Lenses ~ MORE soft focus in miniature format optics

There must be a support group out there somewhere for un-repentant Soft Focus lens junkies.  Perhaps I could use a bit of support?  Or perhaps not.  Either way, the Madness continues unabated.

I've been looking specifically for first element focusing lenses.

Covering old ground, opticians designing and manufacturing "pictorialist" era lenses sometimes made them with configurable gaps between lens elements.  This capability provided softness controls for when softness was desired.  

I often stop and drool a bit when I see a full, original Dallmeyer casket set at local camera swaps or when I see a gorgeous Hermagis Eidoscope sitting on a vendors table.  There's Serious Wonderfulness in those that I wish I had the time and tools to explore.  These days I'm limited to miniature formats with digital sensors - ie: APS-C and Full Frame mirrorless.

Looking at SLR special purpose lenses, I find 35mm SLR specialty Soft Focus optics to be too strong and nearly uncontrollable.  That certainly was the case of a Pentax 85mm f/2.2 where it was so difficult to control that I traded off against something else.

What I've been looking for, instead, are lenses with potentially gentler, more easily controlled levels of softness.  Enter the first element focusers.

Normally, I've thought of lenses moving as a block or "unit" when effectuating a good focus.  Until very recently, every single G. D. 35mm SLR manual focus lens I'd ever used were unit focusers.  Moving the focusing ring moved the lens elements together and there was no convenient way of altering the gap between various element. 

Only recently, as in the past couple years, I've stumbled upon first element focusing lenses.  I found one, talked a bit about it with friends, who then turned me on to another, and another, and as I continued my research, yes, I found yet another. 

Here's my current list of Miniature Format not made purposely as Soft Focus optics that actually could work well as in-camera Soft Focus photo-makers. 

• Cosina Cosinon 55mm f/2.8 - m42 Tessar formula
• ISCO Iscotar 50mm f/2.8 - m42 Cooke Triplet
• Ricoh Riconar 55mm f/2.2 - Pentax K 4 element 4 group _not_ Dylite/APO Artar/203mm Ektar
• Steinheil Auto-Cassaron 50mm f/2.8 - m42 Cooke Triplet

To turn these into controllable soft focus lenses, here's the setup -

• Note the ffd (flange focalplane distance) of the lens, destination camera, and calculate the gap to be filled by a...
• Helicoid close focusing adapter this the shortest length measuring at or smaller than the gap calculated above

For instance, Sony E ffd is 18mm.  M42 ffd is 45.5mm.  The gap is 27.5mm.  There's 17mm to 30mm close focus helicoid on the market that works well enough.  If 17mm on the short length of the helicoid is intellectually un-inspiring, add a short m42 extension tube and you'll get closer to the correct combined 45.5mm ffd.  No worries, though, as I've used m42 lenses on the helicoid I have without an extension tube and have been able to focus at infinity as well as get a little closer focus as a bonus.

Here's how to use the setup -

• For sharp work - first case
• Set the m42 focus ring on infinity
• Use the helicoid to focus the subject
• For soft work - second case
• Set the lens' focus ring at its closest setting
• Use the helicoid to focus on the subject

When using first element focusing lenses, in the first case the lens elements will be "squashed" together.  It seems, based on what I've observed so far, that this is the designed point of maximum sharpness.  The helicoid has turned the first element focuser into a unit focuser hereby.

In the second case, sticking with first element focusers, the first element is moved as far away from the other elements as the mechanical design (focus ring) allows.  This introduces optical imperfections in both Cooke Triplet and Zeiss Tessar design lenses from what I can see.

What this means is that a first element focusing lens, used in concert with a helicoid adapter can be used in two ways - as a unit focusing sharp lens, or as a soft focus optic. In both cases the helicoid is being used to set the focus and the lens' traditional focusing ring is being used to define overall scene "sharpness."

