Specific lensbrand for specific type of photography

[jan_de_ridder1]

... I don't mean focal lenght but brand/type.

 

For instance I'me in the market for a mid-range camera setup and

instead of going for the "body-brand" I want to focus on the lens and

find a suiting body with it.

 

I can imagine that full color advertising requires different lens

characteristics than B&W landscapes, or is this not the case ?

 

What I am looking for is 90% B&W, 6x6 or 6x7, Industrial landscape and

details.

 

Shooting 35mm I am very pleased with the 3 lens Tessar design lens as

opposed to 7 or 8 lens, lenses, allthough being sharper I do believe

they don't provide enough depth/transparancy, but this purely in B&W.

 

I hope you understand what I mean.......

[Ed_Ingold]

Tessar lenses have 4 elements in 3 groups, a modified Cooke triplet. They are typically sharp in the center, at f/5.6 or smaller, and kind of funky at f/2.8 in shorter focal lengths. With modern coatings, Plasmats and other lenses have better performance without excessive losses and due to air-glass reflections.

 

You have the most flexibility with a large-format camera. You can find Tessar-style lenses from several manufacturers, including the Nikkor M lenses. These have a smaller image circle for the focal length than typical Plasmats and Gaussian lenses, starting at about 210mm for 4x5 format. You might be a little cramped for landscapes and architecture applications.

 

Manufacturers of 35mm and MF cameras provide fewer options for lenses. If you are desperate to use a Tessar lens, Hasselblad has a few. For Leica, there are (older?) Elmar lenses, or you could find an Argus C3/C4/C44.

 

Mostly, I think you are enamored with buzz words rather than results.

[bueh]

Uh, Tessar-type lenses have four elements. Five elements (Heliar etc) are as sharp stopped down and maybe a little sharper wide open and produce a smoother "bokeh". More elements are necessary for a faster aperture, so six- or seven-elements lenses often found on faster-than-f/2 lenses (Noctilux and most f/1.4, f/1.7 lenses) in 35mm. Macro lenses that focus very close also need lots of elements. And we don't want to talk about zoom lenses...

<p>They same is true for medium format. The lens manufacturers don't add elements for fun, they are needed to get the optimum performance. If you want fast lenses, good luck in finding a three-element lens. All products of the professional level lens manufacturer are excellent lenses with smooth out-of-focus areas and great sharpness, even wide open. If money isn't an issue, you will probably want Hasselblad/Zeiss stuff, but I'm quite pleased with my Mamiya cameras and gear.

<p>As all lenses since the advent of panchromatic B/W film are color-corrected, I don't think that there are difference in lens performance in regards to what film you shoot. I have never heard of a "true" B/W or "color-only" lens. But what do you mean that some lenses don't provide enough depth/transparancy?

[d_purdy]

You are using some different terms here. I think by depth and transparency

you might be talking about lack of flare. The Tessar lens is known for having

very little flare even in the uncoated versions. Whereas the lenses with lots of

air spaces have more chance of flare which will cut clarity and color

saturation.. which could be described as depth/transparency.

 

In any case I think you might be very happy with a 3.5 75mm Planar. You will

find it attached to a 3.5F Rolleiflex. I have recently shot a lot of open

landscape photographs with one and the resolution at infiinite is amazing.

The way it makes trees and distant horizons very sharp. Also it showed very

good flare control and the local contrast was very rich and natural looking.

 

I am not sure on what other camera you can find this lens or if the lens is

available in the 75mm 3.5 version in any other way.

[dan_fromm1]

Jan, I don't think you're trying to start arguments between partisans of various makes of cameras but your question seems, um, silly. Look around you. You'll see more than one brand of 35 mm, 6x7, and 6x7 SLRs, more than one brand, just barely, of 35 mm interchangeable lens rangefinder camera. Same goes for digital equipment.

 

The conclusion to draw from this is that for each style of camera, no one brand is overwhelmingly superior to its competitors. If any brand were overwhelmingly superior, it would have driven the others from the market.

 

The same goes for lenses. Zeiss glass for Hasselblad and Rollei SLRs is very good, as is Schneider glass for Rollei SLRs. Mamiya lenses for their 6x6 RF and 6x7 RF and SLR ares also very good. So are lenses for the Pentax 67. You can't make a bad mistake by buying any of these.

