CZJ 50/2.8 Tessar comparison photos

[noimmunity]

I finally got a roll of photos scanned taken on the same day with the Carl Zeiss Jena 50/2.8 Tessar modified to LTM mount by Brian Sweeney and, for comparison, the ZM C Sonnar 50/1.5 and ZM Planar 50/2. I should have included Cindy's Canon 50/1.4, but forgot. These were shot at 5.6 on neopan, developed and scanned professionally. Not the most visually exciting photographs, they still show some of the characteristics of the lenses.

Tessar

a friend lent us a Hasselblad and some CZ lenses to play around with. T-shirts by Threadless http://www.threadless.com/

Now here is an example from the C-Sonnar

and one from the ZM Planar 50/2

The Tessar obviously has much less contrast and is not as sharp as the modern lenses. It does have a pleasing OOF rendition, but not exactly the kind of geometrical reduction that attracted me in the Tessar lens on the Yashica T5D. More experiments necessary.

Showing it next to the C-Sonnar in particular is really unfair😀. Hopefully it won't be long before Zeiss and Cosina team up to put out a modern M mount version...

So far I think it works best for me on the RD-1, where the low contrast works well. I would also like to try it in low light with TMax 3200, where the inherent high contrast of the film might work with the lens.

 

[raid]

Jon,

If you would take identical photos with the different lenses then this would make the comparisons easier for us. I am expecting in the mail a similar lens, modified by someone [in the past] to LTM.

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

I like the look of the 4th image/C-Sonnar. If it weren't for the persistent discussion about close range focus shift, i'd have to get one.

Which Neopan is this? 100 or 400? Might have to try that, as well....

 

[noimmunity]

Raid: identical composition in the photos would be a better idea. I hope I can try that. It may take a couple of weeks to shoot, process and scan. Once you get your lens in the mail, I hope we can see photos from it, too. I was in contact with the seller about that lens, BTW. It went on auction with no bids and then I suggested that the seller put it on BIN offer. I like the one Brian made very much, but the one you got looks like it is machined and hence more durable. But maybe not. Anyway, I am very happy with the one I got from Brian.

CK D Haven: I used Neopan Presto (400) instead of Acros to my regret, because the sun came out and then I couldn't use the Tessar wide open. You probably don't want to hear this but there are ways to deal with the focus shift on the C-Sonnar. :angel: It is worth it, IMO.

 

[raid]

Jon,

I have one lens that was hacked by Brian,and I like it very much. It is a Luxon 50/2 that originally was made for the Braun Paxette.

When I saw the auction being referred to on RFF, I asked Brian for his opinion about the lens. He viewed it as "rare" and worthwhile buying due to the machining of the adapter for LTM.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Pretty girls are definitely the best subjects for lens tests.

The Tessar looks good- and you are right about lower contrast lenses doing well on digital cameras. That, and the crop factor cuts out the far edges which tend to be softer on old lenses.

 

[Highway 61]

Not wanting to play the Devil's lawyer, but why modifying a Contax mount Tessar into LTM when it already exists (the Leitz Elmar) both in 50/3.5 and 50/2.8 configs ?

 

[Sonnar Brian]

This was an M42 mount, preset Tessar. And if you can find an F2.8 Elmar for $75, buy it.

Also- the Tessar and Elmar are the same optical "formula" at the block diagram level, but the actual prescription and position of the aperture give a slightly different rendition.

 

[raid]

Brian the Master of Optics! Yeah.

The 2.8 Elmar is rather expensive for a 50/2.8 lens.

 

[noimmunity]

Brian the Master of Optics! Yeah.quote]

double yeah!