Adding a Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 50mm f/2.8 (early) and a Steinheil 45mm f/2.8 m39 Paxette to the mix, here's what I see -

 

Sony A7 - Steinheil 45mm f/2.8 at f11 

Comments ~

It should be obvious that focusing rings can be used as softness control on first element focusers when a helicoid adapter is deployed to effectuate the overall focus.  The closer the lens focus, the more optical imperfections are introduced.

Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 50mm f/2.8 - Unit Focuser

This lenses is nearly "modern lens" sharp from wide open in the center.  It takes going to f/8 and below to clean a scene up across the field, as expected.  If I were to gripe about anything, it's that the extreme corners never fully clean up, even at smallest apertures.  Overall, the Tessar is gently lower contrasted compared to a modern optic, which I feel adds to a sense of beauty to an image.

It comes with a nice multi-bladed round aperture.  The out of focus rendition is creamy smooth, even stopped down. 

I think the copy I have is the "cat's meow", as _all_ the other 50mm Tessars I've owned over the years (nearly a dozen) weren't worth holding onto.  This one's a "keeper."  I finally begin to see what people have been trying to tell me for decades about Zeiss optics. 

Cosina Cosinon 55mm f/2.8 - First Element Focuser

This has a Soviet-era "industrial" feel to the aperture ring, even coming from Japan.  Having nothing to do with the aperture ring, I re-lubed the focusing threads and that part of the lens now moves "smooth as butter." 

It comes with 5 aperture blades, so caution needs be exercised when considering out of focus rendition and specular highlights.  Stopped down a scene can feel "choppy" in the out of focus regions compared with, say, the Tessar or Steinheil Paxette. 

More contrast than the CZJTessar stopped down.  Like the Ricoh 55mm, this Cheap as Chips lens is shockingly sharp when stopped down and could easily be a dual purpose soft/sharp daily carry lens. Yields a "modern" looking images at f/8 and f/11.  

Quite lovely "pictorialist" qualities at f/2.8, f/4, and leaning perhaps toward f/5.6.  This becomes an interesting option for creating "pictorialist" effects in-camera on miniature formats.

Nearly give-away priced in the marketplace.  Pretty interesting "find", this one.    The optic was also sold under the Porst, Casenar, and Reuvenon labels.  I wouldn't pay more than 10Euro/12USD for any of the branded versions.

ISCO Iscotar 50mm f/2.8 - First Element Focuser

Not many aperture blades, so I need to be careful with specular highlights when stopped down.  Sharpens up across most of the field as the aperture drops, but never really cleans up the extreme edges. 

Wide open and at f/4 the lens could work well in rendering young skin in a "pictorialist" manner. Focus on infinity, however, shows the intrusion of the first element as a strong circle of distortion about 3/4s the way out on the field.  

Widely available in the marketplace for not a lot of money.  Overall, an interesting lens, perhaps, but not the most flexible optic in the Toy Box.  I wouldn't pay more than 20Euro/25USD for one.

Ricoh Riconar 55mm f/2.2 - First Element Focuser

This is in Pentax K-mount.  I can't use it on my little helicoid setup, even though this is first element focuser.  Fortunately, there are optical imperfections at f2.2, f2.8, and f4 which can be useful at any subject distance.  This lens can be used in a "pictorialist" manner for portraiture all the way out to landscape.  

Not many aperture blades, so there's the usual caution of watching the specular highlights when stopped down.  However, however, however... from f/5.6 and below the lens shows a surprising (to me, at least) level of sharpness that, frankly, bowled me over when I first saw it.  Like the Cosina Cosinon 55mm Tessar, this 4 element 4 group Strange Design lens is sharp enough when used properly for me to consider using it as a dual purpose soft/sharp optic.  It's really that good.

I find these widely available in the marketplace for around 20Euro/25USD.  For the kind of soft focus work I'm looking to implement, this is really quite a good lens.

Steinheil Auto-Cassaron 50mm f/2.8 - First Element Focuser

Typical of the Steinheil I've experienced, there's softness and then there's a beautiful underlying sharpness.  The softness is more prominent in the optic at wider apertures. 