 

To give you an idea of my prejudices, I shoot nominal 6x9 on 2x3 Graphics. I have, and sometimes even use, lenses that fit them made by, in alphabetical order, Aldis, Boyer, Ilex, Kodak, Konica, Leitz Canada, Nikon, Schneider, Reichert, Rodenstock, Taylor Hobson, Tominon, Wollensak, and Zeiss. Now, my crappy old cameras are a lot more agnostic about mount systems than the spiffy new ones you're contemplating, but I hope you get the idea. No maker has a monopoly on quality.

 

Cheers

[tito sobrinho]

E. Ingold wrote: "If you are desperate to use a Tessar lens, Hasselblad has a few".

 

To the best of my my knowledge, there is only one Hasselblad "modern" lens in the C, CF, F, and FE configuration which follow the Tessar 4 elements in 3 groups ...250/5.6 Sonnar.

[stephen hazelton]

" can imagine that full color advertising requires different lens characteristics than B&W landscapes, or is this not the case ?"

 

I expect the biggest difference is that full-color advertising is more liable to be made by a professional with good gear. B&W landscapes are more liable to be made by amateurs with whatever gear they can afford...ranging from Holgas to Hasselblad. But generally, both would want contrasty color-corrected sharp fast lenses.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Older optical jargon is that a Tessar is a modified triplet; or a triplet with a cemented pair for the rear group. The fourth elment makes the zonal sagittal and tangential field curves closer together than a triplet. Early lenses were uncoated; both the triplet and Tessar have 6 air/glass surfaces; thus the contrast is decent with an uncoated lens.

[larry_menzin]

The Hasselblad 160mm F4.8 CB is also a Tessar design.

[Ed_Ingold]

Hasselblad Tessars include the 250/4 F, 350/5.6 C and CF, the 350/4 F, and the 500/8 C and CF. Prior to 1957, there were several 80/2.8 Tessar lenses.

 

The Schneider Xenar lenses, used on certain Rolleiflex TLR's and press cameras also have a Tessar-type design. Also Kodak Ektar and Commercial Ektar lenses for large format (and possibly their polyglot of consumer cameras).

 

Even though air-glass surface reflection is not a commercial issue any more, the number of elements and the often colored optical glasses are. The Nikkor M series LF lenses are reported to have exceptional color accuracy (per Nikon, anyway).

 

Whatever floats your boat.

[jan_de_ridder1]

Thanks for all the replies, and no I'm not trying to start a pro-con discussion about camera's and/or lenses, and it's not necesarily a tessar that I am looking for I just used it as an example, to go into this a bit further (again an example) For color slides I would go for the 45mm CZ on my Contax G2, these reults are brilliant, B&W however with this combination turns out almost like digital. With the tessar I would never shoot color slides, but with Tri-x 400 it works out a dream.

 

The transparancy I spoke about earlier is not lack of flare, it's more an addition of atmosphere or personality, very difficult to describe.

 

I used a mamiya 7-II for a weekend with the standard lens, it was hairsharp but not really nice in B&W.... although I do see that this might all be a matter of personal taste ...

 

... again, I used a Rolleiflex Xenotar 3.5, marvelous in B&W, just a pity Rolleiflexes are fixed lens setups ....

 

Anyway sorry for causing such unclarity, the more I write about it, the more unclear it gets even to me .... :-)

 

Jan

[dan_fromm1]

Edward, if the Vade Mecum is correct, the lenses you referred to have the trade name Tele-Tessar but are not, in fact, 4/3 tessar lenses. Trade names aren't well anchored in reality, for more on this point look for discussions about misuse of the prefix "apo-"

 

Cheers,

[jeg]

Jan, you are not trying to describe "<b><a href="http://home.datacomm.ch/fotografie/equipment/bokeh.htm" target"_new">bokeh</b></a>", are you?

[jan_de_ridder1]

J.E. G. .... Bokeh ... No, not as such, if bokeh is the "beauty" of the unsharp (very personal) It does have something to do with it, I am trying to decribe the beauty of the sharp and the unsharp, the atmosphere a picture brings across, this having to do nothing with perfection or imperfection of the image/developing/printing/lighting etc. but just a representation of the total image being seen at that time.

 

My wife shoots a full format Canon digital thing, these digital images transformed to black and white are near to technically perfect, but all lack the "thing" I am trying to decribe ... if you grasp what I mean :-)))

[Ed_Ingold]

Dan, the Hasselblad Tele-Tessar is a Tessar with an air space between the third and fourth elements (i.e., 4/4 configuration), rather than cemented. Zeiss owns the name Tessar; I trust them to use it correctly.

