Rigid Tessar

[steveyork]

Is a late, West German, rigid Tessar, with a 50mm focal length a sharp lens, compared to the Sonnar twins?

I read conflicting reviews, and the pictures I've seen seem a little soft, but I've used a Tessar on the Contaflex IV (late 50's) and it is indeed sharp with good contrast. My only other personal experience with a Zeiss lens was a 50 Planar on a beast of a Cyclops (great lens; quirky camera). My girlfriend uses a Tessar on an Ikoflex Ic (another 50's camera) and that lens is impressive too. Should all Zeiss Tessars from the 50's be the same?

I'm getting out of Leica rangefinders (don't use them much anymore) and was looking at a Contax for my 'once in a while' rangefinder fix.

 

[mbisc]

It all depends on what "action" the lens has seen in the last 60 or so years, but a well-aligned Tessar lens of postwar vintage will be razor sharp at f5.6 or smaller. They can/will be a tad soft wide-open, but that lies in the design of the lens.

 

[raid]

The 5cm/3.5 rigid Tessar for the old Contax cameras is reported as being much sharper than the 5cm/2.8 Tessar.

 

[KoNickon]

Right -- you will not get the same performance at wide apertures as you will with the Sonnar, say, but at the middle apertures and smaller you will not notice a difference.

Rigid postwar Tessars for Contax seem scarce, in my experience. You actually may find that the f2 or f1.5 Planars are more easy to come by -- and they are great lenses, as you know.

 

[furcafe]

As others have posted, the shortcomings of the Tessar design for apertures larger than f/4-5.6 are well known. Like Leitz's Elmar, a close cousin, it's a slow, but very well-corrected lens, ideal for landscapes, etc. Among slow lenses, the post-WWII 50/3.5 Tessar (Carl Zeiss & Zeiss-Opton) in Contax RF mount is widely considered 1 of the finest ever made.