"Titar" or "Titan"?

<p>A nice way to spend an afternoon; the temperature hit 33oC so I sat under a cherry tree in the garden and cleaned up a very lovely Praktica MTL3 that arrived yesterday morning, while nibbling the occasional freshly-picked strawberry.</p><div></div>

<p>Not that the Praktica needed much cleaning; it's possibly the most original example of this very fine camera that I've ever laid hands on. It's probably my favourite Praktica, the culmination of a decade of development before the trend shifted towards more advanced electronics, and all that stuff. I bought it on a local auction for a mere $15, with "an extra lens", and the lens is the subject of this post.</p>

<p>It turned up looking pretty grubby, a typical 135mm f/3.5 lens of about the same age of the camera, from a Japanese manufacturer. Oddly, it came in a box with the brand name "Titar", though the lens is engraved with the name "Titan", which is confusing enough. However, I can find no reference to lenses of this name other than a couple of examples on the Ebay archives, and some reference to a rather basic 135/f1.8 which also bore the Titan name. "Titar" seems to be even more undocumented. Here's the lens in it's current condition.</p><div></div>

<p>I took it apart and cleaned the two front elements. The construction is basic, to say the least, the front element being located only by a recess in the back of the "beauty" ring! However, it's been said that no-one made a really bad 135mm lens, but it's equally true that some 135mm lenses are vastly better than others; I fitted it to a Sony full-frame digital camera and was somewhat taken aback by the results. It's actually a pretty good lens, in all respects, sharp and contrasty and not at all flare-prone, despite minimal coatings. Being of typical pre-set configuration it has at least 15 aperture blades, contributing to rather a lovely bokeh. Should anyone have some information regarding Titan or Titar lenses, please add the information to this thread.</p>

<p>I'll post some samples below. The camera was a Sony Alpha A7r.</p><div></div>

<p>No.2</p><div></div>

<p>No.3</p><div></div>

<p>No.4</p><div></div>

<p>No.5</p><div></div>

<p>No.6</p><div></div>

<p>No.7</p><div></div>

<p>No.8</p><div></div>

<p>No.9</p><div></div>

<p>No.10</p><div></div>

<p>Love those old 135 lenses. Never heard of yours though. Nice shots demonstrating its capabilities.</p>

Sometimes these obscure lenses can be hidden treasures. Your Titan preset is one of those treasures as your fine results

demonstrate. Thanks for sharing.

<p>Beautiful stuff from the Titan/r, especially the red shoes.</p>

<p>"Being of typical pre-set configuration it has at least 15 aperture blades" .. why is it so hard to count these? I'm never quite sure. I bet the least popular job in the factory was making these aperture assemblies. I once tried to reassemble one in a folder and gave up in disgust.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Our weather here is different. The overnight low tomorrow morning will be -3F. I won't be outside taking any pictures then. Somewhere I have a lens marked Titar and not Titan. It's also a 135. In one month we go back to Daylight Savings Time. That's when I will start looking for the crocus and forsythia plants. My experience years ago with a Praktica Nova 1B turned me off from the brand. There seem to be a lot more Prakticas on eBay from Europe and England than from the U.S. Very nice pictures as usual. </p>

<p>Nice, sharp lens <strong>Rick! </strong>Even the Bokeh appears good. Perhaps a Sonnar by design. Thanks for the post. sp.</p>

Amazing... You always get these unique and wonderful lenses and your cameras always look in excellent

shape.. You've said you pend time cleaning them up but wow.. nice stuff! I loved the bokeh on the roses

and the contrast and composition of handles.

<p>Good one Rick. The strawberries are good....we are eating plenty too, and our heat wave has finally passed. I seem to recall that the Titan brand was from Dixon's Photographic back in the day. Good honest lenses, build quality not to bad either. Cheap and cheerful probably covers them quite well.<br>

As you say it's hard to find a bad 135, and yours looks plenty sharp.....nice post as usual, enjoy the sunshine!</p>

<p>Thanks for the input... <strong>Tony</strong>, it's definitely a strawberry summer but I've had about enough of the heat. Thanks for the Dixons reference, I'll follow it up. <strong>SP</strong>, it certainly has a Sonnar look in the OOF areas, but I suspect it just the usual 4-element El Cheapo 135mm, with the very circular aperture helping with the bokeh. Nice to think of crocuses, <strong>Jeff</strong>; they and the hyacinths are my Spring favourites.</p>

<p><strong>John</strong>, I made several counts of the aperture blades and got to 15/17; I should fool around and get a photograph but the blades are buried deep within and not blatantly visible. I get disorientated after counting to about 10... And than you <strong>Mike</strong>, <strong>Andrew</strong> and <strong>Chuck</strong> for your comments.</p>

And my vote goes, in order of preference not ability, to the garden Centre with its neat progression from the cast iron to

the chimney baffles and powerful blocks of light and and shade with one demure patch of water to hint at the hour: early

morning, perhaps? The arrow barbed roofline piercing the blue sky is full of interest for me, seeing as I do beneath it the

rolling wave of curved steel that acts as both shelter and shade against the sun, suggested so subtly by the shadow cast

by the billboard protruding from the facade. The minimalist BMW nose against the trendy backdrop of the entrance to

what? Hairdresser, eatery, or haute cuisine: we are left wondering for as usual Rick is impeccably unobtrusive except

when shamelessly plugging his morning coffee spot :) Bokeh and bouquet? Yes this lens has it all, but what of my

favourite, which would I choose? Well as an admirer of fine ankles, it would have to be the red shoes. Excellent, as

always, Rick:i like them all, but the ones mentioned were my pick.

<p>Good grief! I had to go back and reconsider these photographs in the light of your critique, <strong>Temujin</strong>; they <em>are</em> more complex than I'd originally thought. Should I need a blurb-writer for an oncoming exhibition, I will definitely be in touch. Thanks for your time and creativity!</p>

<p>I had one of those, wrote it off as being probably not much good, and gave it away a few months ago, without even trying it. It was marked "Tita<strong>r</strong>", not "Tita<strong>n</strong>". Note to self: never give away an old lens again, without checking with <strong>Rick</strong>, first...</p>

<p>Interesting, <strong>Brett</strong>; I've come to notice a pattern with combinations of cameras and lenses, particularly 135mm lenses, down here. I suspect that this lens was possibly offered as a sort of combo deal with a Praktica, and the same thing may have occurred in Oz, a cheap additional lens offered to a buyer when purchasing a camera. We seem to have more than our fair share of both Prakticas and odd 135mm lenses in New Zealand! If I come across another example I'll send it to you.</p>

<p><strong>Rick</strong>, as a matter of fact, that lens came attached to a Praktica, (one of the generally unloved Nova series as I recall). It went to a young friend, keen to shoot some film, so she could use it with her Zenit. At the time I told her not to expect too much from it but that it might suit certain uses. It was in rather untidy condition and received a quick internal and external clean from me. I'd better tell her to give it a try, because she might actually like the results! You're too kind mate.</p>