kknox
kknox
I picked up a very clean CZ Jena Tessar 50 2.8 in M42 mount today, $30 bucks. Its the early 60's aluminum version. Anyone had any experience with this lens before I buy an M4/3 adapter?
Carl Zeiss Jena 50 2.8 any good?
- Thread starter kknox
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 12
- Views 8K
Boris Stupak
Well-known
It is not a bad lens.
Stopped down a little, your photos will look like photos from any other lens.
Stopped down a little, your photos will look like photos from any other lens.
David Murphy
Veteran
Tessars make generally pleasing images, perhaps a tad soft at wider apertures, but that look actually has a nice feel to it IMO (and that of many others). Color images have decent contrast, and I think a pastel rendition sort of look. They are an economical design, but an effective one. I particularly like the Tessar on the Rollei 35.
IMO there are no lenses made by Zeiss that a "bad" - Zeiss IQ ranges from good to outstanding.
IMO there are no lenses made by Zeiss that a "bad" - Zeiss IQ ranges from good to outstanding.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
The CZJ tessars can be very sharp - I say can be because after 50+ a lot of things can effect the IQ of a lens.
The early ones will generally show a softer contrast and softer rendering of colors because of the coating technology of the times, the later ones can be extremely contrasty.
If it is a preset or semi-auto lens then good because the OOF quality of the 2.8/50 tessar is "chunky" and it's pretty well known for its "sparkly" bokeh (meaning the shape of the aperture will make itself obvious in OOF areas - so the early versions with lots of blades in the diaphragm will produce less distracting OOF areas).
Word of caution, if it is a preset lens it will not be compatible with any adapters that feature a lip around the inside for pressing in the pin on automatic M42 lenses.
Beyond that there are so many good M42 lenses out there, that if you own just one adapter - it should really be an M42 adapter.
The early ones will generally show a softer contrast and softer rendering of colors because of the coating technology of the times, the later ones can be extremely contrasty.
If it is a preset or semi-auto lens then good because the OOF quality of the 2.8/50 tessar is "chunky" and it's pretty well known for its "sparkly" bokeh (meaning the shape of the aperture will make itself obvious in OOF areas - so the early versions with lots of blades in the diaphragm will produce less distracting OOF areas).
Word of caution, if it is a preset lens it will not be compatible with any adapters that feature a lip around the inside for pressing in the pin on automatic M42 lenses.
Beyond that there are so many good M42 lenses out there, that if you own just one adapter - it should really be an M42 adapter.
raid
Dad Photographer
I like using such a lens for portraits. It is very soft when used wide open. Set it to aperture 8-11, and you will have a sharp lens if it is clean of haze.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
The best Tessar I ever has was a 150/6.3. Even at f/3.5 the design is 'stretched' a bit, and by f/2.8 I can't help feeling that most of the people who rave about Tessars are seeing what they want to see. I have only one genuine Zeiss Tessar 50/2.8 (on a Contaflex) and at full aperture, really, it's just about adequate if the shot doesn't need extreme sharpness. Then again, how many shots do? The 300/3.5 I use on 8x10 is really quite soft. But as tunalegs points out, after 50+ years, sample variation is likely to be significant.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
Contaflex Tessars
Contaflex Tessars
I have to admit Roger, my impressions of the Tessars on the later Contaflex models have generally been that centre sharpness remains pretty good wide open, and that the edges improve more when stopped down. The later ones are certainly sharper than the earlier types such as those fitted to the Contaflex III and IV for instance. And probably the front cell focus 45mm Tessars of the I & II also, although this is complicated, I think, by the focus distance at which they are compared. I've seen some images made by friends with the 45mm Tessar that surprised me by their sharpness at closer distances but I suspect at infinity perhaps they might not. By the time the Super BC emerged, a good 50mm Tessar sample should be sharp enough in the centre, if not at the edges, open. There has been much conjecture amongst the members of the Zeiss Historica Society as to precisely when the "re-computed" Tessar was introduced into the unit focussing Contaflex models. Opinions vary, the only certainty is that everyone does not agree.
They seem to accept that by late in the S run (1970-71) they were definitely being used. I have a Contaflex S with a very late serial number (in the late U range), and it is indeed a good performer. But I couldn't honestly say it is any better than the Tessar fitted to my Super BC that I've noticed. And Ivor's books state the recomputed type came in around the Super B or New Super, some years earlier than the S...
Other things to watch out for are that the front components of the later or earlier 50mm Tessars can be freely swapped from camera to camera. I wonder if the 50mm cells may have been matched as a unit when new across all the lens elements (including the centre and rear groups permanently attached to the body). If requiring a replacement front cell, Zeiss required the serial number of the original, in order to match the replacement.
Dried grease in the helicoid, and loose shutter/lens retaining screws can all promote some play in the lens/shutter assembly relative to the film plane. Dried grease is easy enough to check for, as it will affect the feel of the focus ring. If its present this won't help sharpness across the frame as it can cause a small amount of "tilt". It's most noticeable with the extra weight of a Pro Tessar on the camera than with the standard 50mm, though.
Given all the generous advice you've bestowed over the years, (both via RFF and yours and Frances's books), if your Super BC ever gives you any grief, you must send it over to me, it would be my pleasure to make it work properly again for you if it is ever needed, I know my way around them reasonably well.
