Tessar! What a lens design! So sharp and colorful and only four lens elements! I have a few, 50 mm f2.8s made in Jena and Odebrecht (West Germany), the f3.5 Industar 50-2, and a Schneider Kreuznach Xenar (their Tessar designation) 38mm f2.8 removed from a fixed lens camera manufactured in the mid-sixties and modded for use on modern cameras (Sony e-mount in my case). Because of its focal length, its amazing sharpness and color, the 38 is a favorite. A silver bodied 50mm f2.8 with twelve aperture blades made in Jena between 1955 and 1958 is another favorite. Photography owes a real debt to Paul Rudolph. Thanks, Nigel, for this tribute.
In summer this year I purchased two Carl Zeiss Jena Tessars for only 20 Euros, shipping included. Both needed some thorough cleaning, one had sticky blades and the other one very stiff focusing. Now both are nearly like new, and I'll keep one of them while the other one has already been sold for 40 Euros. I don't really count the hours that went into cleaning and repairing. I'm just happy to have saved these little gems from the garbage bin, and made an Italian vintage lens enthusiast happy.
Thanks to you I started collecting vintage lenses. I now have about a dozen. I love my Industar 61. I find that it takes very nice images. Thanks for your reviews.
I like to use my FED-10 lens on M42 Sony-E adapter (and not on L39 - Sony-E adapter). You need just an m39 to m42 thread adapter ring. It is possible to focus by collapsing the lens in or pulling it out. That way it will focus from very very close and you can do some tilt-shifting of sorts. Also works for Industar-22 and 100% safe to collapse both lenses fully without any risk of hitting the sensor when they are mounted on M42 adapter.
Good morning Nigel, Thank you for another informative episode. I would like to suggest adding another lens to this group, which, although not a Tessar, is still inexpensive to purchase, although the price is now starting to harden somewhat. It is the Pentacon 'Prakticar' 50mm f2.4 'pancake' model. This lens was developed by Meyer Optik, Gorlitz, as an alternative to Tessars, and was often supplied with Praktica 'B' series cameras. This superb lens is only 24mm deep, from the lens flange, and is very useful when one considers the adaptors required for digital cameras, it does focus down to 0.6m. People often think that this is a Tessar lens, where designers have managed to up the max aperture to f2.4, but that is definitely not the case. It is actually a development of the 'Ernostar' design, with every element being of very high refractive index glass. The ZEISS IKON VEB. DE website gives full details of this often overlooked, very compact lens. I have found colours to be very strong, sharpness excellent, and the background blur to be smoother than a Tessar. If buying one, I would suggest version one, which is all metal, with engraved markings, rather than version two, which is plastic, with printed markings.
Hi Peter, you lent me one of these a while back, a nice little optic that I'd always suspected was a Tessar design, interesting to know it was a Meyer lens.
@@zenography7923 Good afternoon Nigel, yes, I believe I did. It is a very interesting lens, and still not too expensive to buy, a good subject for an episode perhaps?.
Thanks Nigel, great video as always. I totally agree with you about the Industar 10 / FED collapsible lens. I've just done a review on my own channel wandering the streets of Thimphu Bhutan with the FED on my Canon P. It's such a beautiful lens that the fiddliness of the hard infinity lock and aperture needle just adds to the joy of the experience of shooting. And as you say, Tessars are sharp and just seem to get sharper as you stop down. My only suggestion to film shooters is to follow the F8 and be there rule, adjusting the shutter rather than the aperture while you're in the moment. That said, the shutter dials of the FEDS and Zorkis are really fiddly too!
Lanthanum-glass is and was used as a (almost) non radioactive glass for Premium Lenses. Its very costly and replaced thorium after it was banned. For example the first version of the Pancolar (8 Bladed Zebra) used thorium as ED-Glass (in the front and back Elements), the later versions (for example zebra 6 Bladed or MC version) use Lanthanum as a replacement for the Thorium. While the Thorium glass still has technically better optical properties, the Lanthanum came very very close. Another permium glass component is fluor. The use of Thorium, Lanthanum and Fluor in lenses is very costly so they couldnt use them in most mass produced lenses (for example Oreston)
Ahhh finally :) after triplets, tessars are my favorite lens design. CZJ Tessar, Meyer Primotar 50mm f3.5, all flavors of Industars, Voigtlander Skopar (maybe the best tessar ever), Schacht Travenar 50mm f2.8, ... but the most impressive tessar ever (when correctly adapted) - is Industar-69 28mm f2.8
@@zenography7923 Not sure how it will work on FF but on M4/3 and APS-C is great (well, accounting in that it's tessar and made for half-frame camera). Needs simple mod, but very easy to do
@@zenography7923 I would suggest ignoring the Russian glass and trying a Skopar in DKL - can be had for less than a collapsed Russian and in almost every aspect - actually in every aspect is a far far better lens than. Whilst Rudolph did so much to advance early designs it was Tronnier that we really have to thank for much of the glass we have today - the Prominent 3.5 approaches the ability to focus three wave lengths that would normally be the realms of apochromatic lenses, where as Russian and even post 45 CZJ lenses can struggle to focus two wavelengths.
