CJZ Tessar

[Ken Lee]

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/r6.jpg
4x5, Vintage 180mm CZJ Tessar


http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/r10.jpg
5x7, Vintage 250mm CZJ Tessar.


http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/r12.jpg
5x7, Vintage 180mm CZJ Tessar.

[Amin Sabet]

Beautiful rendering with these two lenses Ken. I associate the Tessar design with less attractive bokeh, but your examples show otherwise.

[Ken Lee]

I was surprised myself. Is there a major difference between Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar lenses, and other Tessar lenses ?

I should point out that I rarely shoot with lenses wide-open, even though that might give the most blur. Just 2 stops, is enough to get very sharp performance where the subject is in-focus, and may also result in better blur rendition.

Most vintage lenses for Large Format have irises with many blades (like 19 ?), which appear virtually circular. That probably helps too. The old designers knew what they were doing.

[Amin Sabet]

Ken, regarding the first part about CZJ Tessar vs other Tessars, I have no idea. Maybe someone else can comment. Stopping down a bit certainly helps with blur quality in most cases. Whatever the reason, there is nothing to fault here :).

[Ken Lee]

I would love to know: which lenses do you like for Bokeh ?

[Amin Sabet]

It's hard for me to say. In general, I suppose I have somewhat typical taste in that I like background blurred structures to have a bright center and soft falloff away from that without double lines or sharp edges... but not really mushy - I still like to see some structure. I like quite a few lenses for bokeh, though with each there are settings and circumstances which can produce more or less attractive blur. I also enjoy unique bokeh, like the swirly stuff.

Amongst lenses I've used recently, I can point to the Olympus OM 40/2, Zeiss ZF 50/2, ZM 50/2, M-Hexanon 50/2, Nikon 135/2.0 AIS, Nikon 24-70/2.8, and Nikon 24/2.8 AIS as lenses which I've enjoyed from a bokeh standpoint. None relevant to a large format forum, but you asked :).

[Romeo]

Lovely studies Ken. Your Tessars seem to do very well for creamy highlight control.

How wide are the apertures of your 180 & 250 lenses?

Zeiss Jena had some decent quality control before the war. I guess their Tessars were the original designs, often loaned to others under a patent. There probably isnt' much difference in the optical formula when it comes to Zeiss tessars versus other Tessars. Just quality control.

[Ken Lee]

I'm pretty certain that they are all f/4.5.

Thanks for the info about CZJ Tessars !

[Nando]

The large format Tessars give such a gorgeous rendering. A friend of mine just started getting into large format and I've been tempted to join him. (I just can't get into yet another format). He has a 210mm Heliar. In his search for a 200-something lens, he strongly considered a Tessar. He is now considering a 135mm Zeiss Planar and possibly a 75mm Zeiss Biogon to complete his kit.

[Trius]

Ken: I have long loved looking at your Tessar photos on your website, though for some reason I never really thought much about the lenses being Zeiss -- it's good to see you here. I have been wanting a Fujinon 240A (my other lenses are Fujinon 150 & 90), and while the going price used seems to be fair (~$500), I've never pulled the trigger.

The Tessar 250 shots show me something very, very nice, and it would be an economical alternative. One question I do have, is how does the Tessar compare to the Fujinon 250A in terms of size and weight? I realize you may not know (and I could Google the specs!), but I was curious. I was thinking of the 250 as an option for a one-lens kit with my Toyo 45A.

Earl

[Ken Lee]

One thing to keep in mind, is that the Tessar is f/4.5, while the Fujinon A series are f/9.

So the Fujinons are half the size, all things being equal, and therefore half the weight, if not less.

The Fujinon 240 A is a very sharp lens, great for anything. The A-series lenses I have tested, have excellent bokeh when shot wide open too. Unfortunately, they are mounted in modern shutters with only 5 blades. They are modified process lenses, giving flat field and superb correction. But I wouldn't shoot them for their bokeh.

