thomob
Established
Sorry if this might of already been discussed, i did search for it but didnt find anything..
I recently have been offered a Travenar 135mm f/3.5, wondering how they perform? Anyone have any experience with these lenses?
I recently have been offered a Travenar 135mm f/3.5, wondering how they perform? Anyone have any experience with these lenses?
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
Usually lenses 50mm and beyond, of moderate aperture are really good performers. Even a Leitz mountain elmar or a beat up 135 Hektor are great performers. Once the apertures get faster, then it's more difficult to design a lens that performs well. The Schacht lens will probably work great.
Phil Forrest
Phil Forrest
thomob
Established
Okay great, well its $30 ($AUS) which seems like a pretty good bargain!?
thomob
Established
is this lens for rangefinders or slr's ?
Dave Jenkins
Loose Canon
I had an 85mm Schott Travenar in Leica thread mount once. It was absolutely the worst lens I've ever owned. If at all possible, test that sucker before you buy it.
Grytpype
Well-known
I've used a Travenar 135mm in Exakta mount (on an Exa II) and it produced very decent, sharp, pictures.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Schacht were rather low budget - which does not mean that much optically (they made mostly Tessar clones and other rather basic but quality designs, with good glass and a good formula), but mechanically, most of their lenses are not up to particularly high standards.
Worse for Leica users is that most of their M39 lenses may have been Paxette lenses or for other obscure German cameras (Leidolf?) with a different register distance and rangefinder scaling. LTM Travenars do exist, at least for the Periflex, but given the poor reception LTM Travenars generally get (which is much worse than to be expected from the Paxette or their SLR lenses), I suspect that most of those sold on ebay and camera fairs are either in straightforward Paxette or similar mounts, or were poorly converted.
Worse for Leica users is that most of their M39 lenses may have been Paxette lenses or for other obscure German cameras (Leidolf?) with a different register distance and rangefinder scaling. LTM Travenars do exist, at least for the Periflex, but given the poor reception LTM Travenars generally get (which is much worse than to be expected from the Paxette or their SLR lenses), I suspect that most of those sold on ebay and camera fairs are either in straightforward Paxette or similar mounts, or were poorly converted.
Last edited:
My Nikon 135/3.5, Canon 135/3.5, Leitz 135/4.5 Hektor, and 135/3.8 Acall are better than the Travenar. It is a nice looking lens.
thomob
Established
im not sure that helps me much at all?
well i have paid the guy just before. $30 i dont think i can really go wrong, if it comes to it, i can resell on eBay i guess...
He said its in perfect condition and is the M39 mount which is what i need for my Bessa R.
When it arrives ill take it for a test shoot and post the shots
thanks for the help tho guys
Luddite Frank
Well-known
The 39mm thread-mount lenses for the Braun Super-Paxette will physically exchange with Leica LTM lenses, however the "mount-to-film-plane" distance on the Braun is slightly deeper, so pics will be out of focus using Braun lens on a Leitz camera and vice-versa.
Also, some Braun lenses are not RF coupled...
That said, take it, try it, see what happens...
I have a Schacht Travegon 135 for my Exakta SLR, which produces good pictures...
Also, some Braun lenses are not RF coupled...
That said, take it, try it, see what happens...
I have a Schacht Travegon 135 for my Exakta SLR, which produces good pictures...
thomob
Established
ah right, dang.. a bit late lol, it should arrive this week. The guy said he was happy to take it back if i wasnt happy.
rustysheepdog
Member
During the late 1960s, Leitz marketed the Schacht 35mm, 90mm and 135mm lenses in rangefinder screw fitting to meet the small but steady demand for lenses to fit the earlier screw cameras. I used them and can say categorically that the quality was very good, both optically and mechanically. The 135 was made in a two-piece mount where the optical section - which included the focusing mount - could be separated from the rear portion and used directly on a Visoflex II or III. Very neat indeed. The 135 was the most popular, followed by the 90. The 35mm was a retrofocus design 'borrowed' from the firm's slr range of lenses and looked bulky and out of place on a III, or even a IIIg.
