Triplet VS. Tessar on a 2 1/4 folder (??)

[john_van_v]

I recently got a quad folder with a scopar, so this question is hypothetical (but not moot)...

From what I can gather, the tessar, or other quad (is quad a proper word?), solves the stigmatism problem, which is distortion around the edges, but does not necessarily create clarity at the center by virtue of having an extra element or group.

Tessars are true anastigmats, whereas triplets just give anti-stigmatism a good try.

So if clarity in the center is what you want, and distortion (of various kinds, such as swirling) at the edges is acceptable (or even desireable), then an anistigmant, by which I mean a triplet, is the lens to use!

Is this assumption of mine true from your experiences?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Is this assumption of mine true from your experiences?

No. Especially with front-cell focusing lenses (as on most folders) where all bets are off.

Also, a very great deal depends on the quality and speed of the lens. I've had f/6.3 triplets that (easily) outperform f/4.5 Tessars, never mind f/3.5. An f/6.3 Tessar can be stunning, though.

A Tessar is only a better-corrected Cooke Triplet. Just as a Sonnar is a faster Cooke Triplet.

The only practical answer here is 'suck it and see' (comme on dit en anglais).

Tashi delek,

R.

 

[john_van_v]

No. Especially with front-cell focusing lenses (as on most folders) where all bets are off.

Oh. I can see how that would be a problematic.

So let's change the question a bit.

On TLRs only, does this assumption make any sense?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Yes, unit-focus lenses are a different question, but even then, astigmatism is more complex than that. Tessar-types (triplets with one of the glasses split into a cemented doublet) don't solve it; they just correct it better.

So the answer is still a frrm, unequivocal 'It depends'. There's more 'magic', and less science, in lens design than most people realize. Ask any lens designer!

Tasho delek,

R.

 

[john_van_v]

There's more 'magic', and less science, in lens design than most people realize. Ask any lens designer!

That could be true, my best pictures have been taken with Jupiters.

This set was taken w/ a 135mm:
http://thinman.com/galleries/bird_over_the_hudson/

 

[charjohncarter]

But does it all matter? Sometimes, it is easy to shoot with a camera/lens that is easy to work with than to worry about 'little' thing. I know this goes against a 'gear' forum but that the I feel, in fact, sometimes the results are strange and wonderful, as you guys say IMHO.

This is from the worst folder ever made:

Probably only Chris101 would think these a great.

 

[arthur sadowsky]

Hi John,

I'm not sure if I fit in this post/conversation, but I really like CZ Tessar T* f/2.8 45mm specifically maid in Contax/Yashica mount.

I have two versions of this lens (as I know CZ produced at least 3 C/Y modifications): one is AE version and the other is Jahre/100 Years Celebration version.

I love them both for the size and simplicity and unbelievable optical purity if I may say. I have here a few examples for you (all done with older AE version):

Is anybody else there using Tessar lenses as extensively as I'm? Would you like to share your experience w/Tessar??

 

[Windscale]

Well, John,
I do agree with you to a certain extent. Ease of use is very important. As you may remember, I did write in RFF that some of my best loved lenses are triplets. My favourite triplet is of course the Agfa Apotar 85/4.5 in the Isolette models which I think is better than Zeiss Novars and Voigtlander Vaskars. The way to tell a good lens for me has always been by enlargements. If you have a good 120 negative and still like your pics at 30x30 or 24x36 inch, then you have a good lens. Look carefully at shadow and hi-light areas as well as corners and see also how creamy the pic is and you will be able to decide quite easily.

 

[john_van_v]

Hi John,

I'm not sure if I fit in this post/conversation, but I really like CZ Tessar T* f/2.8 45mm maid specifically for Contax/Yashica mount.

Actually it does in a strange way. I made a super-search for "choice lenses" with the help of Markus Berndt from Flickr and Arizona. In it is "Yashinon," for their TLR lenses, so I get the C/Y stuff, as well as the RF your SO (I assume) is holding by the window--makes her look formidable! Makes me want to go out with my Lynx 14 tonight.

I use a Jupiter-8 more than any other lens, as it gives me the contrast I like to make drama, and a 135mm Jupiter to photo birds against clouds. I thought Jupiters were Tessars for a long time, but I was wrong, it is the Industar that is a Tessar. Industars are reputed to be the best lenses around, and I have several, but I feel limited by f3.5, so I rarely use them.

I accidently bought a Crown Graphic, a happy accident, so I will have a neutral platform to test out all different kinds of lenses.

I also bought a Pentacon bellows that I want to modify for lens boards at one end, and a graflock at the other.

As it happens I live in a small city that recently, and sadly, shut down all its factories seemingly on purpose, and is converting them to prisons and courts -- the irony is amazing! (America has gone belly-up, srsly.)

There are a lot of loose retired master machinists around who can help me with the mods, and also possibly help me with a business plan to make graflock attachment parts--which go for about $50 used on epray.

I want to put a pistol group with a reverse angle beneath it, with cable shutter release. Seems doable since the most difficult part was the bellows component, and I got lucky there.

 

[arthur sadowsky]

One more example of my favorite Contax (much older AE version) Carl Ziess Tessar® T* f/2.8 45mm w/Yashica FX-D Quartz and CVS iSO200/24 film:

And one more pic:

DUMBO, Brooklyn New York on June 17th of 2009. Both pics are CVS direct scans and I used no post PS manipulation of any kind.

Please, let me know what you think (I know what I think: these old Tessar lens rocks!!)!!