Zeiss Contax prewar Collapsible Tessar ?

dee

dee

Well-known
Local time
10:23 PM
Joined
Dec 9, 2006
Messages
1,925
Little is said about the prewar Collapsible Tessar - notably not taken up by Kiev - it looks neat - is it any good ? [ I guess a good J8 would trounce it , but I quite like the I 22s etc on my M 8 ]
 
Good lens, depends on what you're trying to do. I, many times, prefer the look from a Tessar over a Sonnar but it's a rather subtle thing. If you have a chance, get a 50/3.5 and go walkabout on a nice summer day.

I had the 50/2.8 but sold it to help finance my IIIf kit - I regret selling it more than my Sonnar or my J-3 but I ended up with a camera I can trust will work when I need it to and both my Contax & Kiev bodies couldn't do that. I'll probably buy a prewar, uncoated 50/3.5 Elmar to scratch that same itch.

Get a Tessar, Dee, I think you'd enjoy it.

Edit: Ah, here's one I know was with the Tessar.
383088-R1-033-15_010.jpg


William
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have a 50/2.8 coll. Tessar bought with my 1937 Contax II. No doubt it´s a little wonder that IMHO deserves more attention than it had, even when compared to the prewar coll. Elmar.
As William said, it´s excellent for a sunny day, but any ISO 400 film and some light will do wonders with this nice piece of Zeiss glass.
I have too a J8 and a J3, which are excellent Sonnar clones, but the Tessar is something really special, so this lens is allways fitted to the Contax.
Cheers
Ernesto
 
The original 5cm F2.8 Tessar was quickly redesigned, and performance improved.

I can understand why judging by my early "Black Faced" 5cm f2.8 Tessar- very soft wide-open, better at F4. The 5cm f2 Sonnar is much better, and the 5cm F1.5 is a masterpiece.
 
On par with a pre war Elmar - of which I have two , so I understand the style .
Why does it seem to be ignored in favour of the Sonnar ?
 
My pre-war Sonnar is sharper at F1.5 than the Tessar is at F2.8, and even at F4. The 5cm F2 Sonnar is collapsible, and no bigger on the Contax than the Tessar. It is a full-stop faster, and is sharper. For Leica- the collapsible Elmar is much smaller than a collapsible Summar or Summitar.
 
dee said:
On par with a pre war Elmar - of which I have two , so I understand the style .
Why does it seem to be ignored in favour of the Sonnar ?
Click to expand...

The reason why (IMHO) is that the Sonnars give one and two extra stops (for the S2 and S1.5 respectively) without sacrifycing sharpness nor contrast in regard of the Tessar. It must be noted that the optical formulae for the Sonnars is entirely different from the Tessar, and were designed with a better overall performance in mind.
I was told by an optician that the Tessar formulae is limited to a max. effective aperture of 2.8. he told me that shape and size of the individual elements are the limitant factors, and this forced to a new design named Sonnar.

Cheers
Ernesto
 
I have early versions of both 3.5 and 2.8. Both give an Elmar effect but with a much easier aperture control. If anything the 3.5 is better all round and flares less though this may be due to condition.

I really think the Tessar was affordable at the time and the Sonnar was very much rich man's territory, similar 'postioning' was happening in Wetzlar with the Elmar and the Xenon...but mind you, I have never heard anyone say that the Xenon is a patch on the 1.5 Sonnar.

Michael
 
At the head bartender's web site there is a nice article comparing the prices of Leica & Zeiss in 1938 America.

1) Leica IIIa w/ 50/3.5 Elmar - $134.50
2) Contax II w/ 50/3.5 Tessar - $169.00
3) Leica IIIa w/ 50/2 Summar - $169.50
4) Contax II w/ 50/2 Sonnar - $184.50
5) Contax II w/ 50/1.5 Sonnar - $269.00

Bear in mind, a 4x5 Speed Graphic kit with 127/4.7 was about $90 in those days...

No matter how you looked at it, CZJ was significantly more expensive. Was that the reason that the elmar survived while the Sonnar sang? Don't know...

Make of it what you will.

(I still think that the 50/3.5 Tessar of that era shines but what do I know?)

William
 
The Tessar 5cm F3.5 is better than the F2.8, even with the latter stopped down.

I'll have to do a comparison roll between the Tessar and Sonnar.

Now: If you want a sharp tessar formula lens for the Contax, The I61L/D optics module fits perfectly into the shell of a 5cm F2 Sonnar. (Well, perfectly after the aperture ring is polished down a little.) i need to convert another one.
 
Tessar 2.8 early filter?

Tessar 2.8 early filter?

I am currently shooting my first roll with a 1932 vintage collapsible uncoated f2.8 5cm Tessar on a Contax I(e). They seem to belong together, although I got them separately. I notice what looks like about a 27mm thread around the inner part where I could possibly screw in a filter. Do you suppose a UV or skylight would help or hurt the performance?

Jim
 
I too discovered the thread in the inner part of the ring, but I think this is not for a filter.
You must unscrew the filter each time you need to change aperture.
There is another thread very close to the lens name ring that can be used to hold a filter and is mentioned in some publications, but I never found a filter of such size (25.5 mm).

Ernesto
 
I'll look at mine. I keep a filter screwed into it. I bought a "lot" of filters from Ebay, and had some of the bizarre old sizes with it.
 
My 25.5mm filter was made by Hoya, probably in the 1970s. This particular one was probably bought at a small camera store in the "clearance box" of filters. Probably made for a movie camera lens. I have some older ones bought off of Ebay, an 82a color correction filter.
 
Hi Brian and Ernesto,

Are you sure the size is 25.5mm? Is that for the 3.5 Tessar or the 2.8 Tessar? I thought the 2.8 version took a 27mm filter. I've got a hodgepodge of filters but none of that size. My approach to most lenses I dearly love is to cover them with a filter and leave it there so I never have to clean the lens.
 
I have a 25.5mm Hoya filter on my 5cm F2.8 "black-face" Tessar right now. 25.5 printed on it. . The F2.8 lens was redesigned, and I do not know if they increased the diameter of the filter ring. It is possible. My lens is very early, looks like 1931 according to some SN tables that are on the web.

The Hoya filter is fairly deep, with glass toward the back. It accepts screw in accessories as well, something that a lot of early screw in filters did not have.
 
Oh okay, thanks Brian. I hadn't actually measured it. Mine is a black-face 2.8 too, and it's supposed to be from early 1932. I'll start looking for that size then. I miss the old junk bin days at Penn Camera. I used to find all sorts of great filters there.
 
4154494844_cbafa7d72a_b.jpg
Well, success! Thanks for all the help. I found out that the filters from my 24mm f2.8 Pentax 110 lens fit perfectly! Now I can use a modern skylight filter on the old Tessar, heck, I can even use the Pentax lens cap which snaps right on it! Problem is, this is REALLY wrong...

Jim Thomas
 
Last edited:
I am completely in the dark when it comes to hoods and filters for 'black face' lenses. I only have a small hood for the 3.5 Tessar that fits tightly round the lens itself. Doubt it is original. Does anyone have any images of original hoods for Tessars 3.5, 2.8 and also other 50mm lenses?

Michael

gzuiko, nice to see someone else using a Contax I...presumably you have hardened skin on right thumb and side of index finger by now!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top