peterm1
Veteran
As I understand it Tessars (and Skopars) were a development from earlier triplet lenses. But as they were further developed they became better corrected by having 4 elements in 3 groups (with two elements cemented). Hence they continued to be described as triplets (somewhat spuriously I always felt - but then again I am no expert). My feeling is that a lens with 4 groups would be too far removed from the definition of a Tessar. I always have had a sneaking admiration for simple lenses like this which perform surprisingly well when shot within their limits.
ferider
Veteran
That's a common mis-conception. If I may quote myself (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156630):
"... A. Clark was the first to describe the “Double Gauss” lens design [Patent US 399,499, 1889]. In 1893, ... H. Dennis Taylor designed a 3-element lens (“triplet”) which was able to correct all 7 Seidel aberrations ... In the US this design was patented in 1895. In 1890, Paul Rudolph - while working for Zeiss - developed the Anastigmat with two cemented doublets. In 1899, he separated the doublets to produce the four element, four group Unar lens. In 1902, he improved the Unar's performance by joining the two rear elements into one cemented group, and named the result Tessar [Patent DE 142,294, 1903]. On first glance, the Tessar looks like an extended Cooke triplet, but it was indeed derived from a Double Gauss design."
Roland.
CMur12
Veteran
Thanks, Scrambler. This change in definition by Zeiss is a surprise to me and something of a disappointment.
- Murray
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
But you are talking about a trade name, not a lens type. I agree with the definition Chris gave: a Tessar lens consists of four elements in three groups, the rear element being a cemented doublet.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Cal, I, too, have this lens. I really like it for the contrast you mention, as well as its very adequate sharpness together with very small size. It's been living on my Nikon FE2 for many months now!
Scrambler
Well-known
We are not actually disagreeing, Chris. I own a few Tessar formula lenses - some branded as such and some with names in Russian.
But being able to distinguish Tessar fomula lenses branded "Tessar" and other lenses branded "Tessar" (most commonly Vario-Tessar or some other XXX-Tessar) is helpful.
Contarama
Well-known
Are the Contaflex lenses considered 'true' Tessars?
I'm interested to know where you read this. Can you post a link?
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
The standard lens is. The pro-tessar wide and long lenses aren't, although they are at least part tessar.
There are also some four element lenses which were developed from Tessars, like the Kodak Special Anastigmat which is a 4/4 design. As well there are four element lenses which have nothing to do with Tessars, like the old Fujinon 2.2/55. ISCO also made a reversed Tessar, where the cemented group was placed at the front of the lens.
Contarama
Well-known
Thanks. That standard lens is one heckuva lens.
peterm1
Veteran
Good one. Thank you.
p.giannakis
Pan Giannakis
According to the manual, a 35mm f3.5 consisting of 3 elements in 3 groups. The later Stylus Epic had 4 elements in 3 groups.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Rob,
I forgot to mention that the Nikon 45/2.8P AIS has a remarkably short focus throw that makes it great for street.
I bet on a FE2 it is a very fast shooter. Almost like autofocus due to that snap.
Cal
jamin-b
Well-known
I quite like this lens, but dropped it, cracking the large front glass. It actually doesn't really affect the image quality but I am afraid to use it and have the glass fall out. Definitely not great for street...
Does anyone know if this is something that can be easily fixed at a reasonable price?
x-ray
Veteran
The famous Kodak commercial ektar, Ilex paragon, Wollensak raptar, Congo commercial, Schneider debar are just a few. Almost every view camera lens maker made a tessar formula lens. Good lenses but the have smaller image circles compared to plasmats and tend to be softer at the edges.
One post above revered to a 4 element 4 group tessar. If it's symmetrical it's a Dyalite design not a tessar. The famous Kodak 203mm f7.7 is a good example as are the Goerz Artar process lenses and Schneider repro clarons. This design has been very popular for highly corrected process lenses. They're exceptionally sharp especially at close distances with flat fields, low to no distortion and apochromatic. The trade off is a smaller image circle compared to plasmats.
charjohncarter
Veteran
Thanks for that information. Simple enough for me to lookup in the manual. I've always tried Google which is a goose chase.
