What would you say were the best of the three-element lenses?

The best I've ever used was a coated 105/3.5 Rodenstock Trinar, also known as a Novar on the Ikonta. Another winner was the Helomar on the prewar Bessar RF.
 
I can speak for the Novar lens on my Zeiss Nettar 6x6 folder. Mine's a slooow f6.3 though.
 
At F2.8 the Schneider Roemar is soft- stopped down to F5.6 or so it picked up.

Okay- The 28mm F3.5 on the Nikon Lite-Touch P&S is the sharpest of any triplet that I've used. It has an Aspheric element, I believe.
 
I don't know which I think is best, I've never tried to test them... I have gotten some very nice shots with a few, but I suspect these happened to be stopped well down. Some surprises have been the 85/3.5 Wollensak in the Ciro-Flex and the 80/3.5 Kaligar on the Kalimar Reflex 6x6 SLR - both very modest lenses but turned in some very nice crisp images.

Disappointments have been a 75/3.5 Novar in a Super Ikonta, a couple of Agfa Apotars (one in a 35mm Memar, one in a 6x6 Isolette III), and an 80/3.5 Yashikor in a Yashica TLR.... but, again, these may have happened to be shots that I was taking at large apertures where the lenses were not at their best.
 
I haven't used one in so long I can't even remember. They had a good reputation though. All of them are uncoated (I think), as I believe the 'cords upgraded to the Xenar lens right after the war when lens coating came in... between the extra element and the coating, the postwar ones are surely better.
 
My 85/4 triotar in Contax mount is very good, but not contrasty and tends to flare a lot (uncoated sample).

I've got a rather nice 80/3.5 Yashikor on my Yashica D as well. It's not terrible in terms of resolution of details, but it's got a normal contrast, and works well in color.
 
I'll mention the 3-element Elmar 90. It ranks among my favorite lenses because of its optical performance (sharp, no distortion, smooth bokeh), by its handling, and by its physical appearance (gorgeous).

elmar90.jpg

​
 
I like the Triotar on my Rolleicord. "Best" isn't defined by sharpness, is it? The Triotar may not win awards in the sharpness department, but it sure does 'draw' pictures in a way I like.

aB_0010.jpg


I'd say that the Agnar of the Agfa Isolette, or the Wollensak on a Ciro-flex are good too. Having a slightly longer FL (85 instead of the usual 75 mm for 6X6)
means that only the sweeter central portions of the image is used and the bad parts thrown out... isn't this the same principle employed by the triplet Elmar 9cm? Longer triplets tend to do good because the distortions and fall-offs happen outside of the picture area.

I'm also tempted to say that the Haiou triplet 75mm on my Seagull is good too.

Jay
 
three groups?

tessar and derivates
sonnar and derivates

three elements ...

i only used a 40mm 3.5 triotar in a rollei 35 LED, and i liked it a lot, but that may be due to the extremely nice and useful concept of the whole camera.

s.
 
Mayer-gorlitz trioplen 75mm/f2.9 on Welta Perle I like.
Not so sharp, but gives flat characteristics in the corner of the picture.
In special mention, few astigmatism shows no swirl Bokeh in the back is well worth.
 

Attachments

  • 080212-01.jpg
    080212-01.jpg
    74.2 KB · Views: 0
Can I count the following as an "honourary" 3 element lens. One of the lenses to convince me that old and simple designs can produce nice images was the Color Skopar in a Voightlander Vito B from the 1950s. This is classed as a triplet design, similar to the Tessar I think (I am not an expert) but its a modified triplet with four elements in three groups, the rear two elements being cemented. It had a max aperture of only f3.5 but may I say that it delivered surprisingly sound results with a nice 1950s look in black and white.
 
Long focal length lenses can usually get by with fewer elements. The Canon Serenar 100/4 is an example of a three element lens. Performance is about the same as a coated 9cm Elmar of the same period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom