|
I've used it on my dslr, nice lens, unique colors.
A bit slow, but that's my only complaint. It will focus down to 0.35m, which is handy. Make sure the focus ring does not lock up, also check the aperture clicks at each stop.
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
It will hardly be better but it is different. You will not need much money to get one; so it will be worth the money in almost any case (when it's in ok condition). The lens will deliver the image characteristics of a Tessar lens which is a classic design; and you will get nice bokeh.
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I have the 1,7 minolta in 3 versions : MC-Rokkor 1,7, MD-Rokkor 1,7 , and "minolta 1,7/50" (more recent)) and several copies of the Czj tessar ,(preset , alu auto, black) I can say Tessar give a very different general rendition . The rokkor give more saturated colors , and a better definition . The Tessar give a "dry" rendition when stopped down .
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Hi Martin, I have this lens here but I don't use it at all. It's the chrome version, a real beauty. You should write my a flickrmail if you're interested to have it only for shipping fees.
Bye.
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I have to disagree with nikkormatftnuser above about the Tessar bokeh; it's generally quite busy and potentially distracting. The f/2.8 is also quite slow for a prime normal lens, so you won't be able to obtain such narrow field of view as with the Minolta 50mm f/1.7. I have both lenses, and the Minolta is definitely better, but Koni Kowa's offer above is certainly worth considering if you want to try the Tessar. =)
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I've got a Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 2.8/50 in my collection and I do find it a good performer. I like the bokeh and love the zebra look of the lens.
The only problem with my copy is that the focus ring is very stiff...has anyone had this problem or attempted to fix it?
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Tessar 2.8/50 is the lower end of excellent line of CZJ lenses. Tessar is only useable stop down.
If you really like CZJ colours, you'd be better off getting a Pancolar (50mm f1.8) or a Biotar (58mm f2). These are much much better (and more expensive).
Yes I have them all and I don't use Tessar at all. My fav is the Biotar.
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Don't forget the less expensive Pentacon 50mm f1.8, and Helios 58mm f2 (Biotar copy). These are 6-element lenses. Well - they've got more elements than the tessar - and generally that means better correction for aberrations.
All of these lenses have bad bokeh to a greater or lesser extent. It's a particular problem at around this focal length for some reason.
Originally posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
Midori no Saru edited this topic 41 months ago.
|
|
|
Mr Shin, i have serviced my version. This guide helped:
oomz.net/tessar/
Only attempt if you are good at working with small parts:
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
In my experience, stiff focus rings on Zeisses are down to it having had a bash at some time in its past, and some reforming of the flimsy metal is called for.
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Is there any reason to buy Tessar if I already have Pancolar? Anything better in Tessar?
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
No - Tessar will be worse.
Originally posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
Midori no Saru edited this topic 41 months ago.
|
|
|
My Tessar's are mounted on old Prakticas (FX,IV,V) and Exaktas , and the whole stuff is closed in my camera showcase ... I tested them once and preferred tu use the Pancolar, Flexon , Biotar , and Oreston lenses....Helios 44 is a better choice and dirt cheap...
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I have to agree with Midori no Saru above; a Pentacon 50/1.8 (branded as Revuenon 50/1.8) and a Helios 44M 58/2 were the first ever two M42 lenses I happened to snatch on Ebay. On the one hand I consider myself extremely lucky, because they both turned out to be great performers (although the Helios tends to flare), and got me really into M42 (or, is that a bad thing? ;-); on the other hand, it probably has a lot to do with the fact that they were both dirt cheap; I bought both for about the price you would spend buying a Tessar 50/2.8 from the Greek guy.
I liked the Revuenon so much that I got another Pentacon 50/1.8 just for the heck of it ;-) And after playing with those, I no longer have a lust for CZJ Tessars, although Pancolars and Biotars still have an appeal that I may not be able to resist.
Originally posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
Dr. RawheaD edited this topic 41 months ago.
|
|
The Tessar design can be very sharp in the centre, not so much at the edges which is not really a problem when shooting with a crop cam.
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
This lens has a unique character umatched by many other modern lenses (at least my copy does).
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Yes, it's called softness ;)
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I wouldn't really call the Tessar a soft lens overall. As lucispictor_photo said above, it can be very sharp in the centre (like some other simple designs). I think the somewhat strange bokeh and softer edges account for the “unique character”.
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I have a CZJ Tessar 50/2.8 zebra and I modified it to use on the Pentax K10D as a manual diaphgram lens. I think Arkku's comment on this lens is appropriate; unusual bokeh and unique character.
I feel it fits better to B&W pictures. With a crop body it may become a
portrait lens--I haven't tested.
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I have one ithat someone in the past modified to Leica mount. It gives very nice color portraits with Reala 100 film. The images look very special with this lens.
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I've got the 'aus Jena' branded version of this lens. The pictures have a 'special' look indeed.
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
How can I take the focus ring apart to relube it? I can't take the two pieces apart...
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
You probably need to remove one or two metal pegs that couple the focusing mechanism to the helicoid. However, note that if you do so and take the two pieces apart, you need to reassemble them in the exact same position to retain the same infinity focus position.
