Braun Paxette standard lenses: Staeble-Kata, Staeble-Katagon, Cassarit

[daniel_iggers]

I've been on a Braun Paxette kick lately. I'm wondering whether anyone out

there can tell me anything about the differences between the Staeble-Kata

2.8/45, the Staeble-Katagon 2.8/50 and the Cassarit 2.8/45 or 50. These are

all lenses that were either fixed or interchangeable on Braun Paxette

rangefinders in the late 1950s to early 1960s. They all look very similar, as

I recall, and I'm guessing that they all are Tessar-type. Does one stand out?

[daniel_iggers]

Here is a photo taken with my Paxette, with the removeable Staeble-Kata 2.8 / 45mm. Unfortunately, there is a frame advance issue, and this shot is an accidental composite / multiple exposure.

 

http://static.flickr.com/45/164905890_8c9e99481d_o.jpg<div></div>

[dan_fromm2]

Dan'l, per the VM the Kata seems to be a triplet and so does the Cassarit. It says that on Paxettes the Cassarit was a better more expensive alterative to the Kata. Doesn't say much about the Katagon.

 

May not be relevant, but I used to have a 60/4.5 Novoflex Staeble-Katagon, have seen a 60/4 that seemed identical to mine except for the engraved numbers. Tessar type. That one was in barrel, was intended to be used on bellows as a macro lens. That I don't have it tells you that I didn't rate it high.

 

Please tell us which shoots best for you. Also please count reflections and tell us what you saw. The VM isn't always right.

 

Cheers,

 

Dan

[daniel_iggers]

What's the deal or trick with counting reflections?

[dan_fromm2]

Dan'l, an air-glass-air interface gives a strong reflection. A glass-cement-glass interface gives a weak one. And weak reflections can be hard to see.

 

But counting reflections lets one tell whether a lens is a tessar or a triplet. Both have four strong reflections in front of the diaphragm. The triplet has two strong, no weak, behind the diaphragm; the tessar has two strong, one weak.

 

And so on.

[bueh]

The web page about the reflection counting trick seems to be gone, but it can be accessed in <b><a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20041011050030/http://idccdata.members.easyspace.com/ReflectionTest/reflection.htm" target="_NEW">the archive</a></b>.

<p>

The Staeble-Kata is definitively a very poor three-element lens. It's exceptionally flare-prone, very "soft" (a.k.a. unsharp) and has poor contrast. The pic below was taken at f/4 with a hood on the lens.<div></div>

[david_m]

The best standard lens I found for that camera was the Steinheil Quinaron. Mine took really sharp photos. The camera was not one of my favourites though and I soon sold it.

[daniel_iggers]

Thanks. That's some flare.

[kin_lau]

Check with Bill Mattocks (you know where to find him). He had one of the larger collections of Paxettes around and he's getting rid of alot of it too.

[winfried_buechsenschuetz1]

All these lenses were triplets of limited performance. There was also a Zeiss Tessar and a Schneider Xenar available in Paxette mount. Strange enough the Xenars are traded for less than the Tessars although they seem to be more rare.

 

However even with the Xenar I could not get results on the same level with other cameras. Almost all slides had low contrast, quite different to those I shot with Xenars on the Akarelle and the Kodak Retina.

[pensacolaphoto]

I have a Luxon 50/2 which seems to be "rare".