CZJ 5cm f/2.8 Contax Tessar?

[Dante_Stella]

So is the collapsible, prewar 50/2.8 Tessar for Contax any good? Any sample pics?

Thanks,
Dante

 

[furcafe]

Not surprisingly, it produces the same kind of look as the 5cm/3.5 Elmars from the same time period, so your typical uncoated look. Optically, my understanding is that it's basically the same as the earlier 5cm/3.5 Tessar, but stretched out a bit (slightly bigger elements?) to reach f/2.8. Fairly vulnerable to flare from light sources in & just out of the frame (the super-shiny chrome aperture ring surrounding the bezel doesn't help) so a slip-on lens hood is essential.

Edit: Here are some relatively low-res examples (don't have anything high-res on my Flickr), including from non-Contax cameras that used the same lens:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/furcafe/tags/carlzeissjena5cm28tessarcollapsibleblackc1932/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/furcafe/tags/carlzeissjena5cm28tessarcollapsiblec193439/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/furcafe/tags/carlzeissjena5cm28tessarnettaxc1936/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/furcafe/tags/carlzeissjena5cm28tessarnettaxc193639/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/furcafe/tags/carlzeissjena5cm28tessarsupernettelic1934/

So is the collapsible, prewar 50/2.8 Tessar for Contax any good? Any sample pics?

Thanks,
Dante

 

[Dante_Stella]

Thanks Chris! This uses 25.5mm filters?

Dante

 

[Corran]

Flares like crazy. Renders very similar to the 80mm f/2.8 on the Zeiss folders, as you'd expect, with some swirly bokeh. Not the best lens but super compact on my Contax I. I have an older black and nickel one that someone coated later, but it still flares.

Samples:

 

[jonmanjiro]

Flares easily but sharpness is quite good.

 

[WJJ3]

That is a sweet rig. Did you end up selling it? I seem to remember seeing it up for sale...

 

[jonmanjiro]

That is a sweet rig. Did you end up selling it? I seem to remember seeing it up for sale...

Thanks! Yep you did see it up for sale a few months back. The camera went to new home in the UK but I ended up keeping the lens.

 

[Dralowid]

Legend was that the 3.5 was better than the 2.8 but this may only be relevant to the older black/nickel versions. I don't know having never made a meaningful comparison.

 

[raid]

The 5cm 3,5 of the later versions of this lens are claimed to be much better lenses, and they demand higher prices. The 2.8 lens is great for portraits.

 

[johank]

Best claimed are the Stuttgart version. 3,5 f Tessar with fixed body.

 

[furcafe]

That sounds right for the internal ring. There are also slip-on hoods that fit into the same ring (in addition to the official ZI hoods that fit into the outer 42mm ring).

Thanks Chris! This uses 25.5mm filters?

Dante

 

[Kevcaster]

Yes 25.5mm filters and hoods will fit on the inside thread. My UV filter is a Pentax from their 16mm SLR camera which takes the same 25.5mm accessories. The filter is quite deep, maybe 3mm and so affords some shading alone.
The original hood is slip on, and therefore slip off.

The F2.8 pre-war Tessar is good enough for most picture making and certainly good enough for me, it compares well to the uncoated F2.0 Sonnar, both are outclassed for contrast and flare performance by their later, coated siblings. I owned a coated Helios 3 for a short period and found it to be more prone to flare than either the Tessar or Sonnar.


P1020373 by Kevin Yates, on Flickr


P1020374 by Kevin Yates, on Flickr

 

[Dante_Stella]

Pretty sharp lens, it turns out, but it definitely needs a shade.

Has anyone tried to collapse this on a Leica digital? I'm guessing it's not a good idea - looks like it would come to rest 2mm from the shutter.

Dante

 

[Erik van Straten]

I just got one, with its huge shade that cuts 1/5 of the finder image of my S2. I will post some images from it as soon as I have the time to make them. It looks very cool on my black S2.

Erik.