Jump to content

Testing the Pro-Tessars


Recommended Posts

<p>The problem of creating interchangeable lenses for leaf-shutter SLR cameras confronted the manufactures of all such cameras, as the position of the shutter and the size of the throat dictates what can or can't be done. Zeiss Ikon approached the problem by creating these Pro-Tessar lenses; there is a 35mm lens of either f/3.2 or f/4. and two telephoto lens of 85mm and 115mm, both f/4. I'm lacking the 85mm example; it seems to be a little harder to find than the 115mm. Sadly, there is a problem with all these lenses with the front elements separating as the early optical cement that Zeiss used deteriorates, resulting in a sort of "rainbow" appearance behind the front element. Mind you, the balsam that was traditionally used can do the same thing, but these Pro-Tessars are somewhat infamous in this respect. I've looked at many 85mm Pro-Tessars but most show quite severe separation, while the two I feature here are relatively free of the condition.</p>

<p>At first glance the Pro-Tessars resemble the "attachment" or "auxiliary" lenses that were screwed into a standard lens to provide wide-angle or telephoto capability, but they're much more sophisticated than these. The front element of the standard 50mm f/2.8 Tessar detaches, leaving behind the remaining elements, shutter and diaphragm, and the pro-Tessar mounts into the recess. Obviously, the Pro-Tessars do not have diaphragms, the aperture being controlled by the camera. I like to think of the system as one lens that changes it's configuration.</p><div>00dho7-560399184.jpg.4a05820305c7b05c52dfb7be4642f34b.jpg</div>

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Overall construction is right up to Zeiss Ikon standards, though one could suggest that the tendency to over-engineer that is apparent in the Contaflex extends to the Pro-Tessars. The knurled ring at the front of the lenses, for instance, is actually a threaded area that accepts screw-over filters, the 35mm f/3.2 accepting only this design, one version of the lens requiring an adapter ring to mount the standard 60mm accessories.... These bits and pieces are not too easy to come by. The 35mm lens is an excellent performer, while I find the 115mm adequate but not superlative. I shot a couple of films through the Contaflex Super shown above and I'll post a few of the slightly banal results, indicating the lens used. Film was Ilford FP4 developed in PMK Pyro, scans from an Epson V700 using Silverfast SE software.</p>

<p>I hope you members in the North-Eastern USA are suitably hunkered- down; it all looks a little grim over there! First pic is from the 115mm lens</p><div>00dhoA-560399384.jpg.316d9b5ffdd8b4cc47671f04c990b262.jpg</div>

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Nice work Rick. I know these are down-sized samples, but the shots from the 115 look pretty good to me. Particularly the car and the flower shots. I have the lesser Contaflex Beta (with 35mm and 75mm Pantar lenses) that, I'm ashamed to say, has had a half-finished roll of film in it for quite some time now. If it warms up a but this week, maybe I can take daughter #2 out for a stroll and try to finish it. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong>Rick!</strong> I perceive the typical Tessar quality sharpness and the even tonality in the images. I was pleasantly amused at your caption to one of the pictures as "urban still life". I felt that almost all your pictures have that unique quality of still-life-art. That is very special; I tried to get that in my pictures several times without much success. Thanks for the post; love the pictures. sp.</p>
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thanks, <strong>Mike</strong>, it's a bit of an oddball system, like most leaf-shutter SLRs . No, <strong>Professor K</strong>, I don't have much in the way of Contaflex accessories, and the monocular would be one of the more unusual ones. Finish that film and post some stuff, <strong>Cory</strong>; I have a couple of the Pantar lenses for the Continas and they're pretty good. Thank you <strong>SP</strong>; I seem to be on a somewhat singular path and it's nice to be appreciated. <strong>Raghu</strong>, both lenses are 7-element designs, so I'd suspect they are very similar. The f/4 version preceded the f/3.2 and took 49mm filters as opposed to the later 60mm filters.</p>
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>QUESTION??? This question is not only to RICK, but to all here. I have owned most models of the Contaflex, but now I'm down to two Super BC's, a Contaflex-S and three Super's like Rick's. I actually like the Super the best of the cameras I have left. Why? Because the finder is super-bright compared to the Contaflex Super-BC or Contaflex-S and it doesn't use a battery like the other two. My Super's have finders every bit as bright and clear as my mint Canon AE-1 Programmed. The Super-BC and Contaflex-S look to be at least a stop dimmer. I don't know where the Super-B model fits in as to brightness since I haven't owned one in a few years now. Has anyone else noticed the old Super's finder being that good compared to the other models? Just curious. Oh, also the Contaflex is one of my favorite classic cameras to use and to have.</p>
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Nice pictures as usual, Rick. Some time ago I posted on this same forum a question about the odd filter interface for the pro-tessars, and received useful information (thank you all!). So I now have a Super-B, 35/3.2 and 85/4 pro-tessars, yellow and green-yellow S60 filters. And i since then realized that the Super-Ikonta 531 uses the same trick of a male thread disguised as a knurled ring.<br>

Your post gives me a motivation to take my Contaflex out of the closet (no shelf queens here).</p>

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>With regrd to the 35/F4, I can't entirely answer how it compares with the other 35, since I only have the one, and it's quite rainbow-y from delamination, but it took good pictures, nice and sharp and not visibly suffering from the delamination.</p>

<p>I just realized that my old Contaflex Super still has some film in it, though I can't imagine what it is or what is on it. I guess I'd better finish it off. At some point I bought a nice looking 115 mm. lens and a less nice 50 for it, and never developed any pictures! </p>

<p>The Contaflex is a nice camera which makes good images, but I must confess that, novelty aside, it's hard to decide to take that one out when one has a closet full of Nikons and Minoltas that work so very very well. </p>

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong>Anthony, </strong>I have the Pro-Tessar 1:1 and it is nice, but I also have the 4 Proxar set and find it much handier and easier to use. The Proxar's are coated and of very high quality. I'm just saying that for me, I could live just fine with the Proxars. Oh, and the Proxars are much cheaper too.</p>
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>@poster and brigtness of finder....I've commented on this before. The Super-B deinitely has a Fresnel Ring which does the job of brightening up the finder. I personally find it misleading as the focus is tricked out and I often find errors made on infinity as the rings are sharp but the focus is not! Better to trust only the split-image RF. I believe the lesser model ( III ) has a simpler GG... that was easier!</p>

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong>Chuck, </strong>I can't say about your Super-B since I no longer own one and my memory is to short to remember what the finder was like. My plain Super Has the horizontal split screen and is really bright. That's why I was wondering if anybody out there had the three last models so as to compare all three.</p>
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...