Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Flektogon 20: f/4 or f/2.8?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Flektogon 20: f/4 or f/2.8?
4/20
69%
 69%  [ 16 ]
2.8/20
30%
 30%  [ 7 ]
Total Votes : 23



PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 7:41 am    Post subject: Flektogon 20: f/4 or f/2.8? Reply with quote
Hello guys!

I have just very recently discovered the world of manual lenses, and I'm waiting for the M42-EOS adapter to arrive. I'm looking after a super wide angle lense, and a friend of mine has a Flektogon 4/20.

I was thinking of getting the newer and faster 2.8/20 - I like the shallow DOF even with wide-angle, and the construction seems more solid and compact. But after reading a few threads here on mflenses.com, it looks like the older (and cheaper!) 4/20 is superior? I've seen a few sample 2.8/20 shots on an eBay auction, and I could see a worrying amount of barrel distortion, and that's exactly where 4/20 should be excellent.

But how do the 2 compare when it comes to sharpness, and how does 4/20 handle flare? Not having MC (unlike 2.8/20) this is what worries me the most - does it have any visible impact on picture quality?

I need to mention that I would be probably using this lens only for B&W (and maybe infrared) film photography (full-frame coverage). Are there any 20mm M42 lenses (in the same price range on used market) to check out?

Thanks!
Rado


PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 8:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hello and welcome to the forum Smile!
There are indeed a few alternatives in M42 ... not sure about
the "same price range", though Smile.

Tokina 17/3.5
Chinon Tomioka 21/3.5
Yashinon-DX 21/3.3
Yashinon-DS 20/3.3


PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 8:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hello and welcome!

A Flek 20mm thread? Hmm... that's bread for my teeth. Wink Ok I'll reply to your questions one by one.

Quote:
I was thinking of getting the newer and faster 2.8/20 - I like the shallow DOF even with wide-angle


in 99% of the cases you will not notice any practical difference in the DOF. A 20mm lens has such a deep DOF naturally, that it makes the distinction for most part theoretical. It's enough fo focus at, like, 1mt distance, for the difference to be almost completely zeroed. You will only notice a small difference if you focus objects very close (like 30cms). But the amount of distortion you get with close focusing with a 20mm lens is such that, if you're not after a grotesque effect, you will always want to use a 28mm or 35mm for macro work.

Quote:
and the construction seems more solid and compact.


This is partly true. It's true that the 4/20 has weaker construction. On the other hand, I would not classify the 2.8/20 as "solid". It's still a Jena lens of the 70s and 80s, and as such, prone to mechanical problems

Quote:
I've seen a few sample 2.8/20 shots on an eBay auction, and I could see a worrying amount of barrel distortion, and that's exactly where 4/20 should be excellent.


I would not say that the 2.8/20 has worrying distortion, it's still better than most brands competition (have you tried a Nikkor wideangle, distortion wise?). But yes it has some, and yes the 4/20 has virtually zero distortion. So if architecture photography is your goal, your only choice is the 4/20. In a test I read some time ago, it was proven better (distortion wise) than the Distagon 21mm, which is reputed the best 20mm lens ever made.

Quote:
But how do the 2 compare when it comes to sharpness


I would not define either of them as a sharpness champion. If you want a sharp 20mm lens, buy a Nikkor. The Fleks have sufficient sharpness for most use, but if sharpness is critical, I would choose another lens. As for compared to each other, well, both of them are soft wide open. I feel that the 4/20 gets sharper faster, as it's useable already at 5.6 (note I said "useable", not "good"), while the 2.8/20 seems to take more (it also becomes useable at 5.6). I am of the impression that compared to the 4/20 the 2.8/20 may be some sharper in the centre, but for sure, it is weaker in the corners. While I would not mind too much corner performance on a portrait lens, for the way I see the super wide angle photography, I prefer a more uniform rendition.

Quote:
how does 4/20 handle flare? Not having MC (unlike 2.8/20) this is what worries me the most - does it have any visible impact on picture quality


Not bad (unless you point straight to the sun), but the 2.8/20 is surely stronger on this point.
Again, if you like shooting against the sun, I would advice a Nikkor 20mm., which for flare control is better than both Fleks.

Quote:
Are there any 20mm M42 lenses (in the same price range on used market) to check out?


Well let's first say that the 4/20 and the 2.8/20 are not in the same price range themselves to start with. The 2.8/20 costing on average almost twice than the 4/20.

As for other lenses, the only ones I know cost much more. The Nikkor UD 3.5/20costs around 300 Euros and it's hardly found in Europe. The Nikkor 2.8/20mm costs even more. The Distagon 18mm costs around 500-600 Euros and the Zuiko 18mm (proved to be the best 18mm lens) costs even more. I don't know about the Zuiko 20mm (or was it 21mm?).

