Performance of Tessar on Ikonta 6x9?

The Novar is a three element lens. I find your results roughly consistent with my three element folders. I have a Perkeo with a Vaskar lens and I had a Adox Sport with a Steinheil Cassar lens. Both show about the same softness towards the corner of the photo.
I don't have a Ikonta with a Novar, but I would imagine it is comparable to the Vaskar in the Voigtlander. Also, many of those cameras focus by rotating the front element of the lens. This can be an additional source for a softer image and sometimes one copy of a camera is sharper then the other. 4-element Tessar designs are usually quite a bit better, especially closed down.
Also if you can find a camera that focuses different, like the Mamiya Six (focuses by moving the filmplane) sharpness will be improved quite a bit.

That being said, I would like to stress that this little bit of edge-softness only really is a factor if you do very large prints. It's very easy to zoom in in Photoshop and critically check the corners. But who checks corners when a print hangs on the wall? :)
 
Last edited:
I have three Nettars -- two in 6x9, one with the f6.3 Novar and the other with the 4.5. You're taking a chance using either of these wider than f8, but stopped down to f11 or more you'll get some quite good results. That said, the 6x9 format does push the capabilities of the lens; a three element lens works better in 6x6. For instance, I have one of the 6x6 "Signal" Nettars and am constantly impressed with how good the Novar is on this camera. All three are really quite well made cameras -- simple construction but top quality materials and construction.
 
I have an Ikonta 521/2 with the Novar f/3.5 triplet. It is definitely soft in the corners but I figure that's both the experience of an old folder and the limits of such a lens, as mentioned above. Here are a couple samples from mine, where you can especially see the drop off in the upper corners of sky: http://tinyurl.com/2443hs3. Beautiful cameras, though, and rock solid to use. A Tessar would be great, but I'm still happy with this find.
 
Thanks, I wanted to first figure out it was was my particular camera that was soft in the corners, or if it was symptomatic of triplet lenses.

I also wanted to confirm that the Tessar would render sharp corners before I plunked down over $200.
 
Chris, my namesake Nettar 6x9 with an f/6.3 lens was soft like that, except that it was worse on the left than the right. So if yours is symmetric in terms of softness, you are ahead of me! I had a Super Ikonta with a Tessar f/3.5, although 6x6, not 6x9; and it was significantly better than the f6.3 Novar Anastigmat on my Nettar. -- Nettar

P.S. Both lenses were coated.
 
KoNickon said:
I have three Nettars -- two in 6x9, one with the f6.3 Novar and the other with the 4.5. You're taking a chance using either of these wider than f8, but stopped down to f11 or more you'll get some quite good results. That said, the 6x9 format does push the capabilities of the lens; a three element lens works better in 6x6. For instance, I have one of the 6x6 "Signal" Nettars and am constantly impressed with how good the Novar is on this camera. All three are really quite well made cameras -- simple construction but top quality materials and construction.
Click to expand...

I agree, the 6x9 format is pushing the limits of all these lenses. Some cameras may be fortunate in having better perfoming lenses but the real issue is those extra 3 cm of film plane. These lenses are best at 6x6. I use them for what they are, a camera with a distintive look and lens "signature"
 
Keep in mind that it could be not only a lens issue: 6x9 has another factor that can affect sharpness, and is film planarity ; in cameras with less than good film pressure plates it's typical that the long 120 film strip has a certain curvature at the edges, which results in softness (OOF) at corners. My 6x9 (Mess Ikonta) has a Opton Tessar 3,5, and I did not observe softness at corners, but typically I stop down to f8 around: its pressure plate is rather "light"... when I had a Linhof 70 with the Rollex back, I was always admired by the smart engineering they did to achieve a really optimal planarity of the film... at the expense of a rather complex mechanism which should have been impossible to make into a folding like Ikonta or Bessa.
 
jan normandale said:
I agree, the 6x9 format is pushing the limits of all these lenses.
Click to expand...

Why would it? The lens resolution only determines the achievable enlargement factor for a given quality of the final print. And Tessar type lenses were very common on ultra large format process cameras - a very high resolution, flat field application - so they obviously scale well, magnitudes beyond formats as tiny as 6x9cm. As Luigi pointed out, film flatness and the orthogonality of the folder mechanism are points which are generally more critical.

Triplets are one step below Tessars, but post war, coated, rare earth employing triplets perform very well, with more curvature of field than higher corrected lenses, but not to a degree where that might become relevant for the average three-dimensional subject.

If a Novar is soft edged at distance or at apertures smaller than f/11, there is something wrong with the lens. I've seen quite a few old folders with some element put in backwards by some fool previous owner or inept repairman - and that generally causes edge softness.

Sevo
 
chippy said:
..., i find the biggest single factor to affect picture quality is using a lens shade, do this and your quality , even apparent softness will improve, take it to the extreme and provide more protection using hand, props or natural surrounding for shading the lens and see your pics improve by huge margins...dont use a shade and your results will be all over the place and may give reason to think the fault lies with something else...
Click to expand...


No I didn't use a shade. That could be the reason.
 
This is very interesting, but as I've had a glass of wine, so all I'm doing is marking this so I can read it tomorrow. Keep it going, I have four 120 folders all with three element (focus the front element lenses), and one is soft, two are good, and one is excellent. So, I hope maybe I'll learn something from this discussion.
 
Okay, I'm very embarrassed. Please disregard my example above of a Nettar with soft edges. This discussion sent me back to my contact sheets to discover that my negatives are fine, showing adequate exposure and focus edge to edge. What doesn't cut it is my enlarger, a Besler 23c, whose maximum negative size is 6x9 ... this of course causes my enlargements to weaken at the corners of the negatives where the cone of light is weakest. And of course this shows up most prominently in skies. D'oh! I'll just sit back and read now.
 
chippy said:
...
interesting comment (in the review) about the Tessar equipped camera costing 4 times the amount due to collectors :) does that mean only users buy Novar equipped :p and that users dont waste their money on Tessar equipped camera (i am only debating it for interests sake of it not to have a go at anyone) . I think its just like all things have always been priced in photography, for small gains you pay large amounts..the tessars are better but the value of the price tag on that improved performance is up to the individual to weigh up..if you buy the highest quality to begin with then resale is almost always easier, in more demand and fetches higher prices...whether it be for collectors or people wanting to use them
Click to expand...

A friendly fellow RFF pointed me out to a very attractively priced 6x9 Mess Ikonta with Tessar at keh.com. So I'll have to let you know how it performs.

I've been keeping track of the prices of post-war Zeiss Ikontas. Usually the Tessar equipped folders sell for about 3 times the price of Novars.

You are absolutely correct about the fact that people pay big money for small gains. Rolleiflex automats with a Tessar sell for $200. Later models, which changed little, with a Planar sell for $800.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom