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 2.4/35 & Distagon 2.8/35. This review is relia
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:09 pm    Post subject: Flektogon 2.4/35 & Distagon 2.8/35. This review is relia Reply with quote
Distagon


Flektogon


Examples of photography I've seen, the Distagon I like more.
This review was not done with a full frame, where the Flek fall over in the edge. Crying or Very sad


PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I never understood why edge is important on most photos only center part contains important things. I am perfectly fine if edges are not super sharp Laughing


PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2010 6:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
I never understood why edge is important on most photos only center part contains important things. I am perfectly fine if edges are not super sharp Laughing


Attila, in my case is because the face of the models is always at the edges, more so if the frame is vertical. Crying or Very sad


PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2010 6:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
I never understood why edge is important on most photos only center part contains important things. I am perfectly fine if edges are not super sharp Laughing


You've never taken a landscape shot where you want the complete frame to be sharp?

This test was done on a 20D btw, so the corners are bound to be worse on fullframe.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2010 6:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
In terms of portrait, I agree to Attila, but if we are talking about lanscape photography edge performance is a matter for me.

I have a Flek 2.4/35 and also a 2.8/35 Distagon. I like both of them, I think the Distagon gives more even results with higher micro contast, but the Flek is 1/2 stop faster and has a very short minimun focussing distance so you can get down to 1:2 with it.
I often use Distagon for traveling and landscape but Flektogon for portrait-and macroworks and as walk-around lens.
So my conclusion is I definitly need both of them Wink.

Timo


PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2010 7:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think that the unsharp corners affect the sense of sharpness in totum.

When I wish a pic, I go to all the space of it. Corner to corner, Up and down, left and right. Not only to the interest center


PostPosted: Thu Dec 16, 2010 7:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Flek 2.4/35 is very sensitive to decentering of front group. I tried about 5 copies and two of them was very sharp in corners even wide open on 5D.
One copy was so bad, that the corners was not sharp even at f8. I opened it and realigned the front group just by my eyes and the lens then performed almost in line with the two best.

Here is crop from 5D top corner @f2.4 before aligment (JPEGs straight from camera, just for service purposes):


and @f2.4 after:


Anyway, my Color-Skoparex (Distagon) 2.8/35 for M42 is on the way and I will surely do some comparison.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Many Thanks, I open it right now.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It's simle. Unscrew entire front part with filter thread. There is tube where the front group is fixed with three small screws. With these screws you adjust position of the group. But be careful, you can make it even worse than it is.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes, I have the first photo taken before cleaning, and was very sharp, but was an element with a layer of oil. In backlight was very wrong. Then that changed.
After that I noticed that he lost sharp, the entire frame. Logically, it is more evident at the edges. Embarassed


PostPosted: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Before cleaning.



after cleaning
f 2.4



f 5.6




PostPosted: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
BRunner wrote:
Anyway, my Color-Skoparex (Distagon) 2.8/35 for M42 is on the way and I will surely do some comparison.


Just for the sake of clarity: the lenses for the Icarex cameras, namely the Skoparex, Ultron, Dynarex, Pantar etc. that bear the Zeiss name after the fusion of Voigtlaender within Zeiss Ikon, were actually (at least most of them) original Voigtlaender designs, and were produced in Braunschweig, not in Oberkochen.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Just for the sake of clarity: the lenses for the Icarex cameras, namely the Skoparex, Ultron, Dynarex, Pantar etc. that bear the Zeiss name after the fusion of Voigtlaender within Zeiss Ikon, were actually (at least most of them) original Voigtlaender designs, and were produced in Braunschweig, not in Oberkochen.

Mine is later Color-Skoparex made for VSL1 TM camera. Same lens as Rollei HTF Distagon 2.8/35.

Looks exactly like this, but with M42 mount. Not very common lens.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 16, 2010 2:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Are you sure that the Color-Skoparex 2.8/35 is identical to the Distagon 2.8/35?
Because I could never find an evidence of that.
My Zeiss book ("Fotocamere ed obiettivi Zeiss", by Pierpaolo Ghisetti and Danilo Cecchi, Reflex srl publisher, Rome, 1997), with regards to the Icarex cameras, states that:

Quote:
The standard lens for the Icarex camera is the Ultron 50mm f/1.8, labeled Carl Zeiss but built by Voigtlaender. The Ultron lenses were used on Voigtlaender cameras since more than 10 years before the launch of the Icarex, but in the version with 6 elements. In the f/1.8 version a seventh element is added, a frontal lens with concave surface(...) As alternatives(...) a Tessar 50mm f/2.8 signed Carl Zeiss and a more modest Color Pantar 50mm f/2.8 signed Zeiss Ikon, are offered. The lenses of different focal lenght are all instead signed Carl Zeiss, but are Voigtlaender productions, the Skoparex 3.4/35, Dynarex 3.4/90, Super Dynarex 4/135 all have the same optical design of the lenses in the Bessamatic catalogue, and to them a Super Dynarex 4/200 with four elements and a Telomar 5/400 are added (...)


