Three vs. four element lenses

[martin_patek_strutsky]

Look around for a 6x9 or 6x6 folder and would like to know your

comments on which lens to choose.

 

I am not yet decided if a three element lens (Novar, Vaskar, Apotar,

Radionar...) or a four element lens (Tessar, Xenar, Color-Skopar,

Heliar...) will be the right one for me.

 

Price is an issue of course. Even more important is that the lens has

its own 'look' compared to decent ones. Some charming deficits would

be appreciated. 12"x12" prints in a good quality should be possible,

though.

 

Anyone out there prefering a three element lens?

 

Regards

Martin

 

PS: Are there any special caveats when using color films?

[winfried_buechsenschuetz1]

First, not all 4-element designs (mostly following the Tessar layout) are necessarily much better than 3-element designs. I once tested a 4.5/75mm pre-war Novar against a 3.5/75mm pre-war Xenar and found that the Xenar was not significantly better wide open. Only difference was one f-stop but the f/3.5 on the Xenar was hardly usable. I think comparing the Xenar with a pre-war Meyer Trioplan lens (one of the best three-element designs I know) would have yielded almost equal performance of both.

 

One distinct disadvantage of three-element designs is significant geometrical distortion towards the edges, i.e. small circles will show as ellipses, although the image may be quite sharp. Most Tessar-like designs have almost zero geometrical distortion.

 

I have heard that some people preferred the (otherwise mediocre) Zeiss-Triotar lens some cheap Rolleicords were equipped with for portrait work due to their softness. Someone else told me that he tried to use post-war east german Tessars for portraits - and dropped this, since the lenses were too sharp for portrait work.

 

I have a Color-Skopar on a post-war Vito B. It is quite sharp but not EXACTLY sharp, there seems to be a soft image superimposed to the very sharp one. I have heard similar about the Heliars.

 

The bottom line is that you probably will have to make your own experiences since everyone has his/her own favourites.

[silent1]

FWIW, in 6x6, I'm routinely amazed at how good the uncoated symmetric double meniscus (yes, that's two identical elements) lens is in my Speedex Jr. -- if I had a way to focus the camera, and a range of shutter speeds, I might well use that camera more than any other in my stable; it's better, at f/11, than the triplet in my Seagull 4-B at the same opening, and with the 1/25 shutter I routinely stop it down to f/22 for ISO 400 film.

 

Failing that, the f/3.5 Industar-24 (coated Tessar copy) in my Moskva is sharper wide open than the f/4.5 Radionar (uncoated Cooke triplet) in my Kawee Camera, but it's also 25 years newer. In between in age is the f/3.5 Anaston on my Kodak Reflex II, which is simply astounding -- it's a non-Tessar 4-element design, possibly the best 4-element ever.

 

Overall, for general use, the Tessars and their kin are better than the triplets, but unless you routinely shoot wider than f/5.6, or work in a combination of format and focal length that's on the wide side of normal, you might not notice the difference.

[charles_stobbs3]

I have read in several places that the less glass, the more contrast.

[winfried_buechsenschuetz1]

This holds true for non- or poorly coated lenses. Today in most cases the number of elements or groups is of little concern. BTW a Tessar-type lens will not have much more reflection and flare (or not much less contrast) than a triplet since the two rear elements are cemented together. The inner surface of cemented lens groups have little reflection - it is not easy to detect the extra reflection image of a bright light source on Tessar design lenses.

[harry_zet]

one of the best lenses i ever used was a telyt 6,8/400 for leicaflex -it was top-notch - and had only two lenses if memory serves me right.

[MTC Photography]

Cooke triplet lens has a lot of astigmatism at about 2/3 field position, at edge the astigmatism is much less. This is a characteristic of Cooke triplet, because of the large difference in

sagital and tangential field curvature.<p>

 

Yes the Leitz Telyt 400/6.8 lens is sharp and contrasty; however it has substantial field curvature.<p>

<center>

<img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=1778191&size=md"><p>

Leitz Telyt 400 1:6.8

</center>

[MTC Photography]

Voigtlander Heliar lens is not a four element lens, it is 5 element

three group lens. Hans Harting replaced the front and rear element of

a triplet with a cemented doublet, made in ito a five element three group lens<p>

Since Heliar has more element, that means more variable to correct

abberation, its performance is generally better than Tessar.

