What would you say were the best of the three-element lenses?

[Roger Hicks]

Long focal length lenses can usually get by with fewer elements.

Indeed. There were the TWO-glass Leica long-focus lenses at one time. 560mm? I forget.

Cheers,

R.

 

[FallisPhoto]

My personal favorite is the 165mm f/3.5 Jos. Schneider Xenar "Typ D."

Cheers!

Abbazz

Is this one of the lenses you are talking about? http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=110222656515&ssPageName=STRK:MEWN:IT&ih=001 Picked it up a few days ago on ebay, but it hasn't arrived yet. I'm a sucker for vintage stuff and I figured I'd try it out on a 4x5 monorail.

 

[FallisPhoto]

Can I count the following as an "honourary" 3 element lens. One of the lenses to convince me that old and simple designs can produce nice images was the Color Skopar in a Voightlander Vito B from the 1950s. This is classed as a triplet design, similar to the Tessar I think (I am not an expert) but its a modified triplet with four elements in three groups, the rear two elements being cemented. It had a max aperture of only f3.5 but may I say that it delivered surprisingly sound results with a nice 1950s look in black and white.

I have two much older Skopars than that, one on an Avus and one on a Berghiel. Both of mine have bubbles in them. I always assumed that this was due to impurities in the canadian blasam cement that had decomposed.

 

[FallisPhoto]

Disappointments have been a 75/3.5 Novar in a Super Ikonta, a couple of Agfa Apotars (one in a 35mm Memar, one in a 6x6 Isolette III), and an 80/3.5 Yashikor in a Yashica TLR.... but, again, these may have happened to be shots that I was taking at large apertures where the lenses were not at their best.

I don't know what it is with Apotars but they tend to be either very good indeed or pretty bad, with not much in the middle. Maybe in my experience I've just been lucky, but the good ones have outnumbered the bad ones for me. Oh, and I have a Memar too. Mine is pretty good, but I did have to fiddle with the lens for hours to get it that way.

 

[peterm1]

I have two much older Skopars than that, one on an Avus and one on a Berghiel. Both of mine have bubbles in them. I always assumed that this was due to impurities in the canadian blasam cement that had decomposed.

It may be that the bubbles are in the glass as a lot of prewar glass for lenses had this issue. It was said to not necessarily affect image quality (depending one supposes on the size and number of bubbles.) I once bought a fed 1 in Eastern Europe while travellng there. It was in pretty nice condition and was a good price. It was not till I got home that I checked it and found that the lens had dozens of bubbles in its little Elmar copy lens (I suppose an industar) - looked like a fizzy soda. I never bothered taking pictures but eventually sold it to a guy who collected them.

 

[FallisPhoto]

It may be that the bubbles are in the glass as a lot of prewar glass for lenses had this issue. It was said to not necessarily affect image quality (depending one supposes on the size and number of bubbles.) I once bought a fed 1 in Eastern Europe while travellng there. It was in pretty nice condition and was a good price. It was not till I got home that I checked it and found that the lens had dozens of bubbles in its little Elmar copy lens (I suppose an industar) - looked like a fizzy soda. I never bothered taking pictures but eventually sold it to a guy who collected them.

I would guess that it also depends a whole lot on which element the bubbles are in. In one of my lenses (the one on the Bergheil) the bubbles (front element only) seem to have no effect (from what I can tell -- I haven't seen what it would look like without them), but in the other, one tiny bubble in the rear element adds a small black spot to each photo. It's about where the imaginary grid lines would intersect in the upper left, if you were using the rule of thirds.

 

[raid]

Relax, you're on topic. The Schneider Radionar was a triplet.

I wasn't sure about the lens design. Stopped down to 5.6 and smaller, the lens is quite sharp.

 

[Abbazz]

Is this one of the lenses you are talking about? http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=110222656515&ssPageName=STRK:MEWN:IT&ih=001

No, the one you bought is a regular 4 element Xenar of Tessar formula. The "Typ D" lens is a triplet.

Cheers!

Abbazz

 

[sebastel]

... in its little Elmar copy lens (I suppose an industar) ...

not that it makes a big difference, but the 4element/3group industar are actually tessar copies, not elmar.

🙂

(the main difference is where the aperture is located. elmar - between 1st and 2nd group, tessar between 2nd and 3rd group)

s.

 

[physiognomy]

...i only used a 40mm 3.5 triotar in a rollei 35 LED, and i liked it a lot, but that may be due to the extremely nice and useful concept of the whole camera.

I agree... I find that the 40/3.5 Triotar lens very good & can't work out why it gets such a bad wrap. Sure, compared to the Tessar or Sonnar it definitely takes second place, but considering the price I think they are a bargain! This was a quick shot taken at LAX through a dusty glass window as I boarded for Australia a couple of years back.

Peter

 

[FallisPhoto]

Mayer-gorlitz trioplen 75mm/f2.9 on Welta Perle I like.
Not so sharp, but gives flat characteristics in the corner of the picture.
In special mention, few astigmatism shows no swirl Bokeh in the back is well worth.

I've got one of those on a folding Balda Super Baldina. It's a 35mm though. I wonder if it will give me the same effect.

 

[Palaeoboy]

My favourite 3 element lens would have to be the Hologon 15mm f8 M. Absolutely stunning lens in its day and a very unique optical design.

 

[David Murphy]

Whatever lens the Walzflex TLR had on it is pretty darned good. So were the three element lenses on Seagull TLR's.

 

[David Murphy]

I second the above comments about the Rollei Triotar's as well. Interesting thread BTW.

 

[FallisPhoto]

My favourite 3 element lens would have to be the Hologon 15mm f8 M. Absolutely stunning lens in its day and a very unique optical design.

I had heard those have really bad vignetting problems -- or is that a myth?

 

[VictorM.]

I've been disappointed by Zeiss Novars, but very pleasantly surprised by the Agfa Apotar and Balda Baltar.

 

[FallisPhoto]

I've been disappointed by Zeiss Novars, but very pleasantly surprised by the Agfa Apotar and Balda Baltar.

Have you noticed much variation in the Apotars or is it just me? When they are good they can be very good indeed, it can take a lot of adjustment to get them to focus right though. I think part of the problem is that most of them have been taken apart to get that green grease out of them. Then they have to be recalibrated, and unless you are very good at it, ... well ... you may come close, but you'll probably be a little off.

I've noticed that most of the Baldars I've seen seem to be in Jubilettes; do you have one of these?

 

[Abbazz]

Here are some pictures taken with my J. Schneider Xenar "Typ D" 165mm f/3.5 lens triplet lens (all taken wide open, no sharpening or post processing whatsoever):

Cheers!

Abbazz

 

[Palaeoboy]

I had heard those have really bad vignetting problems -- or is that a myth?

Yes like many superwides that is the case but for a 3 element design and the period that it was first introduced it was a phenomenal lens. They provided a graduating ND filter to cope with the light fall off.