Carl Zeiss Tessar 45 mm - How you consider this lens?

<p>I have the Tessar 45 2.8 since several years, but taking mainly slides I have always preferred to use the 50 Planar 1.4 on Contax/Yashica bodies<br>

In your opinion, is there any situation/reason to prefer the 45 Tessar instead of 50 Planar?<br>

thanks<br>

Mike</p>

<p> The Tessar, is an old school classic 4 element design. And it will normally produce extremely sharp images. However one needs to stop down 2-3 stops before the magic happens. Will it rock the Planar's boat? Only you can be the judge.</p>

<p>I don't know the specific lenses you have, but Tessar type lenses have a reputation of a good flatness of field, so their strength should be close-up photos. On the other hand Planars are named so, because they should produce "plane" photos. Maybe you should spend a roll and compare them in different situations.</p>

<p>"The Tessar, is an old school classic 4 element design."</p>

<p>But it's a newer design than the Planar...</p>

 

I think the biggest limitation of the Tessar isn't it's performance, but its speed. The Planar also needs stopping down a little

to be at its best. FWIW, I own both: Tessar for compactness and Planar for speed.

<p>That's about it. Stopped down, a well made Tessar design is a fantastic lens. It's just that they are slower than a Planar design. If you don't need the speed and prefer something compact, that's your ticket.</p>

<p>When this lens came out I remember Cora Wright-Kennedy reviewing it. She liked it. I would like to get one of these for my Yashica cameras. My Tessar is a 45/2.8 GN Nikkor C. I'm not sure what design my 45/2 Minolta MD is. Closed down even a little it's pretty good. My othet short lens (I have three of them) is the 40/1.8 Konica Hexanon. It's not too sturdy mechanically but very sharp if in good condition.</p>

<p>I've seen this in a C/Y mount and it seemed to me to be quite flat and small. Compared to other C/Y 1.7 for example (which I always assumed was a Tessar design) it was quite like a pancake and was perhaps referred to in this manner.<br>

You should probably make a comparison, post your test results and decide for your taste what's best. The design mechanics have been mentioned here and here's an overview on their initial designs. http://www.panix.com/~zone/photo/czlens.htm</p>

<p>I have the 2.8/45 Tessar along the 1.4/50 Planar, and I use both lenses regularly. The Tessar is married to my Contax 139Q. The slightness of this combo allows me to carry a 35 mm SLR when travelling with a medium format system or when I'm not supposed to have a camera at all. I'm content with the quality and especially the character of the slides it produces. Besides, this Tessar is a nice, collectible jewel. Otherwise, the Planar is a better lens in every respect, and that's what I use with my larger Contax bodies when size doesn't matter.</p>

<blockquote>

 

<p>"The Tessar, is an old school classic 4 element design."<br>

But it's a newer design than the Planar...</p>

 

</blockquote>

 

<p>Modern Planars are re-computed variants of the 1896 original (6 elements in 6 groups).</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure what design my 45/2 Minolta MD is.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is a double-Gauss design.</p>

 

<blockquote></blockquote>

<p>Hey Mike,</p>

<p>first of all I have both Planar (f/1.4 and f/1.7) and Tessar lenses and I have to say that I love them all.</p>

<p>Still my Contax C/Y Tessar (I have two modifications including the latest "Jahre/100 Years Celebration" version) is my most used and requested lens. I can go on and on, but the best way to find out is to take pics with it and decide for yourself if you like this lens.</p>

<p>I know it works for me: it's very compact and produces excellent pics, please see for yourself:</p>

<p><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3609/3653843905_2bc3805fa8.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="333" /><br>

<br /> <img src="http://inlinethumb53.webshots.com/44980/2541812980103134783S600x600Q85.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3572/3653845283_dd6d9afc87.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="333" /></p>

<p>Jeff- I remember reading Cora Wright-Kennedy's article about that lens. IIRC, she preferred it on one of the lightweight Yashica FX bodies. That's how I use mine: with my FX-3 Super 2000. That combo is lighter than my some of my classic fixed lens rangefinder cameras and will still fit in a jacket pocket.</p>

<p>This is a fantastic lens. Great for shooting in the warm weather months when you don't want to lug around anything very heavy. It also renders the image in a lovely way. </p>

<p>Here's one of my shots with this lens.</p><div></div>