I own a chunky silver version which looks like a Biotar. The Tessar 2.8/50 (5665043) in M42. I also own a very early - 1948 I believe, silver Tessar f3.5 5cm T (3170917) in EXA mount. It's tiny. More like an Industar 50 than a Tessar. Both are as smooth as butter and everything operates as it should. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on these remarkable 'Eagle Eye' lens designs.
Well done. All very interesting. Perhaps a video about how to mount these lenses to modern cameras would be good? I know for example that very little mounts to the Nikon F cameras. The pros and cons of adapters? I would love to try these different lenses, but I need a inexpensive film body that mounts as many as possible. Everyone mounts to Sony digital these days, but Sony cameras are so expensive. Thanks so much for your expertise.
My most used/favorite lenses are f3.5/f4. I have fast glass, there's just something about older "slow" glass & its not just they're usually fairly inexpensive
What other differences are there between the Ind.26 and Ind.61 aside perhaps from the contrast, and zebra/plain design? They seem so similar. I’m interested in one of these but contrast is not a major factor for my needs. And thanks for the video and info!
I'm not sure your Industar 61 marked off in feet is necessarily early (I think its a 1968 version going by the s/n) as I have a similar version bearing the later '88' serial number system that is also marked off in feet. Possibly lenses intended for the export market? Nice video!
Probably for export, but most sold on the UK market were marked in metres, foot markings seem quite rare. I would guess that production was rationalised.
recently bought the CZJ tessar, it's a bit of a freak show with its late id ring and zebra body, shoots spectacular photos though. i like to carry it in my pocket just incase
The Elmar is related to a Tessar, yes: both are 4-element designs. But the Elmar is NOT a Tessar all the same. The Tessar was designed in 1902, btw -- thus is dates back waaay before the 1930s....
No, the zebra-style Tessar was not radioactive. At least mine isn't. It sure is sharp though. Possibly my sharpest lens manufactured in the '60s. No wonder it had the "Adlerauge" ("Eagle Eye") moniker.
I'd like to suggest the use of the word 'inexpensive' in place of 'cheap'. The latter implies, at least in the US, something poorly made. These vintage lenses are, in most cases, anything but poorly made. Even the Helios lenses with their varying quality are fun lenses to use, all metal construction and produce some amazing images.
@@m.j.s.3838 Agreed, but if you were selling their usefulness to someone which one would describe the quality and functionality of these lenses better?
I bought a Zeiss Jena Tessar 50mm f2.8 in chrome for £3.50 at charity shop last week its in perfect condition serial number 5754892 uncoated don't know what year but it aperture ring at the front and has a spring in so you press the ring inwards to change the aperture. I have a few CZ 50mm f2.8's one Zebra and 2 all black. This chrome one is very sharp.
Hello Nigel, many thanks! I have a recommendation for you and I’d like to contact you. A really nice lens in the UK I found and the price seems to be ok for what you get. Could you send me your contact details? As far as I remember you have my e-mail-address. Just get in touch. Best wishes, Ralf
Tessar! What a lens design! So sharp and colorful and only four lens elements! I have a few, 50 mm f2.8s made in Jena and Odebrecht (West Germany), the f3.5 Industar 50-2, and a Schneider Kreuznach Xenar (their Tessar designation) 38mm f2.8 removed from a fixed lens camera manufactured in the mid-sixties and modded for use on modern cameras (Sony e-mount in my case). Because of its focal length, its amazing sharpness and color, the 38 is a favorite. A silver bodied 50mm f2.8 with twelve aperture blades made in Jena between 1955 and 1958 is another favorite. Photography owes a real debt to Paul Rudolph. Thanks, Nigel, for this tribute.
Can I use these lenses with an adapter to a micro 4/3 attatchment? Ty
In summer this year I purchased two Carl Zeiss Jena Tessars for only 20 Euros, shipping included. Both needed some thorough cleaning, one had sticky blades and the other one very stiff focusing. Now both are nearly like new, and I'll keep one of them while the other one has already been sold for 40 Euros. I don't really count the hours that went into cleaning and repairing. I'm just happy to have saved these little gems from the garbage bin, and made an Italian vintage lens enthusiast happy.
Thanks to you I started collecting vintage lenses. I now have about a dozen. I love my Industar 61. I find that it takes very nice images. Thanks for your reviews.
Glad you're enjoying those lenses!
I was managed to get some background blur from f4 SmenaSymbol camera. Even stopped down to f 5,6... so that industar lens will make even better.
I like to use my FED-10 lens on M42 Sony-E adapter (and not on L39 - Sony-E adapter). You need just an m39 to m42 thread adapter ring. It is possible to focus by collapsing the lens in or pulling it out. That way it will focus from very very close and you can do some tilt-shifting of sorts. Also works for Industar-22 and 100% safe to collapse both lenses fully without any risk of hitting the sensor when they are mounted on M42 adapter.
Good morning Nigel,
Thank you for another informative episode.
I would like to suggest adding another lens to this group, which, although not a Tessar, is still inexpensive to purchase, although the price is now starting to harden somewhat. It is the Pentacon 'Prakticar' 50mm f2.4 'pancake' model. This lens was developed by Meyer Optik, Gorlitz, as an alternative to Tessars, and was often supplied with Praktica 'B' series cameras. This superb lens is only 24mm deep, from the lens flange, and is very useful when one considers the adaptors required for digital cameras, it does focus down to 0.6m. People often think that this is a Tessar lens, where designers have managed to up the max aperture to f2.4, but that is definitely not the case. It is actually a development of the 'Ernostar' design, with every element being of very high refractive index glass. The ZEISS IKON VEB. DE website gives full details of this often overlooked, very compact lens. I have found colours to be very strong, sharpness excellent, and the background blur to be smoother than a Tessar. If buying one, I would suggest version one, which is all metal, with engraved markings, rather than version two, which is plastic, with printed markings.
Hi Peter, you lent me one of these a while back, a nice little optic that I'd always suspected was a Tessar design, interesting to know it was a Meyer lens.
@@zenography7923 Good afternoon Nigel, yes, I believe I did. It is a very interesting lens, and still not too expensive to buy, a good subject for an episode perhaps?.
Thanks Nigel, great video as always. I totally agree with you about the Industar 10 / FED collapsible lens. I've just done a review on my own channel wandering the streets of Thimphu Bhutan with the FED on my Canon P. It's such a beautiful lens that the fiddliness of the hard infinity lock and aperture needle just adds to the joy of the experience of shooting. And as you say, Tessars are sharp and just seem to get sharper as you stop down. My only suggestion to film shooters is to follow the F8 and be there rule, adjusting the shutter rather than the aperture while you're in the moment. That said, the shutter dials of the FEDS and Zorkis are really fiddly too!
Lanthanum-glass is and was used as a (almost) non radioactive glass for Premium Lenses. Its very costly and replaced thorium after it was banned. For example the first version of the Pancolar (8 Bladed Zebra) used thorium as ED-Glass (in the front and back Elements), the later versions (for example zebra 6 Bladed or MC version) use Lanthanum as a replacement for the Thorium. While the Thorium glass still has technically better optical properties, the Lanthanum came very very close. Another permium glass component is fluor. The use of Thorium, Lanthanum and Fluor in lenses is very costly so they couldnt use them in most mass produced lenses (for example Oreston)
That's really interesting, thanks!
Should it be fluor?
I love your images.
Thanks!
Ahhh finally :) after triplets, tessars are my favorite lens design. CZJ Tessar, Meyer Primotar 50mm f3.5, all flavors of Industars, Voigtlander Skopar (maybe the best tessar ever), Schacht Travenar 50mm f2.8, ...
but the most impressive tessar ever (when correctly adapted) - is Industar-69 28mm f2.8
I haven't tried the Industar 69 yet, but will do!
@@zenography7923 Not sure how it will work on FF but on M4/3 and APS-C is great (well, accounting in that it's tessar and made for half-frame camera). Needs simple mod, but very easy to do
@@zenography7923 I would suggest ignoring the Russian glass and trying a Skopar in DKL - can be had for less than a collapsed Russian and in almost every aspect - actually in every aspect is a far far better lens than. Whilst Rudolph did so much to advance early designs it was Tronnier that we really have to thank for much of the glass we have today - the Prominent 3.5 approaches the ability to focus three wave lengths that would normally be the realms of apochromatic lenses, where as Russian and even post 45 CZJ lenses can struggle to focus two wavelengths.
I own a chunky silver version which looks like a Biotar. The Tessar 2.8/50 (5665043) in M42. I also own a very early - 1948 I believe, silver Tessar f3.5 5cm T (3170917) in EXA mount. It's tiny. More like an Industar 50 than a Tessar. Both are as smooth as butter and everything operates as it should.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on these remarkable 'Eagle Eye' lens designs.
