Zeiss Tessar
Isaac H Crawford
W. Germany" on the front, and appears to be coated...I have high hopes for
it as a good lens. I have a few questions...
1) Does anyone know what this thing was used for? I don't see any W. German
Zeiss Tessars being offered out there as taking lenses, so any ideas as to
what this was originally used for?
2)Would it cover 8x10? I seem to recall reading about tessars having
slightly narrow covrage...
3)The front group unscrews... Could this be a convertable lens? It is in a
barrel right now without a diaphram... Could I be so lucky as to have this
screw directly into a shutter?
TIA!
Isaac
M. J. Rossano
"Carl Zeiss S-Tessar 5.6/300." If this is so, I hope you didn't spend too
much on it. In perfect condition they sell for $25 to $50. These lenses
were sold in large quantity as scrap some years back. I am told that they
were made for doing lithographic two-stage reductions in semiconductor
manufacture. If this is true, they would be optimized for 1:20 reduction,
and should be very sharp and distortion-free at that reproduction ratio. I
have on myself that I use as a paperweight, since there is no economical
way to mount this lens in a shutter and diaphragm.
Isaac H Crawford <ey...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<7oatag$nos$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net>...
skgrimes
or shutter. They sure look nice, though.
S.K. GRIMES -- FEINMECHANIK -- MACHINE WORK FOR PHOTOGRAPHERS
+ Lenses mounted into shutters.
+ Shutters repaired, restored.
+ For more info-- http://www.skgrimes.com.
(updated 6-12-99)
mailto:skgr...@skgrimes.com
M. J. Rossano <mros...@friend.ly.net> wrote in message news:01bedf3c$f6783f20$2862d8cd@diogenes...
Isaac H Crawford
skgrimes <skgr...@ma.ultranet.com> wrote in message
news:7oc57p$2gq$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net...
> M. Rossano is correct. These are industrial surplus and not practical to
re-mount into iris barrel
> or shutter. They sure look nice, though.
DOH! Oh well, win some, lose some...
Isaac
peter
Isaac H Crawford schrieb in Nachricht
<7oatag$nos$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net>...
> I just got a 300mm f5.6 Tessar... Looks great, says, "Carl Zeiss made
in
>W. Germany" on the front, and appears to be coated...I have high hopes for
>it as a good lens. I have a few questions...
All Carl Zeiss W Germany are made after 2nd WW, so all should be coated.
>1) Does anyone know what this thing was used for? I don't see any W. German
>Zeiss Tessars being offered out there as taking lenses, so any ideas as to
>what this was originally used for?
The Tessar was used for many purposes. E.G. projection, measurment equipment
and so on. I don't think it was made for picture taking, specialy without a
diaphragm.
>2)Would it cover 8x10? I seem to recall reading about tessars having
>slightly narrow covrage...
Tessar's have an angle of view between 45° and 58°. So your's will only
cover
5x7", possible a little bit more.
>
>3)The front group unscrews... Could this be a convertable lens? It is in a
>barrel right now without a diaphram... Could I be so lucky as to have this
>screw directly into a shutter?
All good lenses are screwed in their barrel. A good mechanician can make the
rings to adapt it in a shutter. But is it worth?
Peter
kir...@msn.com
Not so fast there. I have a 210 mm Zeiss Tessar that covers an 8X10
with a bit to spare. That works out to about 75 degrees or so. I
think you are mixed up with the ARTARS. You might also check out what
the other folks have written before answering since this particular
lens seems to be an interesting door stop.
>
> >
> >3)The front group unscrews... Could this be a convertable lens? It
is in a
> >barrel right now without a diaphram... Could I be so lucky as to
have this
> >screw directly into a shutter?
>
> All good lenses are screwed in their barrel. A good mechanician can
make the
> rings to adapt it in a shutter. But is it worth?
> Peter
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Richard Knoppow
Snipping here...