Schneider's rare Jsogon 40mm f/4.5 SLR lens is another tessar design rarely mentioned as it was only made in Exakta or M42 mount in small numbers. The Xenar on the other hand was widely used across various formats and focal lengths.
The Contaflex and Contaflex II 45mm f/2.8 lenses are a front cell focus Zeiss Tessar. The 50mm f/2.8 lenses used in the Contaflex III, IV, Super, Rapid, Super new, Super B, and Super BC/S are a unitary focus Tessar. All coated. The Pro Tessar lenses utilise all but the front lens cell of the standard 50mm Tessar which is removed to attach them. Early and late front 50mm mounts and M1:1 Pro Tessars are not interchangeable, (slight variation in bayonet size for intentional incompatibility) although any 35mm, 85mm or 115mm Pro Tessar will fit any Contaflex III or later Contaflex (excluding Alpha, Beta or Prima Pantar lens models, of course).
I'm not sure how many Zeiss Tessars I have or in how many mounts. Haven't tried a few yet such as the one on my Pentina, but I've never used a Tessar I didn't like personally. My late Contaflex ones have probably been sharpest but a good Skopar or Xenar is not to be overlooked either.
Cheers
Brett
The Contaflex and Contaflex II 45mm f/2.8 lenses are a front cell focus Zeiss Tessar. The 50mm f/2.8 lenses used in the Contaflex III, IV, Super, Rapid, Super new, Super B, and Super BC/S are a unitary focus Tessar. All coated. The Pro Tessar lenses utilise all but the front lens cell of the standard 50mm Tessar which is removed to attach them. Early and late front 50mm mounts and M1:1 Pro Tessars are not interchangeable, (slight variation in bayonet size for intentional incompatibility) although any 35mm, 85mm or 115mm Pro Tessar will fit any Contaflex III or later Contaflex (excluding Alpha, Beta or Prima Pantar lens models, of course).
I'm not sure how many Zeiss Tessars I have or in how many mounts. Haven't tried a few yet such as the one on my Pentina, but I've never used a Tessar I didn't like personally. My late Contaflex ones have probably been sharpest but a good Skopar or Xenar is not to be overlooked either.
Cheers
Brett
David Hughes
David Hughes
The ones I often wonder about are the "Triplet-43" lenses on the Smena 8M's and "Symbol" but that's mostly because I wonder about "43" meaning 4 lens in 3 groups, which might just make sense.
Anyway, they are nice 40mm lenses and dirt cheap even with the camera thrown in...
Regards, David
Anyway, they are nice 40mm lenses and dirt cheap even with the camera thrown in...
Regards, David
p.giannakis
Pan Giannakis
Well actually, i had a look on the Stulys Epic manual and according to it, the lens is a 4 elements in 4 groups arrangement - no mention about it being Tessar. Looked on the Konica Big-Mini manual, same arrangement (4/4).
All this time i thought these were Tessar lenses - am i correct to assume that they aren't?
Edit: Just had a look on the Yashica T3 manual - it is branded as a Tessar 35 f/2.8 4 elements in 4 groups....
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
The Tessar is a famous and well documented lens, four lenses in 3 groups; two at the front and a compound at the back. The compound lens is two glued together. There's a picture of one at post 16 and thousands all over the internet labelled in every language under the sun.
Here's one in bits;-
I hope it shows clearly that the rear one is two cemented together; this one was made in Jena home of a famous maker, designer, university and glass works: although I've no idea if they are all still there.
So, obviously I hope, only a 4 in 3 can be a Tessar, not a 4 in 4.
The confusion probably arises as lenses evolve over the years as materials improve and so on. Anyway, there's only one Tessar...
Regards, David
Last edited: