of member that have the lenses and can know that information. |
There's many litterature on the web. For example, you might want to check:
Frank Mechelhoff's webpage about Planar vs. Sonnar
Rick Denney's bokeh test
Dominique Guebey's page about fast lenses (extremely interesting, but in French )
Last but not least, the good old Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeiss_Planar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeiss_Sonnar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tessar
Cheers!
Abbazz |
Thanks Abbaz, I will read them today more latter.
Rino.
_________________
Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 3754
Location: Argentina
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
| Orio wrote: |
| estudleon wrote: |
Another difference, the tele-tessar seems to have (for me) less CA or images very corrected in the PP
|
answer is: very corrected in PP
CA in long non-apo tessar teles can be awful. I returned my Tele-Tessar 300mm right because of that.
What I am going to say it's a generalization, and probably also a banalization, but it contains a bit of truth: one of the main reasons why lens designers put more glass elements in lenses, is to correct aberrations and other optical problems.
So you can say that, as a broad rough statement, a lens with few glass elements is a lens with a higher risk of non corrected aberrations compared to a lens with more glass elements.
Tessar scheme only has 4 glass elements (which become 5 or 6 in tele-tessar), this means it has higher risk of aberrations. |
All generalization has it own risk. I agree with you. It's what I had ever known. But there are in the net a lot of images taken with lenses and I know they aren't so good, and then I'm a bit confused (all that I knew is wrong? Did I use bad some lenses ?). And with some answers (like yours) I return to the reality.
Thanks. Rino.
_________________
Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
