Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/06/29

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Someone gave me a strange lens
From: luisripoll at telefonica.net (Lluis Ripoll)
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:07:52 +0200
References: <604573AC-37A0-4D6A-8206-6FAA54B71D31@frozenlight.eu>

Hi Natahna,

 From "LENS VADEMECUM", the more similar I've found is:

Tessar Series 1c (1906) f4.5 1.5-20in. Here use 6in for 1/4plate.  
(Layout Zei 021)
There is a hint that the success of the Tessar came as a slight  
surprise and that the response took a little
time in preparing a faster version. Remember that Zeiss introduced the  
f4.5 Anastigmat, Planar and Unar in
succession over some 10 years and may have wanted more continuity at  
this aperture! The f4.5 Tessar was to
be a product which commercially put all of them in the shade. Compared  
with the f6.3 it was faster and more
successful, though connoisseurs say it just is not quite such a  
charismatic item! But it did replace both the
f4.5 Unar and the Planar. Hence the numbering as Series 1c.
The designer here was E.Wandersleb. (D.R.P. 142,294).The drawing  
(Layout Zei.021) shows two flat surfaces.
In our experience this is unusual. The rear of glass 1 is more usually  
concave, as is the inside of the rear pair.
But the latter was flat in an early Series 1c f3.5 which was  
dismantled. Thus Zei022 may be still another
variant. The great success of this product means it is one of the easy  
ones to find and it is still well worth
using for black+white work. There are coated examples which might be  
better for colour. It is normally quite
free from flare, but inevitably this tends to affect colour materials  
more than b+w where it is easy to correct for
changes in contrast.
In 1914, it was made as 3.0, 3.5, 4.75, 5.25, 6.0, 6.5, 7.0, 8.25, 10,  
12, 14, 16, 20in and 16in was suggested
for 10x8, and 6in for 5x4in. There may be other sizes, as A. Adams  
mentions using an 8.5in Tessar in the
1920's. (Autobiography, p60). In view of the later use of  
interchangable front components, it seems the E.
Wanderslab envisaged this as early as 1908-9- but production does not  
seem to have ocurred.
The Tessar quickly became the prestige lens on the bulk of small  
cameras sold to the general public. This
was typically the f4.5 though the f6.3 was also a success. It must  
have had a major impact on camera design
as a result. This is due to the designers in each company having to  
accommodate the same shutter/lens
package and the same rear focus in all the models of the same format.  
And thence on lens designers whose
lenses for sale as alternate fitments now had to conform at least  
approximately to that of the Zeiss Tessar.
Also as the cameras converged, so the identity was lessened, and the  
possibility of a merger such as
occurred to form Zeiss Ikon was eased. But note that this only  
involved some 4 makers, and the design
convergence will have affected firms (such as Ensign in the UK) who  
were definitely independant.
An interesting focal length is the 55mm, found on stereo cameras for  
45x107mm format, eg at No471,35x (2x).
Another point is that some f4.5/150mm Tessar lenses are in Compound or  
Compur shutters with oversize rear
mounting threads of 44x0.9mm, probably an A size, possibly to allow a  
bigger rear cell for more even
illumination. This is something to note in mounting them as the 44mm  
ring is now hard to find if missing.
An interesting example was marked "Flieger Truppe" at No29587x,  
possibly a WW1 air lens.

During 1999, a group of some 5 Tessars f6.3 and f4.5 were tried out on  
B+W film 6x9cm using a 1960's
coated lens for comparison. There was amazingly little difference  
between them in contrast for ordinary views
outside when shooting at f11 and 1/100sec, and using a lens hood also  
seemed to be unnecessary. But as
the camera was swung to look towards the sun, the difference began to  
show up, one conclusion being that
anything which kept the sunlight off the actual glass was almost  
equally efffective: so site the camera in
shade, even of a telephone pole or hold up a hand, book or newspaper  
to shade the actual lens. Zeiss seem to
have achieved a premium product here, and this may depend partly on  
the sharpness of the lens image and
partly on the careful blacking of the edges and related parts. There  
are also mentions in older books of the
unusual "black" polish Zeiss were able to obtain on the glasses- due  
to a very perfect surface finish and
perhaps an insistence on harder grades of glass. One tentative  
suggestion is that the choice of polishing
compound contributed something to not just the smoothness but to the  
finished surface layer, which could be
modified in refractive index and begin to approach a anti-reflection  
layer. This will affect (reduce) the reflexions
even if not of optimal thickness.

On the other hand, maybe you can ask to:

http://www.zeisshistorica.org/

where our ancient LUG member Marc James Small is the Vice President: 
marcsmall at comcast.net

Also you can ask to the Yahoo Zeiss Groups, there are really experts:

To post a message to this group, send email to
  ZICG at yahoogroups.com

To contact the moderator of this group, send email to
  ZICG-owner at yahoogroups.com

Once you start to investigate the Zeiss history I think is a more  
passionating history than Leica,

Good luck!

Saludos cordiales
Lluis







El 29/06/2009, a las 19:21, Nathan escribi?:

> Tessar 1:4.5 f=12 cm

Lluis Ripoll
luisripoll at telefonica.net

http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/luisrq/
http://photo.net/photos/lluisripoll
Blog:
http://lluisripollphotography.wordpress.com/

http://www.lrmusic.es






In reply to: Message from photo at frozenlight.eu (Nathan) ([Leica] Someone gave me a strange lens)