Edit: Actually, there was a disassembly guide linked above in this thread: oomz.net/tessar/
The peg to remove is marked #8 in the guide.
Originally posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
Arkku (a group admin) edited this topic 27 months ago.
|
|
|
thanks.
actually I disassembled the lens for two reasons: relubing and see if anything is out of place, since I can't get infinity focus to work with it + my Praktica MTL5B (from 2m onwards I can't focus).
how can I calibrate it for infinity focus?
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
From the disassembly guide it looks like the ring marked #5 could be rotated clockwise to bring you closer to infinity (when you have the peg #8 removed). However, in a severe case where you can't focus beyond 2m, may be that something else is the matter. (One possibility is that the lens was taken apart before and put back together in the wrong position. So try screwing the focusing helicoid onto different threads when you put it back on and see how this affects infinity focus.)
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
It depends how old Tessar 50/f28 you can find. If it is made late 50 os early 60 and it has 12 blade apperture it is a nice peace of lens. The bokeh is realy nice. and the color shades are soft and nice. I have
Pancolar 50/f18 and Pentacon 50/f18, i rather use my Tessar 50/f28 Q1
Originally posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
Harri Salo edited this topic 27 months ago.
|
|
Hi all, I have the CZJ Tessar 2,8/50 which is the zebra version.
What are the difference between the zebra version and the black version?
Thanks
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I have a revuenon 55 f1.7 , a pentacon 50.18 and helios 44 m4 in my opinion the helios is the nicest of all , i had nor experience with the zebra cannot compare but the Helios is Carl Zeiss Biotar :).
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Well I can't be more frustrated... after killing the shutter of a MTL5B (trying to get infinity focus right) I bought a MTL50 and guess what... infinity focus is still off! Infinity is set at around 2meters. That means that objects that are nearer than that are correctly focused, objects beyond that aren't.
Could someone with this lens take a snapshot of it in a way that I can see how much of the barrel is out when infinity is set? I don't know if it is supposed to stick out a bit or if it should be all inside.
Thanks, I'm really desperate here...
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
another ask:
does it fit on a fujica ST801 ?
thanks!
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Yes.
Posted 26 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
thanks arkku! I hope to buy this lens as soon as possible for my BW photos!!!
Posted 26 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Has anyone documented the different versions of the Tessar? I've seen at least 6 different M42 mount versions, of which the Icarex-bundled version definitely looks sexiest, but the Biotar-looking lens presumably has the most aperture blades. I couldn't find proper faceoff review between the versions..
Posted 26 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I tried an Icarex (ie west german) version against a Zebra CZJ from 1960 (full aluminium) and a Zebra version.
I did not do head-to-head, but surprisingly, the "communist" Jena lenses seem clearly better than this sample better. The Zebra being better than the older alu one.
Posted 26 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I have theCZJ 50 f2.8 Black edition what a fantastic lens :)
Posted 26 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I have CZJ 50/2.8 too and happy with it
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
excellent lens,easy to fix if you have tight focus rings
Posted 15 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Depends what you get, a good Tessar can be a great performer from f8-16, for digital I would recomend F5.6-11 or refraction kicks in, like with all other primelenses.
I have a Tessar and some Pictures on Flicker, a 3.5/50mm, ok is slow made in 1950 but after cleaning and relube, it's works like new and the multy blades makes it a nice round DOF.
it's not a Gauss system, tessars are darn sharp at the center.
Posted 15 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I've got the zebra version on a Oly E-520, I like it! My problem is (this is true for all my manual lens) getting the focus right.
these are my samples
 
Posted 15 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
A small note towards servicing these: when you twist off the front housing of the lens to gain access to the front element, it is entirely possible to make the focusing helicoid skip a thread and be off 1/3 of a turn (no focus from about 2m to infinity). At this point, you're up for a (near) complete stripdown.
So strip the thing down even if you'd only need to access the front element unless you've been inside before and haven't tightened the thing too silly.
It did however cure the slightly stiff focusing on mine, so I think I've actually 'damaged' the helicoid.
Posted 15 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
You can cure the stiff focussing easily without dismantling.
Wind the lens out to infinity and you should be able to see the helicoil when looking into the back of the lens.
Then using something like WD40 and the little plastic pipe just do a very, very, short squirt onto the helicoil. Wind the lens back and forth and it'll free up. The WD40 will get absorbed by the dried grease.
If it's still sticky then you need to do the same at the front of the lens between the focusing ring and the front filter thread.
I've used this technique on both my Tessars, an Industar and the 50mm f1.8 Pentacon (auto)/Meyer Oreston.
Posted 15 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
WD40 is a de-greaser, right? Is there a chance of therefore ending up with an even stiffer helicoid?
Posted 15 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I dismantelt many CZJ lenses but always used sewingmachineoil. WD40 get on the lens, it's creeps everywhere you can think about.
Posted 15 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
WD-40 is a water displacer. Essentially a very thin and thinned still penetrating oil. It will dissolve grease to some measure and it tends to get everywhere.
Every sensible source on optics and repair warns to never let it near your lenses, cameras, firearms, or other fine mechanisms.
