Looking for a change from a standard 100mm/105mm lens and being simultaneously conservative, I've settled on a 115mm f4.5 Tessar which I've yet to try.

I've already tried a 127mm Ektar and 135mm focal lengths, however these tend to be too long for my taste.

There seems to be several variations of the 115mm Tessars, including Pro-Tessars, Panflex Tessars.

I don't have a Vademecum and wonder if anyone can clarify any differences in the 115mm Tessars. Are the prefixes simply relating the type of camera mounts, or aperture sizes?

Has anyone any experience with a 115mm Tessar too?

Thank you for any suggestions.

Kind regards,

RJ

The Vade takes the first lens maker in the alphabet then gives a brief history of that manifacturer then starts at the smallest focal length and widest aperture of the first lens they made and gives a brief description simular to what you would find in a sales pamphlet and other times just the lens by size and speculation about usage depending on what was origionally published and remains available in sales doucements.
(You could find out more about 115mm tessars in general at the local library.)
Using adobe reader 7 's search feature for 115mm the most entries refer to cine lens for 8 mm or 16 mm and some as projecton for these formats as well as 35mm. There are a few scattered references for film cameras and one for 6x9 format. When requesting info from the Vade the maker and aperture are necessary. f2.?-f3.? were referenced as cine or projection with >f3.5 as 35mm and f4.? as medimum format.
A Panaflex will most likely be a cine lens.

RJ, the Pro-Tessar is an attachment, you don't want it. Likewise, I think, the Panflex.

What you want is a plain vanilla Tessar in shutter. You might also want to consider a 114/4.5 Tominon, probably in Seikosha, from a Polaroid folder.

Many thanks for the insights -

45PSS - you're right - a visit to the library for a lot of research is coming up soon.

I gather the 115mm f4.5 Tessar will cover 6x9cm format although I'm still unclear as to the extent of movements which this might cover. Some of the forum data suggests that Tessars up to 165mm can cover 5x4" format with a few limitations however almost certainly very restricted movements.

I'll go for the vanilla Tessar then. It's helpful to know which Tessars are also cine lenses (to avoid).

Kind regards,

RJ

I forgot to mention the 114/4.5 Ysarex, most likely in some Prontor or other, also used on Polaroid cameras. Another tessar type and, I keep reading, not bad.

Perhaps I should qualify, that the only standard lens I have enjoyed, paradoxically happens to the 5 element Ektar 105mm f3.7 which initially came with the Graflex (currently undergoing a makeup). To some extent, I wonder why I hold out for a Tessar with the equivalent crisp bite as the 45mm f2.8 T* Tessar.

Is the Ysarex (related to a Ysaron?) a process lens?

The image circles for these smaller Zeiss 115mm lenses also seem to be elusive.

Thank you for your help Dan.

Kind regards,

RJ

RJ, Ysarons were for enlarging, weren't really process lenses. Ysarexes were the taking version. The optimizations are supposed to differ, but who knows?

When in doubt, assume that f/4.5 and faster tessar types cover 50 degrees and f/6.3s cover 60 degrees. People less exacting than you and I assert greater coverage -- someone on one of the other forums has been telling the world that his 100 (or is it 105?)/4.5 CZJ Tessar covers 4x5, with a little fall off in the corners. I regard such claims as wishful thinking.

As for why you want a 115 +/- tessar, well, its enough that you do.

After I got my Speed with its uncoated 101/4.5 Ektar I decided that I had to have a 105/3.7 Ektar. The 105/3.7 has a better reputation, right? So I got one, set up the RF for it, used it, and didn't like the results. My humble 101/4.5 was sharper, produced images that pleased me more. So I sold the 105 and used the proceeds for another folly.

Funny thing is, a year or two ago I came across a 2x3 Crown with Graflok, slightly crumpled bellows, and a 105/3.7 in very gummy Flash Supermatic at a camera show. I made the mistake of asking, the seller made the mistake of responding "$80" and now I have it. Just sent the shutter out to be ungummed, greater fool I. At the time the lens was made EKCo's quality control was very stringent. Greater fool I. Wishful thinking is a killer. If one Ektar in good order doesn't please, none of the other examples will either.