(the underscores under the most relevant text are mine)

The VSL cameras have only a few short lines dedicated to them. Specifically about the VSL1 threadmount lenses, the book says:

Quote:
Along with the standard lens 50mm Ultron, now renamed Color-Ultron, two wides and three teles are introduced. The wides are the renewed Color Skoparex 35mm f/2.8 and a new Color Skoparex 25mm f/2.8, while the teles are three Color Dynarex: a new 2.8/85, the 4/135, and the 4/200. But the thread mount was considered obsolete, and the VSL1 are quickly replaced by the bayonet mount VSL2 and VSL3


(again, the underscores are mine)

After that, a nice graphical table is provided, that shows all the lenses for the Icarex and VSL cameras. If I have time later I will scan it. The table shows the following columns: lens name, lens focal lenght, mount, and optical scheme (as number of glass elements). For the Color Skoparex 35mm f/2.8, the table says that the scheme is "unknown".

Given the proven Voigtlaender origin of the Skoparex, Ultron, Dynarex lens schemes, the definition of the 2.8/35 Skoparex lens as "renewed" (which suggests a redesign of the original scheme more than a whole new lens, as for instance the 25mm Skoparex is called), and the fact that the 2.8/35 scheme is labeled "unknown", my guess is that there are chances that the lens is a Voigtlaender design. I think that if it was a Zeiss design, not only it would bear the Zeiss name, but the fact would be known and the authors of the book would have stated instead the number of glass elements of the Distagon lens (6).
_

Last edited by Orio on Thu Dec 16, 2010 2:17 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Dec 16, 2010 2:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
BRunner wrote:
Anyway, my Color-Skoparex (Distagon) 2.8/35 for M42 is on the way and I will surely do some comparison.


Just for the sake of clarity: the lenses for the Icarex cameras, namely the Skoparex, Ultron, Dynarex, Pantar etc. that bear the Zeiss name after the fusion of Voigtlaender within Zeiss Ikon, were actually (at least most of them) original Voigtlaender designs, and were produced in Braunschweig, not in Oberkochen.


Designs that aren't voigtlander

1- Ultron 1,8/50 (zeiss modified vigtlander's design)

2- Pantar 2,8/50 (triplet Ikon's design)

3- Tessar 2,8/50 - Zeiss design

4- Super Dynarex 4/200 (zeiss modified the voigtlñander's design)

5- Telomar 5/400 (zeiss design)

Rino


PostPosted: Thu Dec 16, 2010 2:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
BRunner wrote:
Orio wrote:
Just for the sake of clarity: the lenses for the Icarex cameras, namely the Skoparex, Ultron, Dynarex, Pantar etc. that bear the Zeiss name after the fusion of Voigtlaender within Zeiss Ikon, were actually (at least most of them) original Voigtlaender designs, and were produced in Braunschweig, not in Oberkochen.

Mine is later Color-Skoparex made for VSL1 TM camera. Same lens as Rollei HTF Distagon 2.8/35.

Looks exactly like this, but with M42 mount. Not very common lens.


As it doesn't say AR, it's a zeiss lens. AR= mamiya ones.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 16, 2010 2:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The book by Hartmut Thiele, Fabrikationsbuch Photooptik III Carl Zeiss Oberkochen does not list any Skoparex or Color-Skoparex lens. Of course, this does not prove that the Color-Skoparex 2.8/35 is not the Distagon 2.8/35, it only proves that the Color-Skoparex was not built by Zeiss Oberkochen (which was imaginable anyway, since the lens is branded Voigtlaender).

Do you have any link (that is not mere speculation) with some evidence or reasoning that the Color-Skoparex 2.8/35 and the Distagon 2.8/35 are the same lens?

P.S. note that the Thiele book does list the Icarex TM Tessar 2.8/50 (which is labeled Carl Zeiss).


PostPosted: Thu Dec 16, 2010 4:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Our member Frank Mechelhoff is one of the sources here.

