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 every 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 bring 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
No comments:
Post a Comment