Recommendation for a Bright 300mm Lens Covering 8x10

[D_Quinn]

I just found this
Tessar 4.5/300 red T Carl Zeiss Jena lens.

Is anyone familiar with this lens?

 

[Ian Grant]

It's a post WWII East German coated Tessar, made in the late 1940s or early 1950s, the red T was used to designate the lens was coated, Schneider used ared triangle. As coating became standard these symbols were dropped.

The Xenar is the same design, as is the Russian Industar.

Ian

 

[D_Quinn]

It's a post WWII East German coated Tessar, made in the late 1940s or early 1950s, the red T was used to designate the lens was coated, Schneider used ared triangle. As coating became standard these symbols were dropped.

The Xenar is the same design, as is the Russian Industar.

Ian

Thank you for the information!

 

[Dan Fromm]

The Xenar is the same design, as is the Russian Industar.

Ian

Same design type, i.e., layout, but probably not the same prescriptions.

 

[retina_restoration]

I just found this
Tessar 4.5/300 red T Carl Zeiss Jena lens.

Is anyone familiar with this lens?

An f4.5 Tessar made by CZJ is almost always worth owning/using. (Unless it's been abused, of course) But that Compound shutter isn't ideal - you can be sure it's going to need servicing sooner rather than later. It appears to have been modified by adding a flash sync terminal, which you may find useful.
For £578.57, it's no bargain, but it's sure to be a worthwhile lens.

 

[Dan Fromm]

An f4.5 Tessar made by CZJ is almost always worth owning/using. (Unless it's been abused, of course) But that Compound shutter isn't ideal - you can be sure it's going to need servicing sooner rather than later. It appears to have been modified by adding a flash sync terminal, which you may find useful.
For £578.57, it's no bargain, but it's sure to be a worthwhile lens.

The older, the less coverage. Fast Tessars were recomputed many times as newer glasses became available. The oldest have much less coverage than the latest.

Are you sure that late Compounds didn't come with flash sockets? I have an industrial (no diaphragm) #5 s/n 797116 that has a PC terminal which appears to be native.

 

[blee1996]

I have not encountered a 'bad" 300mm lens in 8x10 yet, especially for portrait. From the cheapest projection triplet, to Petzvals, to Tessar-types (too many!), to Dagor-types, with or without tiny air bubbles, coated or uncoated. They have different character for sure, but none are actually bad technically. Even at half of OP's budget, you can find a perfectly nice sample in reliable shutter to start with.

 

[retina_restoration]

Are you sure that late Compounds didn't come with flash sockets? I have an industrial (no diaphragm) #5 s/n 797116 that has a PC terminal which appears to be native.

No, not sure at all. But I looked at that and it struck me that it was a modification, since that feature wasn't common then. I guess I'm used to encountering Retina 117s and 118s with flash syncs added, which were definitely modifications.

 

[Ian Grant]

I missed the link, the lens looks superb made around 1954/5, the shutter also looks excellent. I have a few Compound shutters and really like them, all mine work perfectly, even one from around 1912. All post WWII Compounds have flash sync by the very early 1950s.

For that condition, I don't think you'd find one better, and it's not a bad price. However buying from abroad, shipping costs are high, then Import taxes.

Ian

 

[D_Quinn]

Thank you! It looks like the shutter of the Tessar 4.5/300 Red T is a bit of a gamble.

By the way, what do you think about this lens? Does it have any notable characteristics?
The shutter has been recently overhauled, so I’m not worried about that. However, I read somewhere that it tends to produce images with low contrast.

 

[retina_restoration]

Thank you! It looks like the shutter of the Tessar 4.5/300 Red T is a bit of a gamble.

By the way, what do you think about this lens? Does it have any notable characteristics?
The shutter has been recently overhauled, so I’m not worried about that. However, I read somewhere that it tends to produce images with low contrast.

The Paragon f4.5 is (almost certainly) a Tessar design. There are accounts where people state that it's not a very sharp Tessar until stopped well down, but I have no personal experience with it, so those reports are anecdotal.
It would probably be just fine for portraiture, where some softness is often appreciated. I don't think that's a particularly good value at that price - plenty of other options that are at least as good or better.