Cheers,
Brett
Contaflex Tessars
I have to admit Roger, my impressions of the Tessars on the later Contaflex models have generally been that centre sharpness remains pretty good wide open, and that the edges improve more when stopped down. The later ones are certainly sharper than the earlier types such as those fitted to the Contaflex III and IV for instance. And probably the front cell focus 45mm Tessars of the I & II also, although this is complicated, I think, by the focus distance at which they are compared. I've seen some images made by friends with the 45mm Tessar that surprised me by their sharpness at closer distances but I suspect at infinity perhaps they might not. By the time the Super BC emerged, a good 50mm Tessar sample should be sharp enough in the centre, if not at the edges, open. There has been much conjecture amongst the members of the Zeiss Historica Society as to precisely when the "re-computed" Tessar was introduced into the unit focussing Contaflex models. Opinions vary, the only certainty is that everyone does not agree.
They seem to accept that by late in the S run (1970-71) they were definitely being used. I have a Contaflex S with a very late serial number (in the late U range), and it is indeed a good performer. But I couldn't honestly say it is any better than the Tessar fitted to my Super BC that I've noticed. And Ivor's books state the recomputed type came in around the Super B or New Super, some years earlier than the S...
Other things to watch out for are that the front components of the later or earlier 50mm Tessars can be freely swapped from camera to camera. I wonder if the 50mm cells may have been matched as a unit when new across all the lens elements (including the centre and rear groups permanently attached to the body). If requiring a replacement front cell, Zeiss required the serial number of the original, in order to match the replacement.
Dried grease in the helicoid, and loose shutter/lens retaining screws can all promote some play in the lens/shutter assembly relative to the film plane. Dried grease is easy enough to check for, as it will affect the feel of the focus ring. If its present this won't help sharpness across the frame as it can cause a small amount of "tilt". It's most noticeable with the extra weight of a Pro Tessar on the camera than with the standard 50mm, though.
Given all the generous advice you've bestowed over the years, (both via RFF and yours and Frances's books), if your Super BC ever gives you any grief, you must send it over to me, it would be my pleasure to make it work properly again for you if it is ever needed, I know my way around them reasonably well.
Cheers,
Brett
I acquired a black example of the CZJ Tessar with the auto/manual aperture switch myself a few weeks ago, attached to a Praktica, so the particular Tessar the OP mentioned is also of interest to me. The aperture blades are stuck, so I won't be able to try it for myself until I have got around to cleaning them.
Cheers,
Brett
Cheers,
Brett
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
I know that the 2.8/50 from Carl Zeiss Jena was recalculated in 1954 to make it as sharp as the 3.5/50 (at least according to advertising). I'm sure Zeiss Oberkochen recalculated theirs at some point in the 50s too.
I've seen a comparison between the CZJ 2.8/50 and the Zeiss Icarex 2.8/50 Tessar, and the CZJ version was the clear winner in sharpness and contrast. I think though that the Icarex tessar was a Voigtlander product.
I was never impressed by the 2.8/45 used on the first Contaflex, in my experience the corners are always soft even stopped down. I presume this has to do with the smaller image circle of the 45mm focal length.
I've seen a comparison between the CZJ 2.8/50 and the Zeiss Icarex 2.8/50 Tessar, and the CZJ version was the clear winner in sharpness and contrast. I think though that the Icarex tessar was a Voigtlander product.
I was never impressed by the 2.8/45 used on the first Contaflex, in my experience the corners are always soft even stopped down. I presume this has to do with the smaller image circle of the 45mm focal length.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Brett,
Thank'ee kindly. No, I think it's about as good as ever it was. The fact that the design is overstretched is very rarely going to be important in the real world, shooting pictures instead of test charts, but equally, I find that some people seem to invest too much in their own "magic bullets": not financially but (I use the word generously) intellectually.
Thus you get Sonnar addicts and Tessar addicts and Olympus addicts and Leica addicts, all seemingly convinced that what works for them should work for the entire world. Do Leicas and a 1,5/50 C-Sonnar work for me? Yes, very well indeed. Does this mean they will work for everyone? Hardly...
Cheers,
R.
raid
Dad Photographer
The lens can be used for (relatively) soft focus images when wide open. This is the vintage version for the Contax. (on Contax IIa)
I sold this lens a few years ago, but then I felt that I did not have any 50mm lens left with such a softer look, so I bought another one recently.
A Tessar 50/2.8 for the M42 system (modified to ltm) was used here. It is a more modern version of the Tessar 50/2.8. It may have been tked at f8-11. (on M6)
I sold this lens a few years ago, but then I felt that I did not have any 50mm lens left with such a softer look, so I bought another one recently.
A Tessar 50/2.8 for the M42 system (modified to ltm) was used here. It is a more modern version of the Tessar 50/2.8. It may have been tked at f8-11. (on M6)
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
Tessar shots from the Exakta group: http://www.flickr.com/search/groups/?q=tessar&m=pool&w=47382444@N00&s=rec
Tessar shots from the Praktica group: http://www.flickr.com/search/groups/?q=tessar&m=pool&w=28077917@N00&s=rec
Tessar shots from the M42 group: http://www.flickr.com/search/groups/?q=tessar&m=pool&w=98706667@N00&s=rec
You may draw your own conclusions.
Tessar shots from the Praktica group: http://www.flickr.com/search/groups/?q=tessar&m=pool&w=28077917@N00&s=rec
Tessar shots from the M42 group: http://www.flickr.com/search/groups/?q=tessar&m=pool&w=98706667@N00&s=rec
You may draw your own conclusions.
kknox
kknox
Some great posts. I just ordered an M42 adapter for my GX1 to give the lens a try.
Similar threads
