Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

CARL ZEISS JENA TESSAR 50/2.8
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 10:19 pm    Post subject: CARL ZEISS JENA TESSAR 50/2.8 Reply with quote
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


PostPosted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 10:40 pm    Post subject: Re: CARL ZEISS JENA TESSAR 50/2.8 Reply with quote
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.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 10:42 pm    Post subject: Re: CARL ZEISS JENA TESSAR 50/2.8 Reply with quote
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.........


PostPosted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 10:55 pm    Post subject: Re: CARL ZEISS JENA TESSAR 50/2.8 Reply with quote
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 Wink 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.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 11:03 pm    Post subject: Re: CARL ZEISS JENA TESSAR 50/2.8 Reply with quote
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 Wink 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 .........


PostPosted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 11:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 11:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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


PostPosted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 11:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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


PostPosted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 11:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.







PostPosted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 11:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.



Rolling Eyes 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 Rolling Eyes


PostPosted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 1:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 1:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 1:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.



Rolling Eyes 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 Rolling Eyes


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.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 1:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 1:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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:



PostPosted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 1:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 2:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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. Wink


PostPosted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 4:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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


PostPosted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 4:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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


PostPosted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 8:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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 Wink


PostPosted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 11:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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 Wink


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.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 12:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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 Wink


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.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 2:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 20, 2014 1:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
OP, can you post a photo of your lens, i am curious as i have a zebra one.

Thanks,


PostPosted: Mon Jan 20, 2014 2:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2