 

[Ian Grant]

Compound shutters are reliable, the larger ones are better than the comparable Ilex Universals. Paragon's aren't the best Tessar type lenses.

If an old Compound shutter has not been used for a long time, the little piston that regulates slow speeds can dry out. This was the case with the 12" Dagor that came with my 10x8 Agfa Ansco Commercial View. The previous owner never used it, it's a very quick and easy fix.

When you release a Compound at the 1-second setting it's a very sooth open, silent pause then smooth close, it's a reassuring sound. Photo's can tell you a lot, this 300mm f4.5 Xenar has obviously had a lot of use. My 300mm f4.5 Xenar arrived this morning, like the Boyer Saphir & CZJ Terssar the Compound and lenses themselves all look near mint.
.
The Comound IV & V shutters were replaced sometime in the late 1960s by the Compur CP-Electronic 5 FS, late 300mm f4.5 lenses were sold in this shutter. While these Compur Electronic shutters offered speeds of 32 seconds to 1/60 they were unreliable, now unrepairable, and no batteries available for them. They were not made for very long, lenses that used them were redesigned to fit Compur #3 shutters. That meant the 300mm Xenar went from an f4.5 design to f5.6.

Ian

 

[blee1996]

The Comound IV & V shutters were replaced sometime in the late 1960s by the Compur CP-Electronic 5 FS, late 300mm f4.5 lenses were sold in this shutter. While these Compur Electronic shutters offered speeds of 32 seconds to 1/60 they were unreliable, now unrepairable, and no batteries available for them. They were not made for very long, lenses that used them were redesigned to fit Compur #3 shutters. That meant the 300mm Xenar went from an f4.5 design to f5.6.

I had good experience with Compur Electronic shutter, which came with a late Heliar 210/4.5 lens. With basic wiring, it can work with any modern batteries from 3V (e.g. 2032 Lithium car key battery) to 6V household batteries. And I enjoy the precise long exposures, let alone it is almost service free,

 

[Ian Grant]

I had good experience with Compur Electronic shutter, which came with a late Heliar 210/4.5 lens. With basic wiring, it can work with any modern batteries from 3V (e.g. 2032 Lithium car key battery) to 6V household batteries. And I enjoy the precise long exposures, let alone it is almost service free,

Of course, there are always exceptions. But in general, no-one buys Compur Electronic shutters now, it's not just the shutters that are the issue, it's also the controllers.

Ian

 

[qqphot]

Depending on what sort of image quality you're after, maybe you'd like a fast, heavy "Carl Meyer" Anastigmat (12"/305mm, F4.5) in a Betax shutter for cheap? It's not exactly a lens for razor sharp precision, but it sure does let a lot of light through. I made the mistake of shooting color transparency film with mine once, but only once.

 

[D_Quinn]

Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 30cm f/4.5
Is this lens coated?

I shoot portraits with wet plate photography and always use a wide-open lens.

How is the contrast in this case?
The description states that it was manufactured between 1961 and 1964.
This is a barrel lens, but I am considering attaching a Shanel 5A shutter using an adapter.
Would adding the shutter affect its ability to cover 8x10?
(I don’t need movements as long as it barely covers 8x10.)

If anyone knowledgeable can provide advice, I would really appreciate it. Thank you!

 

[Dan Fromm]

Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 30cm f/4.5
Is this lens coated?

The description states that it was manufactured between 1961 and 1964.
This is a barrel lens, but I am considering attaching a Shanel 5A shutter using an adapter.
Would adding the shutter affect its ability to cover 8x10?
(I don’t need movements as long as it barely covers 8x10.)

If anyone knowledgeable can provide advice, I would really appreciate it. Thank you!

The lens' serial number - 681568 -- was issued in 1926. That its focal length is in cm, not mm, is consistent with pre-WWII manufacture. CZJ switched to mm in 1952. It is not coated. The seller is ignorant, dishonest or blind. Re blind, CZJ serial numbers used from 1961-4 ranged from 6000000 - 7000000. Seven digits. 651568 has six digits.

No idea about contrast with or without a Shanel 5A. Re coverage, fast Tessars gained coverage with redesigns as better glasses became available. I can't be arsed to go out and find a 1920-1930 Zeiss catalog. Do your own homework.

You might just buy the wretched thing and try it out.

 

[D_Quinn]

The lens' serial number - 681568 -- was issued in 1926. That its focal length is in cm, not mm, is consistent with pre-WWII manufacture. CZJ switched to mm in 1952. It is not coated. The seller is ignorant, dishonest or blind. Re blind, CZJ serial numbers used from 1961-4 ranged from 6000000 - 7000000. Seven digits. 651568 has six digits.

No idea about contrast with or without a Shanel 5A. Re coverage, fast Tessars gained coverage with redesigns as better glasses became available. I can't be arsed to go out and find a 1920-1930 Zeiss catalog. Do your own homework.

You might just buy the wretched thing and try it out.

Thank you for the accurate information and comments! I appreciate it.

 

[retina_restoration]

The lens' serial number - 681568 -- was issued in 1926. That its focal length is in cm, not mm, is consistent with pre-WWII manufacture. CZJ switched to mm in 1952. It is not coated. The seller is ignorant, dishonest or blind.

Agreed. No way that was manufactured in the sixties. So no coating, no.

You might just buy the wretched thing and try it out.

To D_Quinn: I can think of better glass to spend $100 on. Even the lowly Industar-37 is a far better lens and can be had for $100-$200 any day of the week. IMO you're setting the bar very, very low to be considering this old Tessar. It's not junk, but it's far from being a gem either. I thought you'd decided it had to be in a shutter??

 

[Dan Fromm]

I can think of better glass to spend $100 on. Even the lowly Industar-37 is a far better lens and can be had for $100-$200 any day of the week. IMO you're setting the bar very, very low to be considering this old Tessar. It's not junk, but it's far from being a gem either. I thought you'd decided it had to be in a shutter??

I did? Are you sure? I think you're referring to a post by the OP, but by all means quote me against myself.

I'm a strong advocate of hanging barrel lenses in front of shutters and of hanging shutters in front of barrel lenses. I've done it with focal lengths from 60 mm (60/14 Perigraphe VIa in front of a much modified Ilex #3) to 900 (900/10 Apo-Saphir behind a Compound #5).

 

[retina_restoration]

I did? Are you sure? I think you're referring to a post by the OP, but by all means quote me against myself.

I'm a strong advocate of hanging barrel lenses in front of shutters and of hanging shutters in front of barrel lenses. I've done it with focal lengths from 60 mm (60/14 Perigraphe VIa in front of a much modified Ilex #3) to 900 (900/10 Apo-Saphir behind a Compound #5).

My apologies, Dan - I was indeed referring to the OPs statement about requiring a lens in shutter. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Dan Fromm]

My apologies, Dan - I was indeed referring to the OPs statement about requiring a lens in shutter. Sorry for the confusion.

Thanks

 

[D_Quinn]

Agreed. No way that was manufactured in the sixties. So no coating, no.


To D_Quinn: I can think of better glass to spend $100 on. Even the lowly Industar-37 is a far better lens and can be had for $100-$200 any day of the week. IMO you're setting the bar very, very low to be considering this old Tessar. It's not junk, but it's far from being a gem either. I thought you'd decided it had to be in a shutter??

Thank you for your advice!
I'm still looking for a shutter-equipped lens for around $1000, but since repairing a broken shutter in Japan can be expensive, I’m also considering the combination of a Shanel 5A shutter and a barrel lens, as the shutter is more affordable and easier to obtain in Japan.

If I go with a shutter-equipped lens, I think the Commercial Ektar 12in f/4.5 you recommended would be a great choice. However, I plan to avoid "as is" or junk-condition items. If I pay $1000 including shipping and taxes and it turns out to be broken, no one will take responsibility!