>>
>> Tessar's have an angle of view between 45° and 58°. So your's will
>only
>> cover
>> 5x7", possible a little bit more.
>
>Not so fast there. I have a 210 mm Zeiss Tessar that covers an 8X10
>with a bit to spare. That works out to about 75 degrees or so. I
>think you are mixed up with the ARTARS. You might also check out what
>the other folks have written before answering since this particular
>lens seems to be an interesting door stop.
>
>
More snipping happened here...
It comes out to about 72deg. This is more than I would expect of a
standard (meaning not a wide angle type)Tessar. Is this the f/6.3
version? I would expect it to have a bit more coverage than an f/4.5.
Tessars typically cover about 60deg stopped down although some will
cover more. The 127mm Ektar covers 4x5 fine, which is about 62deg but
this is also somewhat more than usual.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dick...@ix.netcom.com
Helge Nareid
wrote:
I'll have to agree with Richard here. I have tried ray-tracing a couple of
variations of the classic Tessar design, and aberattion plots can also be
found in optics text books, such as Warren J. Smith's "Modern Optical
Engineering". The design is reasonably well-corrected out to about 25-30
degrees off axis, but from there on astigmatism goes through the roof. No
amount of stopping down can eliminate it.
I also happen to own an old Xenar 4.5/210 mm, and my experiences with that
lens is entirely consistent with the above (the Xenar is a Schneider
design basically similar to the Tessar). It will _illuminate_ a full 8x10"
negative, but the actual corrected image circle is certainly no more than
approximately 250mm. Beyond that, the negative will be correctly exposed,
but with horrible astigmatism even at the minimum aperture (f45). Some
people confuse illumination circle with coverage, which is true of most
modern lenses, but it is not the case with this one. I prefer lenses with
appropriately designed field stops.
That said, the Tessar name is a Zeiss trademark which is still in use, and
some of the more recent examples seem to be quite different from the
classic 1907 design.
--
- Helge Nareid
Nordmann i utlendighet, Aberdeen, Scotland
kir...@msn.com
Hi Folks,
This is a message I sent to Richard that I am copying back up to the
board. Richard may want to copy back his response to me. Basically we
all agree, you may get the illumination at the edges, but the image
quality will be compromised at some point.
Hi Richard,
Well, it is an old one, It says Tessar 1:6.3 F=21 cm Carl Zeiss Jena
Nr. 277606. It is in a dial set non-sync compur shutter. I was very
surprised it covered my 8X10. The actual circle is about 325 cm. The
corners may be a bit fuzzy (with a loupe they look fine), but in a
contact print it may not matter much and at least there is light
there. Would I recommend this lens as a medium wide 8X10 lens? No.
Grab that 8 1/4 inch Goerz Areotar and go (or Dagor or 190mm Wide Field
Ektar or pony up the big bucks for a 165 SA). Also an M-Nikkor (a
Tessar design) 300mm will cover a whole lot more than just an 8X10 so
Tessars don't always have narrow coverage. Although as I think about
it, the Zeiss Tessar process lenses do have more narrow coverages. My
Schneider Xenar (another Tessar from the early 60's) 135mm f4.7 has an
image circle of 200 mm which works out to 73 degrees so again I guess
it depends on the lens. OTOH my 210mm Sironar Rodenstock (a modern
plasmat) does not cover the 8X10. Kirk
Richard Knoppow
Ok here it is:
Boy, that is an old one. My limited Zeiss serial number list starts
with 375194 dated 1920.
Are you sure the speed is f/6.8 not f/6.3, in some styles of
labeling its hard to tell 8's from 3's. If it is actually f/6.8 it may
be some special type lens.
I don't have an f/6.3 Tessar but do have some f/4.5 ones. I just set
up a 5x7 view camera and checked a 135mm Tessar and a 127mm Ektar on
it. The Tessar just illuminates the corners before vignetting
completely. The 127 doesn't quite make it but very nearly does.