Another source is Captain Jack page.

But the most important are the similarities between the lenses.
They look exactly the same, except the name plate ring engraving.






Voigtländer QBM = Rollei/Zeiss QBM
25/2.8 Color-Skoparex = 25/2.8 Distagon
35/2.8 Color-Skoparex = 35/2.8 Distagon
50/1.8 Color-Ultron = 50/1.8 Planar
85/2.8 Color-Dynarex = 85/2.8 Sonnar
135/2.8 Color-Dynarex = 135/2.8 Sonnar
135/4 Color-Dynarex = 135/4 Tele-Tessar
200/4 Color-Dynarex = 200/4 Tele-Tessar

Most of the Voigtländer versions was probably made in Singapore.

I know, that these existed in M42 mount:
Zeiss 25/2.8 Distagon (on the way to me)
Voigtländer 35/2.8 Color-Skoparex (on the way to me)
Voigtländer 50/1.8 Color-Ultron (I own one, it's common lens)
Voigtländer 85/2.8 Color-Dynarex (saw on eBay)
Voigtländer 135/4 Color-Dynarex (saw on eBay)
Voigtländer 200/4 Color-Dynarex (saw on eBay)

You even discussed this here in 2007


PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
BRunner wrote:
Flek 2.4/35 is very sensitive to decentering of front group. I tried about 5 copies and two of them was very sharp in corners even wide open on 5D.
One copy was so bad, that the corners was not sharp even at f8. I opened it and realigned the front group just by my eyes and the lens then performed almost in line with the two best.

Here is crop from 5D top corner @f2.4 before aligment (JPEGs straight from camera, just for service purposes):


and @f2.4 after:


Anyway, my Color-Skoparex (Distagon) 2.8/35 for M42 is on the way and I will surely do some comparison.



Today I opened my Flek CZJ, and did not find three screws that align the frontal element. Speaking with my technician friend, he says to me that the lens that brings them and in the last group, is the montura Pakticar.
Is it your lens CZJ Flektogon 35/2.4?
Or Prakticar 35/2.4
Many thanks.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 5:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Mine is M42 CZJ Flektogon. The Prakticar lenses are probably different build. But I don´t own one.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 1:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Flektogon 35/2.4 MC
My conclusion in last instance is that the lens has little depth of field. This gives him bokeh beautifully.
To focus persons is a problem, if they move, more.
Crying or Very sad
Already I sold it. I regret being so far away so it impedes me to buy lenses that here are not obtained.
Crying or Very sad Crying or Very sad Crying or Very sad


PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
BRunner wrote:
Flek 2.4/35 is very sensitive to decentering of front group. I tried about 5 copies and two of them was very sharp in corners even wide open on 5D.
One copy was so bad, that the corners was not sharp even at f8. I opened it and realigned the front group just by my eyes and the lens then performed almost in line with the two best.

Here is crop from 5D top corner @f2.4 before aligment (JPEGs straight from camera, just for service purposes):


and @f2.4 after:


Anyway, my Color-Skoparex (Distagon) 2.8/35 for M42 is on the way and I will surely do some comparison.


i have fixed my copy but it is not been a simple operation...


PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Does the performance rival a Distagon now, as per the test results at the start of the thread? I've owned several Fleks and they've not come close to my Distagon at infinity.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
My copy of the CZJ Flek 35 2.4 MC is just great! I love it sooo much. I was lucky to find it in very good condition from first owner with only one service procedure years ago made by a pro(only relubricating). I found it for a price that makes me feel guilty and without wishes to sell it.

So I have tried it on 16MP APS-C sensor - it is great, 21MP FF sensor - the same story. It is soft wide open in corners but equally and not unusable, closed down to F8.0-11 makes it great on every sensor center to corner.
But what I really like about it is the close focus and its ability to stay sharp even at F16 or even F22. Colors and contrast are great too, flek and Pancolar are my favorites about colors and contrast - not too much contrast but enough with good graduations, great colors - so natural... So overall - great lens!
I had Pentax FA 35 2.0 for a while and sold it fast after comparing it with the flek.

PS another thing - 35mm 2.4... more likely 37mm 2.2, it is longer than 35mm and a little more faster than 2.4.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
AhamB wrote:
You've never taken a landscape shot where you want the complete frame to be sharp?


Landscape shots aren't normally taken wide-open (at least not by me), so I am guessing that both of these lenses would be good for the outdoors.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2