 

"Apochromatic" means that under certain conditions the three primary colors are focused at the same point. Tessar lenses can be apochromatic, though other desirable properties may be compromised. Again, I doubt that Zeiss is misusing the term.

[d_purdy]

Jan, your idea of atmosphere in photographs is maybe a bit esoteric or at

least subjective. Perhaps you could cite a known photographer who's work

tends to have to the atmosphere you seek. And perhaps you could also

mention a photographer who's work tends to completely lack atmosphere.

Are you sure that atmosphere isn't a product of a photographer's vision

combined with proper technique? And is the atmosphere you speak of only

visible photographically or can you see it in life without a camera.

[jan_de_ridder1]

Dennis, it's the difference between Salgado and Ansel Adams. Adams work is technically perfect, but has no appeal on me what so ever, theres nothing else there than the image itself. Salgado's work contains mysticysm. But this is subjective and all a matter of taste.

 

What I primarily meant with this thread is something like: "Ahhh yes, so you want to shoot midformat, primarily Tri-x and APX100, develop in Rodinal and D76, then I would recommend the following lens-types/brands ..... " (not the lens speed or focal lenght)

[tito sobrinho]

"...the trade name Tele-Tessar but are not, in fact, 4/3 tessar lens. Trade names aren't well anchored in reality..." Dan Fromm.

 

I'm with D.Fromm!

 

The Tele-Tessar C & CF 350/5.6 follow the Dialyte design 4/4...Celor, Apo-Artar, Apo-Ronar, Dogmar, Ektar 203/7.7 and a few others that skip my mind.

 

The only modern lens 4/3 that I could find was the Sonnar 250/C & CF and the 160/4.8 Tessar CB as pointed out by L. Menzin. I believe this lens was discontinued.

 

"Again, I doubt that Zeiss is misusing the term" E.Ingold.

 

Well!

 

350 Tele-Tessar F 8/6.

 

500 Tele-Tessar C and Tele-Apotessar CF 5/3.

 

Edward, since you have mentioned the Tessar 80/2.8 for the 1600 as well as the 1000, a well known fact after the Ektars, my question is: Is the bayonet for the 1600 & 1000, also compatible with the 200 & 2000 Series?

[roman_sonnleitner1]

What you are trying to talk about is what's usually called the 'footprint' of a lens (at least by the Leica guys) - it comprises a variety of factors, from contrast to resolution to bokeh to how well a lens handles flare.

 

Footprint is kinda related to lens designs (Tessars have a vey distinctive one, as you have found out, and so do Sonnars), but on the other hand it is not - most modern lenses are some variation of the Double-Gauss/Planar type, yet can give very different picture-characteristics.

 

However, you cannot really classify a lens as 'esp. good for B&W/color/landscape/advertising/...' simply by footprint, lens design or manufacturer - this is very much a matter of taste, and esp. with medium format the fine differences often can only be seen in direct comparison of very large prints.

All remaining manufacturers of MF cameras have lenses that are generally suited for all these purposes - much more than looking at lens characteristics I'd choose a camery system for its handling in specific situations - an RB67 is not the best choice for street shooting or hiking to mountain-tops, and on the other hand a Mamiya 7 won't be the best choice for studio portraits or macro product shots, etc.

[michael_bach2]

I think I understand what you mean Jan ?. I am wery hapy with the all-round

"look" of my Rolleiflex T ,75mm 3,5 lens. The lens is excelent in color and B/W

but it is a fix lens as you now, but a Tessar.

I have a, Plaubel proshift 69W, with a 47mm, great for industrial landskab and

city scape , the "look" is LF like ,but it is a fix lens to. I havent don any B/W with

it . It is a easy camera to walk around with. The to together is a great combo

for land/city and industrial landscape.

 

My Mamiya/Polaroid 600 se, with 69 backs: the 75mm is great in color and

B/W. I think the 127mm is a Tessar desigen, it is a sharp lens for details. You

can handhold the camera it but it is best on a tripod I think. A bit heavy and

clomsy too, but great negativs.

 

But the best "look" I get, is stil from my 35mm camera, Konica Hexar AF,

special in color print film, Fuji Reala.

 

I expose mostly color print film now.

 

www.micbach.dk......"Photography workshops in Spain"

[wharridge]

"My wife shoots a full format Canon digital thing, these digital images transformed to black and white are near to technically perfect, but all lack the "thing" I am trying to decribe ... if you grasp what I mean :-)))"

 

Oh, you mean the "Quality Without A Name" or QWAN.

 

...Wayne