A B&L Tessar 158mm goes digital

[overmywaders]

Recently I traded with a friend for a very nearly mint Bausch & Lomb Tessar IIb 6.25" (158mm) f6.3 lens. Frankly, I just thought the lens was interesting and well-made. But once I began to examine it, I decided to try it out. Lots of my lenses are uncoated or single-coated so I am accustomed to certain issues, but I felt that this lens might present a unique look.

Initial investigations with my D40 show that the lens is low contrast (but very sharp) until f22 and then it has a decent contrast. As for bokeh, I don't have enough photographic experience to judge. If blade-count means anything the diaphragm is certainly not deficient in blades.



I mounted the lens, using its original approx. 62mm mount, on a spare Nikon AF-1 filter holder, then stepped down to 42mm, added an Exakta adapter, plugged in some Exakta extensions, attached these to a Kalimar Exakta helical-within-helical which then mounts on the M42 flange of my Nikon.



I needed the additional extensions to get infinity with the 158mm. I can shoot as close as five feet. Alas, I haven't been able to get outside with it yet to take some good shots to share; but, from a "Rear Window" viewpoint I've been able to see that it can reach out very nicely.

Just a curiosity I suppose, but fun, and may become a useful tool for UV.

[Orio]

The combo looks like an L-System fractal , but that is part of the fun!
I just guess the looks of other people when you take that outside!
Please don't forget to show us samples!

[larsr]

It's a... monster!!

Do post some pictures with that contraption, I'm really intrigued to find out what it does

[overmywaders]

Orio and Larsr,

Okay, I made it outside (Yay!). The "monster" provided the following ("Do not fear the villagers with torches, little lens."):

From 5' in shade at f6.3:

I don't know what to look for in bokeh, so I would appreciate all input on the lens. Any inferior composition is my fault, not the tools.

Here is the same scene from 5' in shade at f22:


At 40' in full sunlight wide open:


At 75' also in full sun wide open (f6.3):



Input appreciated.

[larsr]

The first two pictures look to be quite soft all over, and the latter two pictures a bit sharper, so either your close focusing wasn't quite spot on or the lens isn't capable of going that close? Also, there's a definite lack of contrast across the board, which makes the photos look quite flat

But, considering the amount of junk you put between the camera and the lens, I'd say the results are quite decent actually!

I'm not sure of the usefulness of this monster, but it might be a lot of fun and surely intimidate, even scare, fellow photographers

(Also, pic #2 looks like you might have dirt on your sensor)

[overmywaders]

larsr,

Thanks, good input. I know the lens was in optimum focus for the short 5' shots; but remember, I don't have any stops, either close or infinity, so I may well be trying to get too close

For a lens designed in 1902 for Zeiss for 4"x5" and probably manufactured in 1920 or so, it is acceptable, I guess. Without any coating, it won't have great contrast, but I may use it for distance in the UV as it has only 4 elements in 3 groups which should allow good transmission in UV.

I'll check the sensor for dirt, thanks.