Stopped down to f/32, the smallest stop on this lens, the image
quality at the corners looks OK. With the lens opened up a little its
obvious the image quality falls apart rapidly well before this. This
Tessar is about a 1939 vintage but I don't think the design was
changed from the 1902 (I think) redesign of the original. It is a very
good lens, nearly the equal of the Ektar, which has the advantage of
Lanthanum glass.
So, given that this is around 75deg, and since the f/6.3 lens has
just a bit more coverage than the f/4.5, it is no surprize your lens
will light up an 8x10 (about 71 or 72 deg).
Normally image quality for most lenses becomes rapidly degraded
beyond what is called the stigmatic point. This is the point away from
the center of the image where the tangenial and radial fields cross.
i.e. the lens is astigmatic at this point. This is usually the limit
of good definition. A very will behaved lens can have usable coverage
beyond this. The Tessar evidently does this. Dialyte type lenses like
the Apo-Artar and Dogmar seem to fall apart very rapidly after the
stigmatic point as can be seen from the charts for them.
To which I will add that current design practice is to limit the
image circle of a lens to the circle of good definition by introducing
a field stop somwhere. This may explain why, for instance, the last of
the Dagors, made by Kern for Schneider, have less coverage than old
Dagors.
This is a long post but I think Helge's stuff should remain to
provide some context to those who have not been following the thread
so I am not snipping any.
Thor Lancelot Simon
Helge Nareid <h.na...@nareid.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>I also happen to own an old Xenar 4.5/210 mm, and my experiences with that
>lens is entirely consistent with the above (the Xenar is a Schneider
>design basically similar to the Tessar). It will _illuminate_ a full 8x10"
>negative, but the actual corrected image circle is certainly no more than
>approximately 250mm. Beyond that, the negative will be correctly exposed,
>but with horrible astigmatism even at the minimum aperture (f45). Some
>people confuse illumination circle with coverage, which is true of most
>modern lenses, but it is not the case with this one. I prefer lenses with
>appropriately designed field stops.
>
>That said, the Tessar name is a Zeiss trademark which is still in use, and
>some of the more recent examples seem to be quite different from the
>classic 1907 design.
No kidding! The "Carl Zeiss T* Tessar" in the Yashica T4 35mm camera uses
aspheric elements!
IIRC Bob told me a long time ago that the Schneider Xenar on the similar
Rollei Prego camera also uses aspheric elements.
--
Thor Lancelot Simon t...@rek.tjls.com
"And where do all these highways go, now that we are free?"
Helge Nareid
>In article <37ad168d...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> h.na...@nareid.demon.co.uk (Helge Nareid) wrote:
[...lots snipped...]
>>The design is reasonably well-corrected out to about 25-30
>> degrees off axis, but from there on astigmatism goes through the >roof. No
>> amount of stopping down can eliminate it.
[...more snipped...]
>Well, it is an old one, It says Tessar 1:6.3 F=21 cm Carl Zeiss Jena
>Nr. 277606. It is in a dial set non-sync compur shutter. I was very
>surprised it covered my 8X10. The actual circle is about 325 cm.
I assume that's 325 mm ....
Is this the illumination circle, or the circle of sharpness?
>The
>corners may be a bit fuzzy (with a loupe they look fine), but in a
>contact print it may not matter much and at least there is light
>there.
Sounds a bit like my experience with my 210 Xenar, but it really depends
what is meant by "corners" and "a bit fuzzy".
>Would I recommend this lens as a medium wide 8X10 lens? No.
[...]
>Also an M-Nikkor (a
>Tessar design) 300mm will cover a whole lot more than just an 8X10 so
>Tessars don't always have narrow coverage.
The specifications for the 300 mm Nikkor-M is 325 mm at f22, which is no
more than 57 degrees - about average for a Tessar-type design. This lens
has a reputation for having wider coverage, but it is a lens I've never
tried myself - it's on my wishlist if Santa happens to read this ...