Good and cheap alternatives are the Russian MIRs.
The MIR-20 has excellent colour saturation, but quite a lot of distortion and some flare problem too. Costing around EUR 100, I rate it best buy for nature photography, or generic landscape photography, but for architecture, I would not choose it.
The MIR-47 is faster and also reported to be better for flare, but I never had the chance to try it, so I can not comment about it.

You may find other 20mm lenses in the cheaper range from more consumer Japanese brands, but I would be very careful about distortion, corner rendition and chromatic aberration (the latter maybe not being as important since you intend to shoot greyscale).


PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 10:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Regarding the Flek 4/20's lack of distortion, I can only echo Orio's comments - it's pretty much unbeatable for architecture. The mighty Distagon 21 has "moustache" distortion and this makes it a bit more difficult to straighten out and because of this, any "adjustment" will almost certainly impact on it's IQ.

As for sharpness, again, I agree with Orio - it's not the sharpest and for me, only really starts to hit the spot from about f11, however it still isn't the sharpest even at that, although to be fair, it's more than acceptable. It is one of the few lenses however that doesn't seem to have it's IQ affected too much if you stop it down even further.

I've taken test shots with mine at f11 on FF digital and it was only the extreme corners that weren't quite there - overall though it was OK to me and responded well to a bit of sharpening although YMMV re IQ.

I've never owned the 2.8 so can't comment on it.

Although I've never shot B&W with mine, since the lens was designed at a time when B&W film was pretty dominant, I reckon you'd be very pleased with any images shot using the 4/20 and B&W. They'd have a classic charm all of their own IMO and with that "Zeiss" look too. Cool


PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 11:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hi!

I do not know any of these lenses, well, I know them but I have never used them.

All I have heard (or read) is that the f2.8 is not really better than the f4, some even say the f4 is the better lens.
Anyway, I would not pay a considerable amount more just for the f2.8, which actually is only one step.
I can't imagine when you need an f2.8 with such a wide angle...

So, I vote for the f4.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 2:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you for all your responses (and votes), and Orio, thank you for being so detailed. Your replies actually helped me more than anything else I read on these lenses before!

When I talked about the shallow DOF, I sometimes just like to play, I know that only a very close focus would get shallow DOF with a lens as wide as this one, and that it's not the best choice for macro. I'm also a bit on budget right now - I'd like to get a used DSLR body later this year.

I plan to be using this for a mix of architecture and landscape photography on my film body only, so I'll be looking after the Flektogon 4/20 or perhaps the MIR 20B on eBay.

A friend of mine has the Flektogon 4/20, so I'll try if he'd be willing to borrow it for my upcoming trip to Netherlands. Smile

Thank you again!
Rado


PostPosted: Sun May 18, 2008 3:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I bought a 4/20 and used it in B&W - xp2 super-. Great pictures. Only in the extremes corners is soft (very, endeed). But the contrast is good, "0" distortions and very good sharpness at the center at F/11, and remember that I used the film at iso 400. With the distortion "0", the perspective is very interesant, to look the old things in a new way. I'm happy with it.


PostPosted: Sun May 18, 2008 4:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
An interesting url :

http://foto.recenzja.pl/Subjects-index-req-listpages-subid-1.html

have a look on Cosinon 3,8/20 and Flek 2,8 and 4 tests .

I have the f/2,8 , a Mir-47K and a Panagor 4/21 (huge distorsion at FA) The Mir has quite the same distorsion than the Flek .

Other surprises among these tests ...


PostPosted: Sun May 18, 2008 4:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks Helios. I had read this and I have the same results. Although the numbers are not everything........,no? Remember the summilux M (all of them have a poor resolutions numbers at F/1,4 and F/ 2, but the quality of their shots, well....) The same with the elmar 50 F/3,5. And in the cheapest side, the jupiter 9, the mamiya (tomioka) 55 1,4 (not the sears 1,2, please) have so-so numbers but great bokeh.
The artistic acts are not based in numbers, but in taste, emotions, work, no?


PostPosted: Sun May 18, 2008 10:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't like lens tests in terms of absolute sharpness and contrast . My preferred lenses are often "so-so" lenses , or "frankenstein" homebrew lenses (copyright dickb Very Happy ) , especially for portrait and landscape . A very hard contrasted lens is quite unusable for these two purposes. Let's try to decrease contrast and saturation ! Very difficult . Yet , it is easier to increase ... And I don't forget that the weak elements in the image production are at the end ... Sensor , final medium (paper, screen, projector ...) and the eyes . I don't worry a lot on lines per mm . The normal negative films gave 60 l/mm , kodachrome 100/120, the best sensors 130.
Very hard to have a final result over 50 ....


PostPosted: Sun May 18, 2008 10:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Why not take both ? They are lovely lens, nice to have them.


PostPosted: Mon May 19, 2008 1:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Some Panagor 4/21 pics ...









Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1