[dan_fromm2]

Martin, you've started a nice discussion but it has an air of unreality about it. I mean, you're thinking about buying an old camera in unknown condition with a lens that has suffered unknown abuse and may or may not have slipped through quality control when it was made. Instead of asking "what's a not-too-bad gamble?" and "how should I check it out when it comes?" you're worried about fine points of lens performance when the lenses were new and to specification.

 

You want to get a folder but don't seem concerned about which ones are likely work reasonably well now. For example, many of the Bessas I've seen were very nice cameras when new but are far from that now. It would be nice to have one with a Heliar, nicer to have one whose front standard stood up properly.

 

It seems to me that the camera's and lens' condition as they are now matter more for what's important to you than whether the lens was, in its time, a good 'un. People here have reported getting and even posted good results from cameras that seem to me to be flimsy pieces of junk that aren't worth bothering with. I'm clearly mistaken about some examples of some of them, but that doesn't mean I'm mistaken about all.

 

The only relevant question about lenses is whether the lens suits your shooting style. People here say and have shown that cheap triplets can do very well if stopped down far enough. In practice, far enough seems to mean f/16, sometimes f/22. Tessar type lenses can perform well enough at larger apertures. For example, the 101/4.5 Ektar seems to be usable on nominal 6x9 from f/8, see Chris Perez' tests at http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html. But if you'll be happy shooting at f/16 or smaller, lens design shouldn't matter to you.

 

How and where you intend to shop for your next folder isn't clear. If you're going to watch eBay or visit camera shops or camera shows, the best thing for you to do is probably to buy the first camera that shows up that seems to be in good order and fits your budget and shooting style. Thanks to eBay, if you decide it doesn't suit you, you can resell it for a small, possibly no, loss. You're not going to marry your next camera, and disposing of it won't require a nasty and expensive divorce.

 

Cheers,

 

Dan

[harry_zet]

Martin: i see what you mean with curvature in your duck-picture:-)yes the telyt had some, but it was never meant as repro-lens. i however could not work with the sliding-mechanism.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Pre WW2; most all lenses were uncoated. Prime importance was to keep the contrast up; by keeping the number of air to glass interfaces low. Both the 3 element triplet and 4 element Tessar/Xenar have 6 air to glass interfaces. The Tessar has two elements bonded together. In an uncoated lens; light is lost slightly at each glass-air interface. A 3 or 4 element design is usually very sharp in its central core; and the "decent" angular coverage is moderate. My 1941 127mm F4.7 uncoated Kodak Ektar is a 4 element design; and has been measured as 80 line pairs/mm on film at the dead center; but is only about 15 at the edges of a 4x5 negative. This lens wasn really made for a 3x4 camera; but was ok for press work on a 4x5 camera. Most sharpeness problems with folders is a mechanical problem of the folding mechanism; and not a lens problem.

[martin_patek_strutsky]

Thanks a lot for all your replies. Yesterday I spent several hours for searching the internet and getting a basic understanding for ancient folders. My outcome is as following:

 

For getting started I plan to get an Isolette III with an Apotar lens. According to the information I found, well stopped down it can deliver quite decent quality and wide open it will be able to show its impressionistic side.

 

Also it looks like the Isolette is a very straightforward design. It seems to be possible to make all rangefinder and focus adjustments DIY, what I see as a big advantage.

 

Does this sound reasonable for those with more experience in this field?

[richard_oleson]

Yes, your description of the Apotar is probably a good one; I've had a couple and not been fond of them, but the advantage of the more expensive lenses is less if you shoot stopped down. As I think Winfried mentioned, there's a broad range of quality possible within each design, and even within a model. Novar triplets of modest aperture are generally pretty well regarded, but an f/3.5 one I had on a Super Ikonta A was a real disappointment.

 

Another factor is the angular field to be covered: in the late 1940s, Wollensak made triplets for the Ciro, Graflex and Ansco TLRs that compared pretty well with the Tessars on Rolleis of the same period.... part of the trick was that the triplets were 85mm rather than 75, so the field angle was less. of course the camera makers bragged about the advantage of the 'larger image size'.

 

Similarly, of course, the 400 Telyt only has to cover a 6 degree field. Try covering 45 or 60 degrees with one and it's probably a little less impressive.

