Tessar lenses for RF?

Interesting, I have a few I/61 laying around, might try that Tessar on I/61 for the fun of it :D Which version of the Tessar did you use ? the black, zebra or chrome one ? I guess there shouldnt be massive difference between them ?
 
Last edited:
Sadly, if you live in the US, the federal law that mandates that February 17, 2009 all analog signals will stop and your TV will have to be digital also mandates in an oft overlooked provision in the fine print - put in there in one of Bush's signing statements, that all cameras with Tessar lenses must be exchanged or replaced with Planar lens designs by the same date.
 
> Which version of the Tessar did you use ? the black, zebra or chrome one ? I guess there shouldnt be massive difference between them ?

I used a chrome-lens. I've read that Tessar lenses circa 1960 have an "improved" formula. I like the effect that this lens gives, I think its from the mid-1950s. My other Tessar is from 1931, a 5cm F2.8 originally for a Contax I.

As far as I'm concerned, Digital Imaging means using a lens that was designed with the help of a computer.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
No need for a Lens Hood on this lens!

50mm F2.8 Tessar, formerly in 42mm screw mount for the SLR, now RF coupled for the Leica 39mm mount using an I-61 focus mount.
Click to expand...

Wow - thanks for the pics - looks very cool and looks like works great too!. I should try to make one too.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
No need for a Lens Hood on this lens!

50mm F2.8 Tessar, formerly in 42mm screw mount for the SLR, now RF coupled for the Leica 39mm mount using an I-61 focus mount.
Click to expand...

Brian, I am going to track you down, clobber you on the head, and take all those very cool lenses you make work. You are the shizz. That's what the kids say nowadays, isn't it? Well whatever. You are my kinda lens hacking monster. Between you and greyhoundman, you guys make me very jealous with your abilities. Seriously, congrats. Neat, neat, stuff.
 
Sweenified CZJ 50/2.8

Sweenified CZJ 50/2.8

Here is a sample test photo from the Tessar lens Brian modified to to fit LTM. This was taken on the RD-1, wide open at ISO200, jpeg straight out of the cam. I'm doing it big so you can see better...
2423757553_06b5d36dfa_b.jpg


I just shot a roll of Neopan comparing it to the ZM C-Sonnar and the ZM Planar (but unfortunately it was all shot at around 5.6, instead of 2.8, as I had hoped; the sun expectedly came out during shooting...) so when I get those developed and scanned I will load some examples to compare. On the RD-1, at least, this is a VERY attractive lens: sharp with nice bokeh.

My sincere gratitude to Brian for sharing this with me.
 
Argggghhh... As if I needed a reminder of why I keep watching for a nice pre-war uncoated CZJ 50/3.5 collapsible Tessar for my Kiev & Contax. Sigh, I'll find one cheap enough someday...

At least my $30 collapsible Sonnar showed up for some funzies this weekend.

:)

William
 
hans voralberg said:
There was no filter, I can hardly imagine how you would mount them on the Elmar, it's tiny.
Click to expand...
Dear Hans,

Filters for the Elmar are usually clamp-on, the so-called A36 -- and yes, they cover up the diaphragm slider. I didn't say they were convenient! There was however a diaphragm setting ring that could be slipped inside filters or hoods, so the diaphragm could be set by rotating the filter or hood. I have one.

There were also screw-in 19mm filters, but I have only ever seen yellow ones, though UV, green and IR were also available. Screw-in close-up lenses are a lot more common.

As an aside here, 'original Tessar formula' is a bit misleading as Tessars are a type rather than a single design (Cooke Triplet with one group separated into a cemented doublet) and the earliest Tessars were, I think, f/6.3.

Personally I've never seen any 'magic' in Tessars except the 150/6.3 that I once had and (of course) foolishly sold. Sir Kenneth Corfield is another great admirer of this lens, but like me, he no longer has it.

Cheers,

Roger
 
Last edited:
Wow! I like the "Look" given TO this lens.

Like "What on Earth did you do to your camera!".

Thw Walz filters made for the Argus C3 50/3.5 work perfectly on the original Elmar. They are not marked with the filter diameter, so you just have to know they will work.
 
The Cooke triplet consisted of three single, spaced lenses: a single negative elment between two positive elements. The Tessar is a development of the Cooke Triplet in which Dr. Paul Rudolph used a cemented, achromatic pair to replace the rear element of the triplet. It was introduced in 1902 with an F5.5 aperture. The Heliar lens of 1902 used two cemented, achromatic pairs to replace each of the outer positive elements of the Cooke triplet. All of these designs are still in use.
 
Last edited:
Brian Sweeney said:
The Cooke triplet consisted of three single, spaced lenses: a single negative elment between two positive elements. The Tessar is a development of the Cooke Triplet in which Dr. Paul Rudolph used a cemented, achromatic pair to replace the rear element of the triplet. It was introduced in 1902 with an F5.5 aperture. The Heliar lens of 1902 used a two cemented, achromatic pairs to replace each of the outer positive elements of the Cooke triplet. All of these designs are still in use.
Click to expand...

I realize that it probably doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things, but some say that the Tessar was not devloped from the Cooke Triplet, but separate from it. Zeiss already had the Protar and the Unar - the Tessar was a combination of those by Rudolph. Zeiss already had the basics in-house and did not need to copy from Cooke. At least, that's how I heard it.
 
Summicron for the Nikon RF- I'm thinking the type I rigid as the optics come out of the focus mount. But- Might do the collapsible Summicron. This is a longer term hack. I bought a mount for the optics that can be placed onto a Helios-103 mount.

I've seen more than one source state that the Tessar was a development of the Cooke Triplet. That may not mean "copied" from or "started with"- just it was a logical progression of the basic type. The idea of putting a negative element in between two positive elements is fairly straightforward, inexpensive to produce, and must have occurred to a couple of optical engineers at around the same time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom