Triplets vs Tessars

[kansalliskala]

There is often this selction with folders and TLR:s. I've seen some mixed comments. Usually recommedation "take Tessar" but they costs $50-100 more than triplet versions.

Then - again I seen some reviews where Novar Anastigmat is better than Tessar. And I'm very satisfied with my Tri-Lausar/Yashikor. I think also that sometimes "last-of-generation" products can well be better that "first-of-line" products (copies?) of a more complex design.

Opinions, details: what are the differences?

[Nesster]

Things going for triplets: fewer glass surfaces, so un- or single- coated lenses may suffer less -so despite theory, a triplet may have more contrast than a Tessar type. For the typical landscape or mid-distance shot, with the lens closed down a bit, there isn't much advantage to a Tessar type.

Things not going for triplets: in my (meager) experience, the bokeh can be less appealing than with a Tessar type. A Tessar type may (often) give a rounder feel to portraits. A Tessar type has better optical correction so may give more resolution across the frame, especially at wider apertures.

I believe one reason for triplets having a bad rep is that there were a lot of crappy ones made for consumer price points. Plus, the name Tessar is still current, and so the old Tessars ride on the modern one's coattails, in the marketplace. But a good triplet, Vaskar or Novar, or the Tri-Lausar, does very well indeed.

[estudleon]

I don't know in medium format. But in 35 mm used a lot of vaskars 2,8/50 mm in voigtlander vitoret series and had very bad luck with them.

Till F/8 they were practically soft (perhaps at 5,6 at center it was good). The skopar (tessar) 2,8 was a lot better than the voigtar. The color rendering, bokeh and resolution power and contrast are far better in the skopar.

And the 3,5 skopar was a bit better than the 2,8, to my taste.

The lanthar triplet was better than the voigtar, and was close to the skopar.

Rino.

[PaulC]

The Tessar is also an old design, dating from 1902. I've a feeling that it really only gained traction in the consumer market once decent coatings became available to counter the loss of contrast.

Didn't it allow wider apertures than were practicable for triplets because of vignetting? The wider lenses on the folders were almost always Tessar type, as far as I can make out.

Stopped down, a triplet can be very sharp indeed. They are not bad lenses at all. And, of course, an f6.3 lens is already pretty well stopped down wide open.

[no-X]

Both Tessar and Cooke Triplet have 4 inner air-glass surfaces, so contrast should be similar.

I have very limited experience with pre-war optics, but Zeiss pre-war tessars for medium/large format are significantly less sharp, than tessars for 35mm format. Majority of old triplets I tried were sharper - at least in image center.

Anyway, it's possible, that tessars made by other manufacturers are better. E.g. Contessa Nettel offered "Sonnar" lens, which was in fact tessar type (Zeiss bought them later and used the name "sonnar" for Bertele's complex triplets) and this one was better - sharper and more contrasty.

[Nesster]

A good point there - 35mm will be different than 120 - a medium format image registers as 'sharp' easier than 35mm due to scaling.

[PaulC]

A triotar can be nice and sharp from corner to corner on a Canon 5D, which is a pretty tough test.

[LucisPictor]

[martinsmith99]

I have a couple of cheap triplets and stopped down a couple of stops they perform really well. The bokeh is somewhat different though.