stephen_lumsden
Well-known
I am looking at getting either a Tessar f8 28mm in excellent but slightly hazy condition (£250) or Nikon W-NIKKOR.C 28mm f/3.5 Nikon S Mount (about £320). I have not seen many reviews of these. I read the Tessar vignettes a bit and is slow, but I still have my faster J-12 for wide shots. Anyone used either?
largedrink
Down Under
This thread might help, but I don't think the Nikkor is covered:
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/node/175841
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/node/175841
Bill Jones
Contax Lens User
I have used the 2.8cm f8 Tessar over the past 30 years and my impression is it's not worth anything except to collectors. Per Zeiss Ikon it needs to be stopped down to f16 to get acceptable pictures. HistoricalIy it was the first super wide angle for 35mm cameras. So it got away with a lot in the performance field. I agree with that sentiment. I much prefer the 21mm f4.5 Biogon, but they are in a different price class.
dexdog
Mentor
I agree with Bill, the 2.8cm tessar is not a particularly useful lens. It is one of the few Contax lenses that I do not own. I have the 2.8cm Nikkor and it is performs quite well, although it is best stopped down to f5.6.
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
Are the 2.8cm Tessar and the Soviet Orion-15 functionally identical other than the increase in the maximum aperture of the Orion to f/6?
Having used the LTM Orion for a bit, I'd say f/6 was really a stretch for that design - the corners are a smeary mess. At f/8 I'd say it's "surprisingly competent":
I'd use it more, but it's somewhat frustrating using a lens that slow, even if it is amazingly compact. Of course, the Kiev/Contax mount one is uncoupled (like the Tessar it was based on), so it's probably for the best it's not as fast as the Nikkor.
Having used the LTM Orion for a bit, I'd say f/6 was really a stretch for that design - the corners are a smeary mess. At f/8 I'd say it's "surprisingly competent":
I'd use it more, but it's somewhat frustrating using a lens that slow, even if it is amazingly compact. Of course, the Kiev/Contax mount one is uncoupled (like the Tessar it was based on), so it's probably for the best it's not as fast as the Nikkor.
keytarjunkie
no longer addicted
The Orion-15 is a Topogon design, not a Tessar. That's why the corners have so much, um, character.
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
Ah! I stand corrected. I always assumed it was one of the things the Soviets lifted wholesale from Zeiss (like the Sonnars that became Jupiters 8 and 3, and the Biogon that became the Jupiter 12).
I don't think the lens is too horrible for what it is. I was somewhat torn between the Orion and the Tessar for a 28mm in my Contax kit, and I was about to "push the button" on the Orion (as it were), but then my Contax started playing up and I put the idea on the back-burner. I think it's decent enough that I'd rather go that way than pay extra for a haze-prone Zeiss lens that's just as slow.
Cascadilla
Well-known
I own both and would choose the Nikkor given the condition issues you describe on the Tessar.
keytarjunkie
no longer addicted
I think 28mm is one of the weakest focal lengths for these cameras. On one side, you have 35mm and 50mm which have plenty of good options. On the other side, the legendary 21mm Biogon and the fantastic Voigtlander 21mm and 25mm Skopars which are surprisingly still available at Cameraquest. For 28mm, you could also look for a used Voigtlander 28mm Skopar but some have developed an incurable haze between some cemented elements, a real bummer since that is such a great lens. If you're lucky you may find a Canon CT 28mm f/3.5, which is optically identical to the popular Serenar 28mm f/3.5 LTM lens. Only a few hundred of these were made in Contax/Nikon mount. And as mentioned there is the Orion-15 28mm f/6, which is a Topogon design, optically similar to the Contax 25mm and Nikkor 25mm lenses and lacking rangefinder coupling. All three of these lenses are interesting with their heavy vignetting but rare and expensive. And even rarer than all of those mentioned is the Som Berthiot 28mm f/3.3 in Contax mount, truly a collector's item. All that said, the Nikkor is likely your best choice here.
flavio81
Well-known
The samples i've seen from the Orion-15 look good (except for extreme corners), good contrast for example.
However what i've seen on "the famous auction site" is very high prices for the Kiev-mount version. So high, that finding a Voigtlander SC Skopar 28/3.5 makes much more sense.
I thank the forumer above who has mentioned some of them might suffer from haze. But probably you could just ask the seller and make sure you get a good one. Or, even more interesting, go for the 25mm voigtlander, the price is similar.
It's strange how sourcing a 28mm lens for the Contax mount -or even for the LTM mount- is somewhat expensive, while brand name SLR lenses of 28/3.5 or 28/2.8 are dime-a-dozen. Probably due to much bigger supply.
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
Agreed - eBay prices for the Orion in both mounts have gone crazy, but even more so for the Kiev version.
When I obtained my Orion one about ten years ago, I asked a Polish photographer I knew if he could keep an eye out for one on his travels. Eventually he found one in a jumble sale/flea market sort of arrangement, saving me a fortune. I wish I'd asked him to have a poke around for the Kiev one at the same time now!
TenEleven
Well-known
Just wanted to add that I agree with Keytarjunkie (this includes the Nikon S mount by the way) the 28mm focal length was a bit of a redheaded stepchild on this mount. The Nikkor 28/3.5 is competent but far from my favorite lens in that focal length. For vintage lenses your best bet performance wise would be the Canon CT 28/3.5 in Contax mount - but it is very rare. There's also the Cosina 28/3.5 for Contax/Nikon which is very good indeed. (If you can snag an un-hazed example)
That all said, if you find a 28/8 Tessar in good condition the lens is very competent - even wide open. It fares a bit worse on digital due to curvature of the focal plane which affects film less. You will have still the problem that the maximum aperture is quite dark, however I'd say that this is at least somewhat offset by today's films which can be shot at ISO400/800 with little to no issue. The lens needs to be *clean* though. Since the elements are so small every bit of dust/scratches etc. matters!
This is a super-boring test shot I made on Fuji 100 speed film at f/8. Shot off an overpass when calibrating various lenses, but it shows what can be done. You can see it lets up a tiny bit in the extreme outer four corners (last 0.5mm on the negative) which goes away by f/11.
Overall:
Center:
Extreme upper right corner:
That all said, if you find a 28/8 Tessar in good condition the lens is very competent - even wide open. It fares a bit worse on digital due to curvature of the focal plane which affects film less. You will have still the problem that the maximum aperture is quite dark, however I'd say that this is at least somewhat offset by today's films which can be shot at ISO400/800 with little to no issue. The lens needs to be *clean* though. Since the elements are so small every bit of dust/scratches etc. matters!
This is a super-boring test shot I made on Fuji 100 speed film at f/8. Shot off an overpass when calibrating various lenses, but it shows what can be done. You can see it lets up a tiny bit in the extreme outer four corners (last 0.5mm on the negative) which goes away by f/11.
Overall:
Center:
Extreme upper right corner:
stephen_lumsden
Well-known
Thanks, the Tessar 28mm f8 does not look that bad after all.