>Although as I think about
>it, the Zeiss Tessar process lenses do have more narrow coverages. My
>Schneider Xenar (another Tessar from the early 60's) 135mm f4.7 has an
>image circle of 200 mm which works out to 73 degrees so again I guess
>it depends on the lens.
Once again - aren't you confusing circle of illumination and circle of
sharpness here? I have not yet seen a "classic" Tessar design (which a
vintage Xenar certainly is) with _sharp_ coverage outside 60 degrees.
Assuming 60 degrees coverage, a 135 mm Xenar should cover approximately
156 mm image diagonal - just enough for 4x5".
>OTOH my 210mm Sironar Rodenstock (a modern
>plasmat) does not cover the 8X10. Kirk
Same for my 210mm Nikkor-W. Most modern lenses are designed with "field
stops", however. The function of a field stop is to limit the illuminated
field of the lens, normally to the corrected circle of coverage at the
minimum stop - 295mm in the case of the Nikkor-W. That makes shifting the
lens outside its (corrected) coverage much less likely, since there will
be a sharp illumination cutoff at the edge of the circle of coverage. The
Xenar does _not_ have a field stop, so it is very easy to mistakenly shift
it beyond its coverage (something I have done a few times, even on 4x5").
The fact that a lens _illuminates_ a wide area, doesn't mean that it is
_corrected_ all the way to the edges, unless it has a well-designed field
stop.
Field stops are very useful, and another example why there is a lot more
to optical design than selecting radii of curvature of the glass surfaces.
kir...@msn.com
h.na...@nareid.demon.co.uk (Helge Nareid) wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Aug 1999 05:52:09 GMT, kir...@msn.com wrote:
> >In article <37ad168d...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> > h.na...@nareid.demon.co.uk (Helge Nareid) wrote:
> [...lots snipped...]
> >>The design is reasonably well-corrected out to about 25-30
> >> degrees off axis, but from there on astigmatism goes through the
>roof. No
> >> amount of stopping down can eliminate it.
> [...more snipped...]
>
Hi Helge:
So let me take the other side. I would rather have fuzzy blank sky
than black corners. Depends on the application, use the correct tool
for the job and know its limitations. I have no problem with the
concept that circle of illumination may not be the same as circle of
accepable sharpness. I think we all get the general idea. I would
grab the Zeiss lens if I had to make a landscape with my 8X10 rather
than the Rodenstock but neither would be a good as my Aerotar (All are
8.25 inch lenes).
Helge Nareid
>Hi Helge:
>
>So let me take the other side. I would rather have fuzzy blank sky
>than black corners.
I see what you mean. We all have our own styles and preferences, and I
have no quarrel with that.
>Depends on the application, use the correct tool
>for the job and know its limitations.
Well said.
>I have no problem with the
>concept that circle of illumination may not be the same as circle of
>accepable sharpness. I think we all get the general idea. I would
>grab the Zeiss lens if I had to make a landscape with my 8X10 rather
>than the Rodenstock but neither would be a good as my Aerotar (All are
>8.25 inch lenes).
I only have the Xenar and the Nikkor-W in 210mm, and I don't consider any
of them suitable for 8x10", so I wouldn't get the image at all - quite
possibly my loss ;-)
uttam...@gmail.com
> I just got a 300mm f5.6 Tessar... Looks great, says, "Carl Zeiss made in
> W. Germany" on the front, and appears to be coated...I have high hopes for
> it as a good lens. I have a few questions...
>
> Zeiss Tessars being offered out there as taking lenses, so any ideas as to
> what this was originally used for?
>
> slightly narrow covrage...
>
> barrel right now without a diaphram... Could I be so lucky as to have this
> screw directly into a shutter?
>
>
> Isaac
HI has anyone dissassembled to remove the glass elements, i need to know after unscrewing the front element unit how to remove the glass element
rgds uttam