Cheers,

Dan

I picked up the pick and shovel and dug thru the Vade. Search-Zeiss=1615 instances; tessar=956 instances; 115mm=19 instances, none the exact Zeiss 115mm f4.5 tessar. There are references to a 4.5 inch f4.5 Zeiss tessar and a 4.75 f4.5 Zeiss tessar.
There are 22+ pages about Carl Zeiss and the Zeiss company. Some of the relevant:
Zeiss Landmark lenses are many: Anastigmat, Protar, Protar V11a, Planar, Tessar, Sonnars, Hologon,
Topogon, Biogon(s) are examples, and there are many other "possibles". The firm has been so fertile in
producing new designs that it is a "must" for collectors, and listing the products would be a major task, still
only superficially carried out here.

Tessar Series 1c (1906) f4.5 1.5-20in.
In 1914, it was made as 3.0, 3.5, 4.75, 5.25, 6.0, 6.5, 7.0, 8.25, 10, 12, 14, 16, 20in and 16in was suggested
for 10x8, and 6in for 5x4in. There may be other sizes, as A. Adams mentions using an 8.5in Tessar in the
1920's. (Autobiography, p60).

Take the lens with you to the library as there may be many varriations to consider if you find a good book on Zeiss lens.

Thanks again Dan & 45PSS.

I'm not sure I want a 115mm Tessar (now). Partly this was fuelled when I've reviewed my composition work in 6x9cm and realised that I could have composed tighter - perhaps 10% cropping...thus the 115mm focal length in lieu of the 105mm Ektar.

I agree that it is a little surprising to hear that a 105mm f4.5 Tessar covers 4x5. I dispensed with my surprise and surmised that this was a measurement in centimetres

The 101/4.5 Ektar vs 105mm f3.7 Ektar issue is something I've read on the internet only. I love the tonal rendition and contrast of the Ektar 105mm f3.7 and the only comparisons of the two lenses seems to privilege resolution/sharpness over other optical qualities. For me, the 105mm Ektar prints recalls the imaging qualities of Zeiss multicoated optics with its contrast and tonal range.

Equally, I don't know what I am missing since I have never seen a 101/4.5 Ektar and its prints. The 105 Ektar f3.7 is strikingly different enough from the Voigtlander Heliar 105mm f4.5, which is comparable in design however completely different in tonal rendition.

45PSS - my main thought around the 115mm Tessar's lack of inclusion in the Vade Mecum centred around whether the lens had been detached from a former bellows' camera and sold off as a separate unit, however unlikely that it might seem for a 115mm focal length to be sold as a standard.

Kind regards,

RJ





45PSS


Zeiss=1615 instances; tessar=956 instances; 115mm=19 instances, none the exact Zeiss 115mm f4.5 tessar. There are references to a 4.5 inch f4.5 Zeiss tessar and a 4.75 f4.5 Zeiss tessar.
There are 22+ pages about Carl Zeiss and the Zeiss company. Some of the relevant:
Zeiss Landmark lenses are many: Anastigmat, Protar, Protar V11a, Planar, Tessar, Sonnars, Hologon,
Topogon, Biogon(s) are examples, and there are many other "possibles". The firm has been so fertile in
producing new designs that it is a "must" for collectors, and listing the products would be a major task, still
only superficially carried out here.

Tessar Series 1c (1906) f4.5 1.5-20in.
In 1914, it was made as 3.0, 3.5, 4.75, 5.25, 6.0, 6.5, 7.0, 8.25, 10, 12, 14, 16, 20in and 16in was suggested
for 10x8, and 6in for 5x4in. There may be other sizes, as A. Adams mentions using an 8.5in Tessar in the
1920's. (Autobiography, p60).