A.Schacht Ulm Travenar 2.8/50 R: gentle sharpness

[alex ph]

Got this Schacht Ulm version of Tessar in Edixa barrel (with an attractive red translucent DOF scale) and Exakta mount. The lens is not mecanically and optically perfect and would benefit from cleaning. It still surprises with a combination of sharpness and delicate rendering, bokeh included, and does not lack pop-up. The lens seems to deliver best results in close to midrange field.

Taken with Sony Nex and lens booster.

#1


#2


#3


#4 Simple BW conversion gives nice results


#5 SOOC jpeg wide open


#6 SOOC jpeg at f4


#7 Flare on purpose

[jamaeolus]

very nice. I'm pretty sure it is a tessar type. I would think single coating but am less sure of that. I have S Travenon 35mm 2.8 R, which is quite good, probably multi coated, though xuspect the -on suffix denotes a different lens configuration. Possibly a planar. Schact made some excellent lenses. Very high end fit and finish and good optics.

[Lloydy]

Lovely pictures, they are 'of their time' given the age of the lens, but they are still great pictures of a type that many people try to emulate in Photoshop using modern lenses. And I don't say that as any critisism of your pictures, far from it.

I like the old Schacht lenses, my first was a 100 / 3.3 that I bought about 15 years ago and still use, it's a lens I'll never sell. I also have a 50 / 2.8 Macro which is fabulous, and possibly as sharp as my 50 / 4 Macro Takumar. The newest Schacht is a lovely 35 / 3.5 Travegon which although is immaculate and boxed has a broken pin on the complicated aperture display which I need to make and fit. But I have tried the lens and it's glorious. I do like my Schacht's.

[Ultrapix]

Nice pictures, and always nice to see Arezzo pictured!

[alex ph]

Thank you, fellows, for your kind words!

Lloydy, could you please specify about the vintage rendering of this lens? Shooting with MF lenses only, I think to have lost the sense of it. I may distinguish this lens from Rikenon RX 2/50 and Minolta MDs, which look more modern. But this is always interesting to touch the depper difference.

Jamaeolus, the 2.8/35 Travegon must be a lens with great character. A while ago I was seraching a copy at a reasonable price, but failed and lost it from my radar.

Ultrapix, this time the shots are taken a bit more to the North and come from Bologna.

Here is a couple of shots from this lens processed with Nik Silver. This always creates a more modern look, if one pushes 'Structure' slider a bit more, as I did. Kind of "cheating" with the lens character beacause this way any lens may pass for Leica.

#1


#2

[Lloydy]

[quote="alex ph"]Thank you, fellows, for your kind words!

Lloydy, could you please specify about the vintage rendering of this lens? Shooting with MF lenses only, I think to have lost the sense of it. I may distinguish this lens from Rikenon RX 2/50 and Minolta MDs, which look more modern. But this is always interesting to touch the depper difference.

/quote]

It's not an exact science...I think that the best of the old lenses are capable of holding their own against modern lenses - in SOME respects. If an image from a good old lens is massaged a bit with some PP they are often barely indistinguishable from the same picture taken with a modern lens, the PP covers up the CA from simpler coatings and stuff like that. Which is something I think nearly every old lens user does, and enjoys doing as it's part of our enjoyment of using the old lenses.

If we do a direct comparison - straight out of the camera - of old and new lenses we will see the difference. But, with a good old lens that difference is a lot smaller.
For many of us that 'difference' is what we cherish, it's what we want to see and the reason we enjoy our old lenses, and enjoy getting the very best out of them. It's also the reason we have so many lenses How often do we grab a lens and take it out with a shot in mind? We know what we want, we ( might ) know if a particular lens will deliver just that?

It does us good to use the best modern lens we've got on our cameras sometimes, when I do it I'm staggered by the quality of my Zeiss Vario Tessar FE OSS 24-70mm f4, and even my old SMC Pentax DA* 50-135mm f2.8. Both of whic I rarely use, but they give me a benchmark - I know most of my old lenses will never match these two excellent AF lenses, but it reminds me of what is possible, and what I can realistically hope for / expect? from my old lenses.

[D1N0]

The Tessar design wasn't really meant for F2.8 It should be a least F3.5 Hence the complementary softness wide open.

[alex ph]

Lloydy, thank you for your precise and valuable reasoning. I completely agree with your idea of the valuable optical imperfections and of a possibility to "modernize" a shot with PP if one need to.

D1N0, I have a feeling that GDR Tessars are harper WO, at f2.8. But anyway, I don't mind to have two lenses in one: milder WO and sharper from f4. Shoting mixed scenery, such as urban landscape with people, sunlit grass and some others, to have some gentle glow adds a bit of athmosphere (if you wish it); otherwise you reduce the effect closing the diaphragm.

[laenee]

[kathala]

Very lovely rendition indeed, Alex, and nice sharpness. Apparently apart from gingerbread, they also know how to make lenses in Ulm

[alex ph]

Laenee, kathala, thank you!

Ah, good to know they make also gignger bread in Ulm! If its quality is as good as Schacht lenses it is worth trying.