Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,990   Posts: 1,524,136   Online: 1104
      
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 44
  1. #1
    ruilourosa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Portugal
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    302

    CARL ZEISS JENA TESSAR 50mm 2.8

    hello

    I am aware of the optical quality of the design, i own some copies, but this lens comes cheap and i would like to give it a try, would it be that different from a super takumar 1.8, better? worst?

    Thanks
    vive la resistance!

  2. #2
    Slixtiesix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    712
    Images
    21
    I don´t know the Super Takumar but this is a great lens! My first camera was equipped with this Tessar in the black/chrome version. Gave pretty sharp pictures. Give it a try!

    Greetz, Benjamin

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,122
    The only review I have seen of the 50mm Jena Tessar was in "Praktica Lenses" by AM Carlsson 1977.Of 3 50mm M42 lenses tested, at wide aperture the 6 element Pancolar was the best with the 6 element Pentacon next and the the 4 element Tessar the least good. Stopped down the difference between the 3 was less.
    I have not done the comparison but it seems likely that the 6 element Super Takumar would outperform the 4 element Tessar.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    580
    One more vote for the Super-Multi-Coated Takumar in all its varieties.

  5. #5
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,220
    Images
    148
    The f1.8 Super Takumar is very significantly better at all apertures, I've had quite a few Takumars in the past from f1.4 through to f2 and they are outstanding, I currently have about 4 or 5.

    The Tessar's OK I have two, one on an Exacta the other Pentax thread, but they are not as sharp until about f8/f11.

    Alan missed the infamous Meyer Domiplan that must be the worst of the Easy German 50mm lenses from a company whose lenses once equalled CZJ in quality. The Pentacon was the later name for the Meyer lens the Oreston.

    Try the Tessar it might be fine, just don't expect too much.

    Ian

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    14
    Lets start this way:

    The 2.8/50mm Tessars are good lenses.

    I compared several 50mm lenses on my 24.6 MP digital FF camera last year.

    Among some others there were

    M42
    Super Multi Coated Takumar 1.4/50mm
    Pancolar 1.8/50mm
    CZ Tessar 2.8/50mm (Contax from my Grandpa)

    Minolta AF 1.4/50mm
    Minolta AF 1.7/50mm

    The best performers in far distances were without any doubt
    mostly because of the best flat field correction the 1.4 lenses.
    For my examples the Minolta AF delivers the best sharpness up
    to the corners.

    The Minolta AF 1.7 and the Pancolar wheras very good in center
    sharpness too need more stopping down to catch up in borders.

    The Tessar shows good sharpness in center, but needs f11
    to show acceptable border sharpness and there never really
    reaches the resolution of the 6 and seven lens constructions.

    So it is nice to have such a Tessar but against the competition
    the design shows its age.

    Best Regards

  7. #7
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,555
    Images
    122
    I picked up one of these last week in M42 mount in a collection of stuff but I haven't used it yet so it's interesting to read the comments. I also got a Zeiss 135mm f3.5 - any thoughts on that?


    Steve.

  8. #8
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,220
    Images
    148
    The Zeiss 135mm f3.5 Sonnar is an excellent lens, I have one somewhere with a 35mm Flektagon for my Exacta.

    Ian

  9. #9
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,220
    Images
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by lightdreamer View Post
    The Tessar shows good sharpness in center, but needs f11
    to show acceptable border sharpness and there never really
    reaches the resolution of the 6 and seven lens constructions.

    So it is nice to have such a Tessar but against the competition
    the design shows its age.

    Best Regards

    That's typical of the Tessar design, with the Large Format versions the faster lenses have the weakest performance, the best performers I have are a pre-WWI (1912/13 f6.3 165mm and the late production Tessar type - 150mm f5.6 Xenar (2002 S/N).

    LF Tessar's are best at f16, or less, and edge and corner sharpness is lost quickly with wider apertures.

    Welcome to APUG BTW

    Ian

  10. #10
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,555
    Images
    122
    I'm glad this thread was raised. Last weekend I bought three camera bodies and about six lenses and a few other things for £10. Two of the lenses were a Zeiss Tessar 50mm f2.8 (as is being discussed here) and a Zeiss Sonnar 135mm f3.5.

    I have spent the last week thinking that the 50mm Tessar was a special lens and the 135mm is just a standard lens with no great reputation. After doing a bit of a search and receiving a some information from Ian, it would seem that I had it the wrong way round!

    I'm pleased about this as 135mm is my favourite focal length on 35mm.


    Steve.

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin