"Cheap, noisy, rough, crude; above all, cheap !"

lucius · Joined: 11 Apr 2014 Posts: 38

A few days ago I got an unsolicited email from a 'friend photographer' containing these words :
"Cheap, noisy, rough, crude; above all, cheap !"
He felt the need to share his expertise about a lens I am using. No, is not about one of my Takumars, where I could be really subjective ( see my signature and LBA)
It's about Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar 50mm 1.8, 8 blades version.

It made me stop for a moment and think what I'm doing wrong.
Obviously I got a cheap lens and you can't take good pictures using that!
Yes, I need a real Carl Zeiss lens, or Leica ?
Is $2000 is a minimum required to spend for a lens so people don't laugh at you outside? or even online???

Do we really need an expensive lens to take a good picture?

This made me mount my cheap, rough, crude, noisy lens on a Canon T3i and go outside and shoot ! Lucky me I didn't meet any soccer mom or grandma with some PRO Canon ( Nikon) body and L series lens. So I start USING the lens I had in my hands. I wanted to know if I can make a decent photograph. What I am looking for? Sharpness, colour rendition, bokeh, etc.? No, I was just observing nature around me and shooting what I can see.

This is how I recorded two moments :
2 pictures using Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar 50mm 1.8 ( 8 blades). If you are like me and see anything you might like ( sharpness, colours, bokeh, etc) it is just an accident because we all know you need an expensive lens to take good pictures !

Have a good day, enjoy your cheap lenses ( but don't blame me for late night online shopping ).

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

I have a 24mp FF Sony a850 and have tried at least 50 lenses on it. In the top 5 is my Pancolar MC 1.8/50, it absolutes beats the pants of all of my expensive modern AF zoom lenses in sharpness, macro contrast, micro contrast, character and a few other parameters.

In short, a good old prime lens is still more than equal to the task of matching a modern high density sensor.

I like your shots, they show the quality of the lens.

vlousada · Joined: 11 Dec 2010 Posts: 345 Location: Portugal

You can replay back and also add "radioactive"! Laughing

(8-blade zebra right? which serial?)

Btw, the images are fantastic!

lucius · Joined: 11 Apr 2014 Posts: 38

lucius · Joined: 11 Apr 2014 Posts: 38

WNG555 · Joined: 18 Dec 2014 Posts: 784 Location: Arrid-Zone-A, USA

FYI:

I had Faved your photo on flickr earlier today as it simply grabbed my attention. Lovely image and results. This is before discovering your thread right now.

I love discovering bargain lenses that perform and/or have something truly special. I usually zone out people who regurgitate, "you got to buy this, or that....it's the best, it cost me xxxxx.xx." There are many excellent lenses out there, and best/latest lens is not going to produce a great photo if the photographer is a clueless hack. It will always be more about the photographer than the glass.

Euro class snobbery will always exist.

newst · Joined: 21 Oct 2014 Posts: 617 Location: Troy, MI USA

The Pancolar is an excellent 50, very sharp, good bokeh, good color rendition and great close focus capacity. It is a lens I have never been tempted to sell.

IAZA · Joined: 16 Apr 2010 Posts: 2587 Location: Indonesia

That's nice picture for sure.
Pancolar 50/1,8 actually not so cheap, unless you got it bargain deal.
Many other cheaper SLR lenses around. including enlarger lenses, projector lenses etc.

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas

Brilliant photos -- but what Iaza said. On this side of the pond, Pancolors are rare. I just took a quick look on eBay. Three Pancolor 50mm f/2s, not 1.8s, are listed right now, all of them for right about $200. One f/1.8 from the UK for $122.

Now, you may call that cheap, but I sure as hell don't. One of my sharpest 50m lenses is a Yashica DX 50/1.7 in M42 that I paid a whopping $10 for. I'll bet my 55mm f/1.8 SMC Talkumars are just as sharp and cost me next to nothing compared to those eBay prices. I probably have at least a dozen lenses in the 50-58mm range, and all are excellent. Probably on par with that Pancolor. There is one I own that might be worth what those are selling for, and that would be my Canon FD 55mm f/1.2 SSC. Actually it's worth quite a bit more. But that's ok, I have the FL version as well, and it would probably sell for around $200. But I ain't selling it.

Be all that as it may, I agree with the gist of the argument. Substitute a cheap but good and commonly found lens over here in the States for the Pancolor -- say an old Super Tak 50mm f/1.8 or even f/2 -- and you'd have the same exact situation. The Leica snobs and L and ED snobs would look down, or at least askance, at such lowly offerings. I've seen it. Hell, I've experienced it! But let 'em be -- until they see the results. And then an appropriate jab or two might be in order. Proof is in the pudding and all that, ain't it? Cool

lucius · Joined: 11 Apr 2014 Posts: 38

lucius · Joined: 11 Apr 2014 Posts: 38

TrueLoveOne · Expire: 2013-12-24

Pancolar lenses fetch around 100 euros in the Netherlands as well. Not an amount anybody would "just spend" on an old piece of glass....

Canon EF 1.8/50 (yes it's an AF lens) is also well known for it's performance (the plastic fantastic) and goes second hand for around 65 euros. Sure the old Pancolar has more character, but the average photographer would choose this one above the manual antique!
And that is good, if they'd all want a Pancolar prices would even go up more!

If you want really, really, dirt-cheap, peanuts-money glass that performs: Pentacon 1.8/50! Mass-produced, can be had for 2-5 euros at thrift stores or fleamarkets, there's always an old Praktica around somewhere with a Pentacon on it.....
I must say though: they do suffer some copy-variation.

Check some of my samples with it: https://www.flickr.com/photos/chantalrene/sets/72157630432051760

Here's a straight out of camera JPG with my Jena Pancolar zebra 8-blade copy:

Rose by Ren� Maly, on Flickr

WNG555 · Joined: 18 Dec 2014 Posts: 784 Location: Arrid-Zone-A, USA

Another gorgeously colored and detailed photo!
A 500 to 1000 Euro/Dollar lens isn't going to do much better.

I love my Takumars too, and have to concur about Yashica. Since discovering Yashinon DS and DX, they are excellent and affordable, and began a quest for more Tomioka gems. They've yielded some very satisfying images. Great Japanese alternatives to Nikkor.

As pointed out even old CZJ glasss is pricey hear. Only found a telephoto for LTM for a bargain recently. Russian lenses are my next destination.

Oldhand · Posted: Fri May 29, 2015 9:57 am Post subject:

Pancolars are simply outstanding and while technique is always a winner, technique with a Pancolar is a joy.
I think that this lens has well and truly been "discovered" and often goes for silly money.
On the other hand some do not attract the same attention and can be found for not much money if the buyer is patient - particularly the f2 which is wonderful.
Thanks for sharing these lovely images
OH

tb_a · Expire: 2019-08-28

One should not forget that those lenses are mechanically far below "western" standards. Though some of them are superior in terms of optical quality, the aperture and the focusing mechanism may be crap or even nor working. I am already fed up of GDR lenses and would not pay much more than 10 Euro per lens. So it's more or less a matter of luck if you get a lens which is fully in order and remains in such condition for more than a few months. At least that is my (unlucky) experience. I would never ever pay the usual "market-prices" like on Ebay for such lenses.
Just my 2 Cents.

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

I had a Summicron-R 2/50 for a while and I agree with Michael - it's nothing special.

A quick list of lenses I felt were the Summi's equal:

Topcon RE Auto Topcor 1.8/58
Konica Hexanon 1.7/50
Minolta MD 1.7/50
Olympus Zuiko MC 1.8/50
Carl Zeiss Jena MC Pancolar 1.8/50
Zenitar M2S 2/50
Petri 1.8/55
EBC Fujinon 1.8/55
Rollei Planar HFT 1.8/50

Also, the better made of these lenses such as the Topcor and Hexanon felt every bit as well built as the Summi.

tb_a · Expire: 2019-08-28

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

My topcor 1.858 is getting a sticky iris, it's oil on the blades. One day I'll open it and clean the oil off. It's hardly unusual, my Minolta AF 1.7/50 has the same issue, as does my Zeiss Planar 1.4/50 HFT.

I agree about the GDR lenses, but some are definitely better than others. The late Zeiss production in B mount tends to be pretty resilient, I think a large part of the issue with 60s and 70s GDR lenses is the lubricant used - over time it breaks down resulting in stiff focus and sticky irises.

tb_a · Expire: 2019-08-28

lucius · Joined: 11 Apr 2014 Posts: 38

I was reading some comments and I think I should add:

First, when the word ' cheap' is used I don't feel it was about the value of this particular lens, was more of way to snob and I'm pretty sure that was the intent.
Yes, we can discuss here the $ value, for some people is too much, but that's the market now. Maybe lots of people start discovering it and loving it.

I never mentioned anything about this lens (mechanical and optical or price I paid). I just wanted to show the images I took with this lens, without words, just pure results.

tb_a ( Thomas Bernardy ) said Eastern Germany lenses are " mechanically far below "western" standards".
I can't talk about other lenses, but I know about this Pancolar because I repaired it ! I know this lens from A to Z, every single screw and element was removed, cleaned, and put back together. Including the helicoid !
I was not an expert in repairing lenses so believe me it was lots of sweating in the process ( specially the helicoid OMG).

So...I have to admit, mechanically is... not the best ( to say it nicely).... You can't compare it even to old Takumars.
But, optically it shines ! At least for me.

In the end, what is important for you? mechanical, optical qualities or price? or all of them?

For me... I can hold a piece of cellophane in front of my sensor and if that one gives me good results, that's my ' expensive' lens Very Happy

bernhardas · Expire: 2017-05-23

edited

lucius · Joined: 11 Apr 2014 Posts: 38

tb_a · Expire: 2019-08-28

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas

It seems that we're all pretty much in agreement on at least one thing: we use the lenses we want to use because we like the way they behave. Period. Whether expensive or not doesn't matter. Results matter.

Regarding bernhadas's question as to how can a lens be noisy, well I guess I'd have to state it's all a matter of degree. I have a lens I perceive to be noisy -- and a bit on the rough side as well. It's a Tamron 60-300 and when I rotate the zoom collar to focus it, I've always heard a mild grinding noise. And I could feel it as well. I've had 60-300s apart before, so I decided to dismantle the lens and see if I could find the source of the grinding. And you know what? I had the lens disassembled to its smallest component parts and I couldn't find any obvious source for the noise and roughness. I was expecting to find sand in the helical, but it was perfectly clean. But anyway, as long as I had it apart, I completely cleaned the lens and relubed it, and then reassembled it. And guess what? The grinding was still there. So, frustrated, I just surrendered to the possibility that some lenses are just born noisy.