 

:)=

[winfried_buechsenschuetz1]

If you want to start with an Isolette, make sure that the one you are going to buy has a light tight bellows. Isolettes are very prone to light leaks (due to the poor bellows material). There are some guys (like certo6 on ebay) selling Isolettes with new bellows. If the original bellows (with a shiny non-striped surface) has cracks around the corners it will probably have light leaks sooner or later.

 

From my experience, the Zeiss Ikon Nettar 6x6 are a better choice to start with. Workmanship is nice, design is rugged, and there are much less problems with bellows than with the Isolettes.

[Andrew in Austin]

Martin, I kind of prefer the Apotar, if costs is any consideration.

 

Do use a lens hood with both types of lenses.

 

Since, I more often than not crop the edges of the frame when I print, the difference between the edge resolution of an Apotar versus a Solinar isn't a cause for concern. Plus with moderate enlargements,(8 by 8 or 11 by 11), and with aperture stop down to f/8 or f/11, it is pretty hard to tell the two lenses apart when looking at the prints.

 

The Isolette series was after all is said and done, a mass produced camera. I don't always needs the precision and quality of a Rolleiflex with a Planar. The strong suite of the Isolette III with a RF is it is one the more compact medium format cameras available. Slipping one into the rear pocket of a back pack or in a convenient belt pouch is a no brainer, but as such, their performance shouldn't be compared with pro equipement.

[Andrew in Austin]

A convenience store in my neighborhood.<div></div>

[Andrew in Austin]

The clock is readable even though its a bit grainy. Tri-X in D76 :^)<div></div>

[martin_patek_strutsky]

Winfried,

 

thx for recommending the Nettar, which was not on my radar yet. Are their samples with a build in RF or would that mean to talk about the Mess-Ikonta?

 

What makes the Isolette so appealing to me is the large supply of good websites talking about how to restore/ repair the camera. I haven't found anything similar for Zeiss Ikon. Is this because Ikontas and the likes are so much more complicated that maintenance should be left to professionals?

[Andrew in Austin]

It is because 9 out 10 Isolettes will need to be serviced before shooting. In addition to gummy shutters, solidified grease on the lens helicoid and range finder dials, there is the likely hood that the bellows will be full of pin holes.

 

In short, do expect to sort out the usual Agfa gremlins before using the camera.

[martin_patek_strutsky]

Andrew, nice retro shot. Reminds me of Walker Evans.

[tim obrien]

Martin,

You wrote "What makes the Isolette so appealing to me is the large supply of good websites talking about how to restore/ repair the camera. I haven't found anything similar for Zeiss Ikon. Is this because Ikontas and the likes are so much more complicated that maintenance should be left to professionals?"

 

It's kinda like why there are so few mechanics for Toyotas relatively. The Nettar is a great camera but not a rangefinder. Generally speaking, it is used in the f8 to f11 range and give awsome photos. Much better built than any Agfa I have had. But.. it's not a rangefinder. The Super Ikonta is a great camera but a bit tempermental. Fairly hard to repair, but not impossible by the average (well above average) handy person. My advice is to fork over for a reconditioned Super Ikonta and never look back.

 

 

tim in san jose

[christian_kolinski]

The Zeiss-Ikon Nettar were a rather cheap Series of folders. Most (all?) are equipped with three element lenses. No rangefinder (if you want one you have to look for the Mess-Ikonta or the Super-Ikonta) and no real need for one: As explained by serveral people above the Novar lens should be stopped down to about f/11. With f/11 you have a DoF which covers most guessing mistakes. You can't do much wrong by buying one of those. Although I don't know the price in the US, the Nettars sell for 10-30Eur on ebay here in Germany.

 

The Nettar (like nearly all folders) was availiable with different lenses and shutters. Some offer only 2 or 3 speeds (like 1/25 and 1/75) some (like the Compur) offer all speeds from 1 to 1/250).

 

Oh, and some folders like the Isolette III have a rangefinder _but_ it's a uncoupled one. So you could just take any external rangefinder like a Watameter - would be cheaper than one with a uncoupled RF. Folders with coupled RF like the Bessa with RF or the Super-Ikontas tend to sell for rather high prices.

 

And while talkung about: Folders have been manufactured for a pretty long time (1920s to 1950s). So a Nettar can be a early 1930s camera with a uncoated f/6,3 lens or a 1950s with coated f/4,5 lens...