William, look

Yes, I've seen that one. I may yet get it, but I'm holding out for the 3.5 version. That probably seems like heresy here ( :eek: he _wants_ the slower lens??????:eek: ) but everything I've been able to find indicates the 2.8 wasn't nearly as good a lens and that the 3.5 was one of the best Tessars Zeiss made.

Now, if anyone here knows better, I'm all ears because that is a tempting price... :)

William
 
William, you are making a convert out of me. That is a good bit of info, I will check back for other's opinions. I should have a couple Contax books coming soon, so I will add comment if I find anything good in there.
 
It could be a legend only, but you can read here-and-there that, no matter format and focal length, an f/2.8 aperture for a Tessar design is stretching the limits. It is just a design that does not allow such a high aperture without deteriorating the image quality. Zeiss just wanted to show off and to use its f/2.8 Tessars as a marketing trick.

Maybe Rover's books will cast some light on the subject. If they are edited by Zeiss, however, they might not mention this little issue:)
 
I think that's pretty much it. I've been reading some on photographic optics of late and the traditional Tessar does have a real world max of 3.5. That's why they derived the Sonnar from it by splitting the single second element into a cemented triplet or even making the rear doublet into a triplet. But the key is the much changed middle element that make the Sonnar 1.5 doable.

At least according to Photographic Optics by Arthur Cox, 13th edition of 1966, that I've out from the local public library... :)

William
 
Pherdinand said:
It could be a legend only, but you can read here-and-there that, no matter format and focal length, an f/2.8 aperture for a Tessar design is stretching the limits. It is just a design that does not allow such a high aperture without deteriorating the image quality. Zeiss just wanted to show off and to use its f/2.8 Tessars as a marketing trick.

Maybe Rover's books will cast some light on the subject. If they are edited by Zeiss, however, they might not mention this little issue:)
Click to expand...

Yeah, I read that somewhere as well, wonder if it also applies to the Opton Tessar on the SuperIkontas :confused:

OTH seems the first Rolleiflexes using the 2.8 Tessar suffered from a serious lens alignment fault and were called back to factory for adjustment, but later models after that were good performers. Maybe that also added to this lens bad rep. ?
 
Last edited:
I would get the F2.8. You can always stop it down to F3.5 and get "back to the Limits" of the 4-element formula. However, other F2.8 lenses that I have in Tessar formula do quite well. The Elmar is a Tessar Design and no one knocks the F2.8 Elmar vs the F3.5 lens. The one "on Hands" book of that era with a reference to the F3.5 vs F2.8 favored the F2.8 lens. Newcombe, in "35mm Technique" put the F1.5 Sonnar in a class by itself. It was clearly his favorite of all the Leica and Zeiss lenses that he used in the 30's through 40's.
 
You have a good point there about stopping down. Gotta pay for the wife's pearls (christmas present) before I dare buy another lens though :)

They list two possibilities though:
Contax-RF Sonnar 5cm/2 collapsible, non-coated, chrome, Ex $135.

Contax-RF Tessar 5cm/2.8 collapsible, non-coated, chrome, Ex $135.

Wonder which would do better by the way I shoot... Probably the Tessar, but that Sonnar's pretty tempting too.

Hmm. I smell a poll...

William
 
William - if you really want a Tessar, go for a Tessar. Otherwise, you get the sonnar and a week later you will start looking for a Tessar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom