I've never had the Tessar 4.5 so far, only Tessars 3.5 and Novar Anastigmats. The 4.5 "is said" to be less good than the 3.5, and this means, since all "said" things are 99.9% of the times just rubbish, that it is instead probably even better. Talking on an illimited money fund scenario, I'd buy one just to confute the "less good" hypothesis.
It is likely, but when production re-started after WWII, many units were made with a mix & match of pre-world war leftovers, so who really knows.Originally Posted by Lyrrad
I totally agree. Generally speaking, I find that photographs made with these Tessars are as sharp as promised by the famous name they bear. Same thing happens, however, with the less sought-after Novar Anastigmat models, which thus are a cheap and smart choice. Both lenses are usually affected by a general flare to which today photographers are totally unaccustomed. Not a "natural flou" effect, but a general glow which surronds wide areas of highlights and reduces midtones' contrast accordingly. You can either consider it a defect, or better a valuable feature that will add a "vintage" touch to your images.I have been informed that this kind of uncoated lens still produces outstanding results. Perhaps you could add your opinions.
However, the best photograph I have ever taken to my girlfriend so far has been made with a camera which is almost identical to yours. Enjoy it!