Leitz marketing literature implied that these three lenses were required to meet standards laid down by themselves, but how far this was true I can't say. What I do say is that if the lens you get is one of this family and in good condition you'll find nothing to complain about in the context of 1960s optics.
Leitz marketing literature implied that these three lenses were required to meet standards laid down by themselves, but how far this was true I can't say. What I do say is that if the lens you get is one of this family and in good condition you'll find nothing to complain about in the context of 1960s optics.
Luddite Frank
Well-known
This has my curiosity piqued.... I just pulled-out my user Leica III kit and my Braun Super-Paxette kit to compare.
Unfortunately, the 135 Braun lens is not Schacht, but rather is Roeschlein-Kreuznach. In all cases though, it seems that the complete Braun lenses are physically shorter than their LTM counterparts.
My Roeschlein 135mm is actually shorter than a Leitz 90 Elmar...
While the Braun Paxette / Super Paxette body is about the same thickness as a Barnack Leica, the Braun has an additional 3/4" "thickness" to account for the Compur shutter and "flying-buttress" lens mount ring, thus moving the Braun's lens elements further away from the film plane than is the case in a Barnack.
I wonder if Schacht coded their LTM lenses with any sort of letter code ?
thomob
Established
alright, so this lens just arrived and on first sight, it looks in quite shabby condition. But had a look through the lens and it seems to be okay. nothing significant that could effect image quality..
after fitting it onto my bessa r i noticed the focus is VERY stiff. it is definitely not worth over $30 just because how stiff it is. but i think over more use it might become a bit looser (?)
anyway, i shot a few test portraits with it and just developed the film. the shots from the negative look quite flat and soft.. i will scan them in when the roll is dry.
so far. no good..
maybe this is the reason why?
after fitting it onto my bessa r i noticed the focus is VERY stiff. it is definitely not worth over $30 just because how stiff it is. but i think over more use it might become a bit looser (?)
anyway, i shot a few test portraits with it and just developed the film. the shots from the negative look quite flat and soft.. i will scan them in when the roll is dry.
so far. no good..
maybe this is the reason why?
thomob
Established
here it is by the way.
I'll try to remember to put up a shot of mine; it is the later black lens.
If it is coupling to the RF cam, and infiity agrees- you should be Okay. The version for the Paxette should be shorter than the Leica version.
If it is coupling to the RF cam, and infiity agrees- you should be Okay. The version for the Paxette should be shorter than the Leica version.
Last edited:
gdi
Veteran
I have a 135 and a 90 Travenar. My 135 is not usable due to back focus but the 90 is pretty decent - except build quality is very sloppy. Here are a couple of sample 90 shots...
thomob
Established
these were shot with the lens
As you can see, they are out of focus. Should i send it back to the seller and get my whopping $30 back? or try to learn where the focus needs to be pulled/pushed back to to get it IN focus? or is there some kind of mod i might be able to do ?
As you can see, they are out of focus. Should i send it back to the seller and get my whopping $30 back? or try to learn where the focus needs to be pulled/pushed back to to get it IN focus? or is there some kind of mod i might be able to do ?
Hard to tell from these pictures- but it looks like it is front focusing.
Does the distance scale line uo with infinity on the viewfinder?
The optics module probably unscrews from the focus mount. The shim controls the standoff. It needs to be adjusted. If the actual focus is in front of the RF, the shim needs to be reduced. If the actual focus is behind, the shim needs to be increased. You need to take a picture to determine where the focus actually is in relationship to the RF. I use a fence post.
Does the distance scale line uo with infinity on the viewfinder?
The optics module probably unscrews from the focus mount. The shim controls the standoff. It needs to be adjusted. If the actual focus is in front of the RF, the shim needs to be reduced. If the actual focus is behind, the shim needs to be increased. You need to take a picture to determine where the focus actually is in relationship to the RF. I use a fence post.
Luddite Frank
Well-known
here it is by the way.
That looks quite like the 135 Travegon for my Exakta, which also has an incredibly stiff focus... this appears to be about twice as long as a 39mm Braun lens.
I think Schacht must have used the same lube for their focusing helicals as did Agfa-Ansco during this era - most 1950's-'60s Agfa-Ansco cameras I'm finding have seized focusing mounts...