The Fujinon, being a more modern design, has a wider circle of coverage, and takes a much smaller filter than an equivalent Tessar. Not having tried to place a filter on my Tessars, I don't know what size is required by the 250mm. It might be 67mm, as opposed to the Fujinon's 52mm.

Perhaps most importantly, my 250mm Tessar is a barrel lens. I use the Sinar shutter on my Sinar P for my barrel lenses. I'm sure you can find longer Tessars mounted in shutter. My 180 came in an old shutter, which still works fine after what I can only presume is around 50 years or more. That's the beauty of analog photography with mechanical cameras. Unless you drop them or run them over with a truck, they will last and last.

Since I shoot long and rarely wide, I plan to keep both lenses. Each has its own personality. Were I to travel with only 1 lens, it would be the Fujinon 240A.

[Trius]

Ken: Thanks for those insights. I have seen the 250mm Tessars on eBay in shutter, so I know they are available. And I do know about the Fujinon being very small, having more coverage, etc., so they are very different lenses for different situations.

However, I did not know about the 5-blade iris on the Fujinon, so I appreciate that information very much. It makes a huge difference if I were to try and use it for portraits. I have used the Fujinon 150 for a full length, outdoor portrait and it worked quite well. But for a longer lens in that situation it seems the Tessar might be a better choice. For landscape work, especially when hiking in or camping, the Fujinon would probably be the choice.

[Keith]

It's hard for me to say. In general, I suppose I have somewhat typical taste in that I like background blurred structures to have a bright center and soft falloff away from that without double lines or sharp edges... but not really mushy - I still like to see some structure. I like quite a few lenses for bokeh, though with each there are settings and circumstances which can produce more or less attractive blur. I also enjoy unique bokeh, like the swirly stuff.

Amongst lenses I've used recently, I can point to the Olympus OM 40/2, Zeiss ZF 50/2, ZM 50/2, M-Hexanon 50/2, Nikon 135/2.0 AIS, Nikon 24-70/2.8, and Nikon 24/2.8 AIS as lenses which I've enjoyed from a bokeh standpoint. None relevant to a large format forum, but you asked :).



I've heard that those f2 40mm Olympus lenses are like the proverbial rocking horse you know what and quiet pricey when you do come across them!

[Trius]

I've heard that those f2 40mm Olympus lenses are like the proverbial rocking horse you know what and quiet pricey when you do come across them!

Keith: I have blown hot and cold on the Zuiko 40 pancake. For a long time it had a rep as not being all that sharp, nothing spectacular, etc., etc. The price was (supposedly) only due to its relative rarity.

Then I saw some photos made with it and my opinion changed drastically. Yes, its rarity is likely the major factor in what it sells for, BUT the photos I saw had a quality that I couldn't exactly quantify/qualify.

My guess is that Maitani had a lot of personal input into the design of this lens. As a Leica enthusiast, he wanted a pancake style lens that would provide an OM kit as close to shooting with a Leica as possible. I can't imagine him not insisting on a lens with characteristics that he personally found Leica-like. I'm not saying the Zuiko 40/2 is a Summicron, but I believe it was/is something of a personal statement.

The other day I picked up (for a very good price), a Zuiko that I've wanted for quite some time -- the 50/3.5 Macro. Now I'm juiced about a 40/2. Damn, I hate GAS!!!

[Mark Muse]

I can't comment on the Zeiss Tessars, but Tessars are pretty simple designs and are usually small and light. If memory serves, I think they are only 4 elements in a more or less symmetrical layout.

In large format Nikon made some very nice modern Tessars–multicoated, small and light, 200mm and 300mm. I believe coverage is somewhat limited for the focal length but that is the only limitation I am aware of. I bought the 200 new, but like a dope I didn't keep it long. It was as sharp or sharper than my Fujinon 180A (which is sharper than my 240A), but it had a different kind of sharpness that was less forgiving. Can't comment on the Bokeh.