Posted 15 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I'll bet it's a banned substance in a place that deals with watches then haha.
Posted 15 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
i think is a good lens,very sharp
this is my first picture with this lens:
Posted 15 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Tessar 50/2.8 - in my opinion - is just a peculiar lens that you may love or dislike in every of its (many) versions. Personally i like it so much and i have the cheapest (i think) 5-blades DDR version, the DoF is the typical widely considered scarce because is very marked and sharp in opposition of high-standard "creamy" DoF, RGB coulours are pretty saturated, but - again - i like it!
The sharpness is average, not all that soft as i read, and most of all is a 5-10 $ lens!
Posted 15 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
At $5 it can be considered a good buy if it's in good condition. At more usual selling prices of near to ten times that, it's a reasonable buy only if you value the look it gives. But it's fun to try, so long as you try one that works ok.
Posted 15 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I got it in pristine condition (not even a single speck of dust inside) at €12 (around $20) along with an Exa 1b and other minor stuff. ;-)
Probably is cheaper to buy in bundle with uninteresting camera bodies... But i wouldn't suggest to pay $50-100 for a DDR post-zebra CZJ Tessar, i know it was a cheap lens even when it was brand new. Don't know the pricing for the other two versions ("aus Jena" was exactly the same of mine for foreign markets).
Posted 15 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I have two of them, but I prefer the Pentacon 50 f:1,8 (sharper and closer focusing) and the Helios 58 f:2. I have also the Russian copy of tessar (the Industar) and I like better it (although working only stop-down) than the czj tessars.
Posted 15 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Hi V.Leoni----
some Prices New in this year.
A Exa 1a 1963 with Meyer Trioplan 2.9/50 was around DM 94.00 ($47.00)
the better one Exa 2 max speed 1/250 with Meritat more expensive around DM 110.00 ($50.00).
Praktica Nova with 2.8/50mm Domiplan 1965, DM 180.00,
with Pancolar 2/50 DM 220.00.
With Tessar 2.8/50mm DM 20.00 less than Nova.
VS :
Asahi 1964 Spotmatic with 1.4/50mm DM 250.00,
Originally posted 15 months ago.
(permalink)
C&S Designer edited this topic 15 months ago.
|
|
|
Hi C&S Designer.
Again - as i previously said - i don't know the exact pricings for the older versions, but my Tessar is certainly from the late seventies at least, the frist batch of Exa 1b - the frist one in M42 mount - was built in 1977 (Tessar was given as alternative option to Pentacon 50/1.8), i can't tell the age of mine, but both the body and lens were an outdated - for their times - design, built in Pentacon factories of Dresden, DDR (instead of Ihagee), with just five bades iris (correct me if i go wrong - Zebra version is eight blades?), top speed of body is just 1/175th and lacking of most of slow speeds. Tessar rendering is the same because elements design is the same, but DoF stopped down is markedly pentagonal.
May you tell me where did you get the original pricings? i searched many times (for different cameras i mean), but i never had success finding them.
Posted 15 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
My "Camera Bible "over SLR is
The register of 35mm SLR Cameras from
Rudolph Lea 2. edidition 1993. Wittig Book.
Is very informativ.
all other Info, I gathert over the time from different sorces. I a Fan of CZJ and Meyer Lenses.
Posted 15 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Cool, thanks for the info!
I have some CZJ lenses for my Pentacon Six, and a Meyer Orestor 135/2.8 in M42. Very nice lenses all.
Posted 15 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I used to have a Zebra Tessar (the same as Westbourne White has, with 5 blades), but a burglar nicked my camerabag including all m42 lenses.
I just purchased a Praktica FX with CZJ Tessar with 12 blades. There is only one slight problem: the aperture ring can't move further than 8. Anyone got an idea how to fix that easily without dismantling the whole lens?
Posted 14 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Got it to work. Probably some muck between the aperture ring and the 5th tooth of the lens...
Posted 14 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
My advice is throw it in a bin and get a Pentacon 50mm f1.8 instead.
Posted 14 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I like the 2.8/50 Tessar, although the Russian copy Industar-50 is sharper wide open.
I prefer the Pentacon 1.8/50 and the Helios-44 to the Tessar however, better bokeh and slightly sharper. The Pentacon is, I think an overlooked lens, I like it a lot.
Other 50s I'd prefer to the Tessar that are available at the same price:
Yashica ML 1.8/55
Petri CC Autio 1.8/55
Fujinon 2.2/55
All fifty's are quite good and we all have our favourites...
Posted 13 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
which version is this?,its M 42 mount.please help identify
Posted 2 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I suspect with the red T and the aluminium finish it's a bit rarer and more desirable than the standard black or zebra versions. Whether it's optically any better I wouldn't know. How many aperture blades and is it a preset?
Posted 2 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
which version is this?,its M 42 mount.please help identify
It would help considerably in identifying the lens, especially mount, if you took the picture of the actual mount and not just the front of the lens. =)
Posted 2 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
It has 14 or 15 blades,as far as i can count.The lens is bit different as the aparature ring is in the front part while the focusing ring is behind.yes its made of aluminium
Posted 2 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
M42 /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to M42 discussion threads