Stopping down sort of/kind of cleans up the veiling softness in the Auto-Cassaron, but never in a modern sense.  So I'll put this down to having been designed as a lower contrast, sharp at the point of focus optic.  I've seen this in other Steinheil lenses, which is why I mention the potential purpose design aspect to the veiling/lower contrast.  

Having written all that, I have two friends who say their Steinheil give crisp/clear images.  One even says his is the sharpest lens he's ever seen in the format he wants covered.  Makes me wonder if there's something about the Steinheil I own.  Or perhaps there's a certain variability in Steinheil optics, which I would doubt, knowing the long history of optics design and manufacturing the company had.  Frankly, I'm stumped. 

One caution, however, is that like with the ISCO, using the focusing ring to control softness level can lead to a dreaded distortion circle for subjects nearer to infinity than not when using the softest setting.

OK.  I lied.  Another caution is that there are fewer aperture blades in this lens than in its sister 45mm m39 Paxette.  Specular highlights quickly go wonky, so care needs be taken to avoid the ick. 

 
Steinheil Cassarit 45mm f/2.8 - Unit Focuser

There's Steinheil veiling softness and then there's the beautiful Steinheil underlying sharpness, which never really subsides at lower multi-bladed very round apertures.  As I wrote somewhere above, friends' Steinheils are sharp sharp sharp.  Not sure what's going on with the Steinheil I have, but this 45mm, the 50mm Auto-Cassaron, and a 135mm Culminar f/4.5 all show similar behavior.

Still, even with the discrepancies in different people's experiences, I LOVE this lens.  Gorgeous round aperture.  Super light.  Super small.  I took this lens to Italy with me last winter for it's Soft Focus "pictorialist" qualities (see: Napoli and Rome).  I can feel the infinity energies of the "pictorialist" potential pushing outward into the cosmos beyond the moon of the fantastic sky... er... I'd better stop now...

 

Summary ~

If I were to "grade" the lenses, I'd say the Steinheil are like Hermagis Eidoscope-like smooth in the way they render.  The Ricoh and Cosina are Dallmeyer-Bergheim-like gorgeous.  For soft focus work I just wish these two, Ricoh and Cosina, had round apertures, then things would be perfect.  But, there's little perfection in life, right?  The Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar... on the other hand... ah... that CZJT... even though it has zero soft focus capability...  I must be in heaven... I'm up to my armpits in lenses I never thought I'd find for miniature formats...

In-camera black and white image processing ~ Sony A7

After tone mapping Creative Style Black and White where Contrast [0..-3] a Sony A7RII, I applied a setting to a Sony A7 and went to an exhibition of automobiles.  The event was the avant depart of the Tour Auto 2026.

My setup was the aforementioned Sony A7 plus one of my garbage/trash/crap lenses - Ricoh Riconar 55mm f/2.2 in Pentax K mount.  

I wanted to see if the wide open magik the lens comes with could translate well to cars.  I already knew it would be outstanding at f/8 and f/11.  To confirm the tone map findings I shot RAW + jpg with the following in-camera settings  -

• Creative Style Black and White
• Contrast -1
• DRO 

This recipe matches the in-camera black and white default jpg processing of a Fuji GFX100RF.  I like that "look."

The event was interesting and I had a wonderful time.

Once back home and without reviewing the in-camera output I moved all the jpgs into a separate folder and processed the RAW.  There were a few images I liked in BW and processed those RAWs using my Digital Zone System 0EV as Zone 5 recipe.

On a lark I compared a RAW processed black and white against the in-camera jpg.  Here is what I found -

 

Sony A7 - shutter speed 1/200th sec
Ricoh 55mm f/2.2 at f/2.2 - highlight glow galore

Matrix metering - no Digital Zone System 
spot metering required 

 

To me, all the thinking, wondering, measuring and futzing about is well worth the effort.  Understanding and knowledge is unbeatable.

Onward. 

In-camera black and white image processing ~ Sony A7RII

I enjoy learning about how Sony processes black and white images in-camera.

Using an A7RII I mapped the tonal response as a matrix of settings with tone patches that express the numeric value measured.  

Selecting Contrast [0...-3] and DRO [Off...3] and normal jpg, and then adding as reference points two different tone mappings, which are outlined in 18percent gray - 

• 1EV steps from -2EV to +7EV and letting the highlights linearly roll off to +4EV pure white and shadows to linearly toe to -5EV as pure black (which Sony has chosen as the bottom end of the processing range) - maximum tonal separation by luminance (not color)
• Fuji GFX100RF tonal response mapping - which I particularly like

Here is the (rather giant) map -

Comments -

Looking carefully at the map I see why our visit to Vienna and my use of Contrast -3 "worked" as well as it did.  The shadow tones are fairly decent compared with any of the three references.

If I want the whites to "sparkle", Contrast -1 + DRO1 is quite nice.

If I want "creamier" highlights, Contrast -2 + DRO1 does the trick

 

Image Processing ~ matching tones black and white

Lets say there's a reference image with tones we'd like to match.  In black and white it's as simple as loading that image into an image processing software and measuring the tonal values.

It's then an easy matter of taking those tonal values and processing a different image where shadow, highlight, and various mid-tones match the reference.

To prove this works, I took an image that I like that was made by Clarence White of Eugene Debs.

As can be seen, this is a Pictorialist era work.

For the exercise I'm embarking on here, there are three things to note from the above photo.

• Tonal placement
• Image softness
• Image tint 

For tonal placement I measured portions of this reference image (desaturated to eliminate the tint making it easier to directly note the tonal values).  The dark areas raise up off pure black to 2Bhex/43dec.  The light tones are suppressed with a maximum value of ADhex/173dec.  This is a rather narrow tonal range by modern visual practices/expectations and I find the old Clarence White image to be quite beautiful.

To emulate the sense of softness I used an ISCO Iscotar 50mm f/2.8, racked the focusing ring on the lens to it's closest point, then used a focusing helicoid to effectuate the final focus.  The ISCO is a Cooke triplet first element focusing optic.  The first element focusing introduces aberrations as it's focused on close subjects.  In miniature formats this lens and the effect of the first element focusing is an approximation of how soft focus lenses behaved on larger formats.

Borrowing the tint of the reference image is as easy as opening two images in the Gimp and using the Sample Colorize tool. 

As for the subject matter I guess I should apologize.  He's not the best of models, but I take what I can get.

Here are the steps used to mimic the reference image of Eugene Debs.

Load the new image into image processing software - enabling demosaicing (of course), auto-select camera color management - turning OFF tone curve - which leaves the image looking very flat.

 

Using Channel Mix, turn the image into black and white.  It looks gawd-awful, right?

 

Continuing with Channel Mix, emulate a late-1800's emulsion sensitivity filter - 0% red channel, 25% green channel, 75% blue channel.  It still looks gawd-awful.  I know, there's zero helping the model.

 

Find the lightest tone and move curves until that tone measures ADhex/173dec.  Maybe if one squints real hard things might be looking a bit better.

 

Find the darkest tone and move the curve until it measures 2Bhex/43dec.  OK, now we're beginning to see the full disaster the model brought to imaging.

 

By inspection, move the bottom of the curve until the dark tones look like the reference and add a slight vignette (if the lens hasn't already done that itself).

 

Tone the image by sampling the reference and... well... pretty close but no cigar.  It's too sharp.

 

Nice, but too sharp 

 

Comparison to reference 

Using the fact that soft focus lens spherical aberration returns a depth of field that anastigmat optics don't, I slightly defocused myself by moving behind the optimal point of focus.  In doing this there is still an underlying "sharpness", but diffusion that comes from spherical aberration transforms the images into something that more closely matches the Clarence White, Eugene Debs reference.  In fact, if one reads Kodak's instructions on how to use the 12inch Portrait lens they made in the late 1940's it clearly states that focusing on the tip of the nose and letting the depth of field build from there will yield better results.  Rather like the Heinrich Kuhn "Tiffenbuilder" - aka: Depth of Field Builder lenses of earlier era and design.

Here are a couple examples of letting the depth of field build itself.

 

Pretty decent sense of softness, eh? 

 Now 'er cook'n with gas!

OK.  I'm done.  Enough is enough already.  Again, sorry 'bout the model.  Some things just can't be helped.

Lenses ~ going small

Two Flickr friends have me falling down yet another Wabbit Whole.

It started with trying to find soft focus lenses for 35mm format that are more controllable than the special purpose built optics.  Chetworth del Gato and I had been talking about old large format soft focus lenses work.  To mine this vein of potential richness it was a matter of trying to find lenses that might exhibit similar properties optically and mechanically.

Once on the soft focus for miniature formats path it became evident there was a whole field of lenses I'd avoided and/or, knew nothing about.  Bonzo Din suggested I consider a lens or two of a specific kind and the next thing I knew I was enjoying learning about and understanding German lenses built during the 1950's for the 35mm format. 

Here is where I'm currently at -

Clockwise from bottom left...
- Staeble Choro 38mm f3.5 - 3 element 3 group
- Staeble Telon 85mm f5.6 - 4 element 3 group Antiplanet
- Roeschlein Telenar 135mm f5.6 - 4 element 4 group
- Steinheil Cassarit 45mm f2.8 - 3 element 3 group Cooke 

As can be seen, these are m39 thread mount lenses made for the Braun Paxette series of cameras. To illustrate just how small that 35mm lenses can be I added the NEX5T/Pentax-M 28mm f2.8 kit as size comparison to the first image shared above.  

NOTE: The m39 Paxette have a 44mm ffd, and NOT the 28.8mm of the more commonly known m39 ltm Leica Thread Mount.  These are the smallest lenses currently in the Toy Box.  

In terms of sharpness and character...

- Staeble Choro 38mm f3.5 - Sharp in the center at f3.5 with softness increasing towards the edges.  Sharp at f11 across the field. Decent chromatic aberration control and excellent field flatness.  Rumored to be better than the first Leitz 35mm f3.5 tessar formula, which also was best at f11.

- Staeble Telon 85mm f5.6 - Sharp.  Period.  Well, OK, perhaps not clinically sharp wide open, but close enough.  Quite the surprising lens, actually.  Field flatness and chromatic aberration are well controlled.  If there's a downside it is the lack of decent flare control.  Shooting toward off-axis brightness very quickly shows the challenge.  So this is pretty much a Sun Over The Shoulder kind of lens.

- Roeschlein Telenar 135mm f5.6 - Sharp in the center from wide open. The edges never really clean up, even at small apertures, where chromatic aberration, particularly in the out of focus areas, is some of the strongest I've ever seen.  Though I must admit that my Nikon Nikkor 10.5cm f2.5 "tick mark" behaves rather similarly towards the field edges, and I LOVE that lens.  Perhaps I'll come to appreciate this tiny Roeschlein, too?

- Steinheil Cassarit 45mm f2.8 - I used this as a soft focus lens for two months in Italy. First in Napoli and then in Rome.  It's underlying sharpness mimics that of large format film soft focus lenses quite well.  Bright areas glow correctly.  Sharp in the center from wide open.  By f11 it's sharp across the field.

At first I wondered if there was something wrong with this Cassarit as the "glow" remains pretty much constant across all apertures.  Bonzo Din's Cassarit doesn't do this, but there's someone  using a Sony A7 that showed two slightly different versions of the Cassarit, both of which do exactly the same thing mine does.  So who knows? 

------------ References ---------------

Lists of Paxette lenses - incomplete

Fitting a m42 adapter for Paxette use 

My own blog post on adapting Paxette lenses to mirrorless cameras 

Manual Focus forums has slightly different information 

 

Things that caught my attention ~ Winter in Italy

While away this winter my mind wandered and stumbled and came upon a few things.  

While not immediately photography related, I find the process of musing over these topics informs and directs how I approach the craft.

 

~ Culture Defined

The first is a renewed appreciation for how received culture impacts my view of, well, just about everything.  

Culture is delivered/given to us.  We consume it.  We participate in it - for or against.  It's something I seldom think about but (all too often passively) agree/disagree bound by limits set by culture itself.  

Which led me to a question: Can I think beyond those boundaries?  What would it mean if I did?  How would I see the world differently?  How would I behave in the future?

Fortunately there are plenty of hints and ideas.  

 In Europe Antonio Gramsci and Stuart Hall explored how the control of a small class of people defines culture for the rest of us.  In the US there are Howard Zinn, David Graeber, and Noam Chomsky who looked at the imposition of culture through politics and money.  In literature we have the example of Cervantes in the early 1600's and his hero, Don Quixote.  More recently we have Albert Camus, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Jack Kerouac, all of whom looked at culture from various perspectives.

What I do, what we all do, in photography and art is caught up in culture as we experience it.  How we see.  How we react.  How we do.  All of it.

 

- The Renaissance

European art experienced a "rebirth" starting in the late 1300's.  I wondered, a "rebirth"?  What was the first "birth?"

Our trip to Napoli and Rome helped me see.

Renaissance paintings commonly show we humans as we are.  Architectural features correctly rendered.  Compositions and subject are proportionally correct.  This was obviously different than the iconography of the Eastern Roman Empire what were simplistic with subjects and elements disproportionately distributed.

What came before? 

In Napoli we visited a museum that holds many wonderful fresco that were taken out of Pompeii.  One room is filled with what I found to be incredible examples of correct human shapes, an correct architectural proportion and perspective.  All pre-dated the Renaissance by 1500 years.  It was instantly clear to me that Roman artists knew quite well what they were doing.  This had to be a bit of the first "birth."

Similarly, with sculpture I've marveled at the incredible beauty of Bernini's figures, Michelangelo's sculptural stout firmness and power, and Canova's exquisite line and execution.  For me many of their works have the power to emotionally move me.  

It turns out so can classic Greek and Roman sculpture. The Capitoline Museum and the Villa Doria-Pamphilj in Rome house early works that I've found to be absolutely exquisite.  The Greeks and Romans led the way and I finally understand what is meant by "Renaissance." 

An incredible world of art existed many centuries prior.

This made me wonder if everything had been forgotten and needed to be re-discovered?  Or if everything remained in the continuum of art but had to be left out due to the demands of those who employed artists? 

 

- Caravaggio 

One artist is credited with the introduction of "chiaroscuro" lighting.  

It's the kind of light that, if we are speaking in photographic "Zone System" terms, moves skin tones from Zone 6 up to Zone 7 or even 8 and takes the shadows and moves them from Zone 4 down to Zone 2 or 1.  

At the Doria-Pamphilj we saw several of Caravaggio's early paintings.  They are quite "classic" with open shadow details and muted highlights. They could've been executed by any of the early Renaissance masters as they fit the general style of the time.   The arc of his work spans from early flat, calm paintings to later contrasty drama.  His later works are what we tend to know him by, and I was quite surprised to see examples of his earliest paintings.

However... his lighting (as important as it is, what with the immediate impact it had on European painters during Caravaggio's lifetime) is most definitely _not_ the thing I find the most interesting about Caravaggio's work. 

When we were in Napoli we visited a chapel in the Pio Monte della Misericordia where a Caravaggio hangs over the altar.  It's titled "The Seven Works of Mercy."

At first I wasn't sure what to make of it since it failed to conform to expectations I had about, what?, I don't know, just about everything.  The lighting was harsh and slashing, which I expected from Caravaggio.  

There was something else going on in there.  After a minute or two a 5watt bulb turned on in my mind.  I had to stand and look and experience and appreciate what he'd done.  He'd broken one of the prime "rules" of painting.  *snap*  As if it were a little twig to be played with and disfigured. 

All the important action was pushed to the edges of the frame.  The center, ah, yes, the center contained shockingly nothing of interest, and in that light it could be seen as nothing more than a black space, dead center, a black nothingness.

Could it be that Caravaggio's greatest contribution to art was his sense of composition?

Oh my.  There could be freedom in this.  Maybe.  Yes.  Likely so.

Things are shifting. 

Lenses ~ finally found one

I swore I'd never ever own another Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 50mm f/2.8 (nor a f/3.5 for that matter).  

In my hands they've never ever been any good.  Terrible wide open.  Maybe OK if you squinted hard at f/11.  Edges never cleaned up.  

After struggling with the famous name optic I wiped the thought of ever trying to own another one from my mind and moved on.

 

 

Sony A7RII, Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 50mm f/2.8 

Went to a swap meet recently and tried to sell a few of unloved/unused lenses.  Met a little success, but not to the degree I was hoping for.

Stumbled around and looked at everything I could.  Had everything I wanted or could find.  Did as many deals as I could.

Being human can be "interesting."  Bright shiny objects attract, right?  And here I was thinking/hoping I was immune. 

 

Sony A7RII, Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 50mm f/2.8  

Casually looking through a milk crate of m42 lenses my eye was drawn to a bright shiny object.  *natch*hooked*  The front cap was made of beautifully machined aluminum.  The rear cap was beautifully machined from, well, more aluminum.  The lens barrel was, oh yes, machined from beautiful aluminum.  The knurled focusing ring was honed from beautiful aluminum. 

Instant lust swamped my being.  I had to have it.  Whatever it was.

Taking the front cap off I saw it was a Zeiss Jena 50mm f/2.8.  Removing the rear cap I confirmed it was indeed m42.  Lenses were clean and clear.  So...

OK.  How much is this?  It didn't matter. It was going home with me.  Here's my wallet.  Take whatever you need.

Swapped a Ricoh 55mm f/2.2 Pentax K mount for it and a couple Euros and the deal was done.

 

Sony A7RII, Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 50mm f/2.8  

As the endorphin rush subsided and my emotional chemistry returned to near normal I remembered: These lenses are horrible.  I've owned far too many of them and know this as deeply as anything I've ever known.  Just awful.  Even with a famous name engraved around the front ring.

Ugh.  Would I ever learn???  I could always use it as a paper weight.  My mother collected them.  Maybe it was in my blood.  Paper weights.

To confirm how horrible it was I put it through it's paces.

f/2.8 Center is... hmmm... wot's all this then?  This one is sharp in the center wide open.  Never saw that before.  Seriously.  Cheap supposedly worse Meyer Domiplan triplets were _always_ better than any Zeiss tessar I tried. Edges, not so much, as expected of early tessar... forgivable perhaps... and... again... not nearly as bad as the dozen or so others that've passed my way.

f/4 Field of sharpness expands from the center but doesn't yet cover the field in Glorious Sharpness on Full Frame. Still, impressive.  Maybe this could be the Sweet Aperture for portraiture? where edges typically go soft in the Old Style.

f/5.6 Huh.  Not 1/2 bad across most of the field, though, actually, the edges are still a touch soft.  Eminently usable. Eminently.

f/8  Holy Flipp'n Moly dear Molly.  So _this_ is why people talk about Zeiss Tessar so lovingly.  This looks like an nicely corrected modern lens.  OK, then.  Early 1950's traditionally designed optics can still do it.  Glorious Sharpness with a sense of depth and heft.

f/11 As good as anything in the Toy Box.  Still ever more Glorious Sharpness with a sense of depth and heft and... and... OK... I'll stop now...

Found a keeper.  Finally.  When I least expected it.  Why did this take so long?  Oh well.  There's no use asking questions with no answer to.  

Did I mention the lens comes with a many bladed aperture?

 

 

Sony A7RII, Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 50mm f/2.8  

---------- Resources ------------

Does the tessar layout predate Zeiss' patent by 1/2 a century? 

Notes on the Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar

Notes on the humble tessar - with design suggestions