Thanks, glad you enjoyed it!
I have a number of those Fed Elmar copies. They are superb.
Fantastic little optics!
love my FED10 :)
Well done. All very interesting. Perhaps a video about how to mount these lenses to modern cameras would be good? I know for example that very little mounts to the Nikon F cameras. The pros and cons of adapters? I would love to try these different lenses, but I need a inexpensive film body that mounts as many as possible. Everyone mounts to Sony digital these days, but Sony cameras are so expensive. Thanks so much for your expertise.
Thanks for the suggestion!
I have the Industar 50-2 50mm f/3.5. It's a fiddly little thing, but produces great images.
A fierce and intrepid review
😀
My most used/favorite lenses are f3.5/f4. I have fast glass, there's just something about older "slow" glass & its not just they're usually fairly inexpensive
I agree, slow glass does have a look all its own, integral, coherent and lacking nothing. Some of my favourites for sure.
Just found your channel which video shows how to clean your lens?
Was interested in the Carl Zeiss Pro Tessar Lens 1:3.2 F=35 mm … is there a way to connect to a micro 4/3 mount?Great work🙏
I'm not sure if the contaflex mount is the same as the Kiev mount - if it is, you're in luck: www.ebay.co.uk/itm/324116034797
What other differences are there between the Ind.26 and Ind.61 aside perhaps from the contrast, and zebra/plain design? They seem so similar. I’m interested in one of these but contrast is not a major factor for my needs. And thanks for the video and info!
The Voigtlander Skopar in DKL mount can be bought for less than a collapsed Russian - and altogether superior lens. Interesting video though.
I'm not sure your Industar 61 marked off in feet is necessarily early (I think its a 1968 version going by the s/n) as I have a similar version bearing the later '88' serial number system that is also marked off in feet. Possibly lenses intended for the export market? Nice video!
Probably for export, but most sold on the UK market were marked in metres, foot markings seem quite rare. I would guess that production was rationalised.
Seems prices in the USA are about 4x as much.
I have the Tessar f2.8 but the focusing is rough I also have the re-introduced collapsing Elmar but finding contrast filters for it is impossible.
recently bought the CZJ tessar, it's a bit of a freak show with its late id ring and zebra body, shoots spectacular photos though. i like to carry it in my pocket just incase
Enjoy!
I'd have liked to see how sharp the Zeiss is at 2.8
Most of the CZJ images are shot at f2.8, only a few are stopped down.
The Elmar is related to a Tessar, yes: both are 4-element designs. But the Elmar is NOT a Tessar all the same. The Tessar was designed in 1902, btw -- thus is dates back waaay before the 1930s....
No, the zebra-style Tessar was not radioactive. At least mine isn't. It sure is sharp though. Possibly my sharpest lens manufactured in the '60s. No wonder it had the "Adlerauge" ("Eagle Eye") moniker.
The Carl Zeiss Jana starts at about $120 AU. Inexpensive, but not really.
Isn't the f1.4 version radioactive?
I don't think there's a 1.4 version of any Tessar lens, apparently they're difficult to make with a faster aperture than f2.8.
Make sure you don’t collapse the lens when used on digital cameras.
Excellent advice, thank you!
📸
❤❤❤
👍
👍
so not cheap but inexpensive to buy
Indeed!
I'd like to suggest the use of the word 'inexpensive' in place of 'cheap'. The latter implies, at least in the US, something poorly made. These vintage lenses are, in most cases, anything but poorly made. Even the Helios lenses with their varying quality are fun lenses to use, all metal construction and produce some amazing images.
not really; even in americA, words can and do have more than one meaning.
@@m.j.s.3838 Agreed, but if you were selling their usefulness to someone which one would describe the quality and functionality of these lenses better?
British English > American English. Read history.
@@peacetaro8007yeah, quite pompous from our americano-centric friend.
Well, outside US everyone else understands what cheap means. Not everything has to be customized to a particular style of English.
I bought a Zeiss Jena Tessar 50mm f2.8 in chrome for £3.50 at charity shop last week its in perfect condition serial number 5754892 uncoated don't know what year but it aperture ring at the front and has a spring in so you press the ring inwards to change the aperture. I have a few CZ 50mm f2.8's one Zebra and 2 all black. This chrome one is very sharp.
Hello Nigel, many thanks! I have a recommendation for you and I’d like to contact you. A really nice lens in the UK I found and the price seems to be ok for what you get. Could you send me your contact details? As far as I remember you have my e-mail-address. Just get in touch. Best wishes, Ralf