''Elmar '' or Tessar ?

[dee]

I have two ID impaired ''Elmars '' which were probably Fed lenses .
Both have stamped nos , 4 digits on the back of the base plate , and have the early aperture sequence .
Would these be the older Fed lenses which were suggested in this forum , to be true Elmar , not Tessar copies ? If so , the Elmar engraving is a little ironic ! Equally ironic is that they probably won't register properly on my Leicas .
One arrived an a black Fed 1g ''Leica '' , the other on brass "Leica '' prbably an early post war Fed with old sytyle shutter button and dints in the accessory shoe .

I find all this just so fascinating ... an rare escape from ASD '' lostness ''

dee

 

[Jocko]

Well Dee, If I recall the surprising conclusion of that interesting discussion correctly, it emerged that the Elmar was pretty much a Tessar 🙂

It's all one in the end 🙂

Cheers, Ian

 

[Murray Kelly]

Well Dee, If I recall the surprising conclusion of that interesting discussion correctly, it emerged that the Elmar was pretty much a Tessar 🙂

It's all one in the end 🙂

Cheers, Ian

The Elmar was apparently differentiated from the Tessar for patent reasons (about ?1930). Leitz put the diaphragm immediately behind the front lens, whereas the Tessar has it further back in the assembly - between the front and rear groups where it is in the optically 'correct' place. So theoretically the Ziess Tessar placement is better then the Elmar approach.

It is quite obvious in the Tessars (of various manufacturers) - one has to look deep into the lens to see the diaphragm but an Elmar shows the leaves right up front. Almost 'in your face'.

I am speaking of the 3.5/50mm lens here. I have an example of both on the shelf. The Tessar design is so common now that it is hard to imagine that Leitz would be worried by an enfringement of patent but you have to remember it all happend only 30 odd years after the Tessar was designed.

Murray. Brisbane

 

[jl-lb.ms]

Can anyone point to a good reference that clarifies all the designators over the years? Heliar, Tessar, etc.....

 

[ZorkiKat]

The Elmar was apparently differentiated from the Tessar for patent reasons (about ?1930). Leitz put the diaphragm immediately behind the front lens, whereas the Tessar has it further back in the assembly - between the front and rear groups where it is in the optically 'correct' place. So theoretically the Ziess Tessar placement is better then the Elmar approach.

It is quite obvious in the Tessars (of various manufacturers) - one has to look deep into the lens to see the diaphragm but an Elmar shows the leaves right up front. Almost 'in your face'.

I am speaking of the 3.5/50mm lens here. I have an example of both on the shelf. The Tessar design is so common now that it is hard to imagine that Leitz would be worried by an enfringement of patent but you have to remember it all happend only 30 odd years after the Tessar was designed.

Murray. Brisbane

There is also good reason to believe that Leitz relocated the diaphragm for lens performance reasons. They may have concluded that a slightly more forward-placed diaphragm relieves some vignetting issues.

The 9cm Elmars (don't know about the 35 and 135 mm versions) have their diaphragms placed between the middle and rear groups, just like in Tessars.

Jay

 

[shadowfox]

Can anyone point to a good reference that clarifies all the designators over the years? Heliar, Tessar, etc.....

I found an article by Mr. Herb Keppler on this matter in an old issue of Pop Photo. I tried to search if there's an online version, only in Google's cache I find:

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache...ent&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Another way of course is to get a copy of the real article from the library.

 

[ferider]

Can anyone point to a good reference that clarifies all the designators over the years? Heliar, Tessar, etc.....

It's difficult to find a single reference because there is such a spectrum
of designs (even though most designs are variations of a few basic ones).

See for instance:

A History of the Photographic Lens By Rudolf Kingslake (online)

or

Non-Leitz Leica Thread-Mount Lenses by Marc James Small

Best,

Roland.

 

[jl-lb.ms]

Thank you, shadowfox and ferider. This is very helpful.

 

[dee]

Thanks to you all .

dee

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

It's difficult to find a single reference because there is such a spectrum
of designs (even though most designs are variations of a few basic ones).

See for instance:

A History of the Photographic Lens By Rudolf Kingslake (online)

or

Non-Leitz Leica Thread-Mount Lenses by Marc James Small

Best,

Roland.

Excellent references. Some simple rules will make the picture a little more clear as well:

Tessar (Zeiss) = Elmar (Leica) = Xenar (Scheider) = Skopar (Voigtländer)

Cooke triplet = Novar (Zeiss) = Trinar (Rodenstock) = Radionar (Schneider) = Apotar (Agfa) = Agnar (Agfa) etc.

Of course the = sign does not mean that the lenses were exactly the same, but their basic optical formula was more or less the same.

In fact there are so many Cooke triplet variations that a comprehensive list would include probably dozens of them. All German optical companies had their own designations. Even some Japanese companies like Yashica had their own ones... Some companies such as Agfa made two different Cooke triplet lenses, a basic one for cheap cameras (Agnar) and a better one for mid-price cameras (Apotar). After 1950s the Cooke triplet designs have been underappreciated, because they generally are not very sharp wide open and the fastest ones are "only" f/2.8. However, they have a very pleasent bokeh and other interesting qualities for a creative photographer.

Heliar is also an interesting design, since it was used almost exclusively by Voigtländer, but later it was also adopted by Pentax. Some Pentax compact cameras as late as in the late 1980s used a Heliar type lens, whereas practically all Japanese camera companies used a Tessar type lens. The current Cosina Voigtländer lenses, however, have nothing to do with the original Heliar or Skopar (i.e. Tessar) optical formulas despite their names. In other words, the CV lenses include no Heliars or Skopars...

 

[shadowfox]

Hmm, I wonder what's different between the Agnar and Apotar? maybe the quality of the glass?

I have an Ansco Viking with 6.3 Agnar. Man, the pictures from that lens is lovely, excellent details, contrast is a bit subdued, but overall I'm amazed, maybe it's also because of the 6x9 negative size 😀

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

Hmm, I wonder what's different between the Agnar and Apotar? maybe the quality of the glass?

I have an Ansco Viking with 6.3 Agnar. Man, the pictures from that lens is lovely, excellent details, contrast is a bit subdued, but overall I'm amazed, maybe it's also because of the 6x9 negative size 😀

Beats me. One difference is that the Agnar went only to f/6.3 whereas the Apotar went to f/3.5, I believe. Yashica also had a similar duo: the Yashimar and Yashikor lenses, both used in Yashica TLRs. They were both f/3.5. Reportedly the later Yashikor is much better and about as good as the Novar, Radionar and Apotar, but I have never seen a direct comparison.