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

New SLR - tired of my Praktica BMS and Prakticar Lenses
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2020 12:02 am    Post subject: New SLR - tired of my Praktica BMS and Prakticar Lenses Reply with quote
I have a Praktica BMS and Pentacon 50mm 1.8 (made in IOR) and made in GDR 135mm 2.8. The 135m has pretty significant barrel distortion, is pretty sharp in the center but I don't really like the rendering. 50mm I rarely use.

What's a good SLR I can base a system around, with the best 135mm lens possible?

I'm thinking about a Nikon F2 system or Nikkormat, how are the Nikon 135mm AIS lenses?

Budget maybe $150 for the whole thing.

Any suggestions welcome! I'm not happy with the legendary Prakticar lenses, I think my copies aren't that great, maybe QC issues.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2020 12:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Get a Prakticar 3.5/135, it's a Zeiss Sonnar and probably the best 135 in the price bracket.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2020 12:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The best 135mm possible.

Should be Canon EF or Nikon, and get a 135mm f/2 from either system. Those or Pentax and match it with a Zeiss or Samyang kit.

Lets say Canon EOS 33, Nikon F80 or Pentax K1000


PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2020 1:40 pm    Post subject: Re: New SLR - tired of my Praktica BMS and Prakticar Lenses Reply with quote
Forest_rain wrote:
... made in GDR 135mm 2.8. The 135m has pretty significant barrel distortion...

Strange, the Pentacon 135mm F2.8 has almost no distortion. Besides, telephoto lenses suffer from pincushion, not barrel distortion.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2020 6:18 pm    Post subject: Re: New SLR - tired of my Praktica BMS and Prakticar Lenses Reply with quote
Forest_rain wrote:
I have a Praktica BMS and Pentacon 50mm 1.8 (made in IOR) and made in GDR 135mm 2.8. The 135m has pretty significant barrel distortion, is pretty sharp in the center but I don't really like the rendering. 50mm I rarely use.
What's a good SLR I can base a system around, with the best 135mm lens possible?
I'm thinking about a Nikon F2 system or Nikkormat, how are the Nikon 135mm AIS lenses?
Budget maybe $150 for the whole thing.
Any suggestions welcome! I'm not happy with the legendary Prakticar lenses, I think my copies aren't that great, maybe QC issues.


My Practicar MC 2.8/135mm (M42, last generation) looks beautiful, but performs quite poorly; it seems to be decentered quite badly.

If you want a camera plus lens for <150 USD, then the Nikon F2 may be difficult.
However, the Nikon FE / FE2 series are very reliable cameras, and they have all you need: Manual operation, A-mode (aperture preselect, automatic shutter), and even the 1/250s flash synchro speed (FE2 only). I got my FE & 2.8/24mm Nikkor for 45.--, and the FE2 for 30.--. Both in like new condition.


iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Get a Prakticar 3.5/135, it's a Zeiss Sonnar and probably the best 135 in the price bracket.

I've had two of those (actually the "Sonnar" labelled version), and both were decentered. One corner perfectly sharp, the other not so. Tested with three different adapters on two different systems (A7 and A900 SLR).

blotafton wrote:
The best 135mm possible.
Should be Canon EF or Nikon, and get a 135mm f/2 from either system. Those or Pentax and match it with a Zeiss or Samyang kit.
Lets say Canon EOS 33, Nikon F80 or Pentax K1000

The best possible 135mm is probably the Sony (=Minolta) Master G 1.8/135mm. Check Roger Cicalas measurements. Other very good 135mm lenses are the Zeiss ZA 1.8/135mm, the Zeiss 2/135mm APO, the Zeiss (=Tamron) Batis 2.8/135mm and probably several modern fast 135mm lenses from othe manufacturers. I am pretty sure the Canon EF and the Nikkor 2/135mm will be outperformed by those mentioned before.

Gerald wrote:
Forest_rain wrote:
... made in GDR 135mm 2.8. The 135m has pretty significant barrel distortion...

Strange, the Pentacon 135mm F2.8 has almost no distortion. Besides, telephoto lenses suffer from pincushion, not barrel distortion.

True.



Now let's look at some vintage MF 135mm lenses.

1) the fast ones: Canon nFD 2/135mm, Minolta MD 2/135mm, Nikkor Ai/AiS 2/135mm: Performing quite similarly, all beautiful portrait lenses. Soft wide open, visible CAs stopped down. Incredible bokeh. Too expensive (usually >200.-- for the Canon, >250 for the Nikkor and >800 for the Minolta)

2) the f2.8 group: Typical "budget" lenses at their time. Newer lenses (1980) usually sharper than earlier ones (1960-1970). I have just re-check a few well known samples - see image below.



All information below is valid for 24MP FF cameras.

* Zeiss Jena Prakticar MC 2.8/135mm (M42): My sample is de-centered; corners not sharp even at f5.6
* Zeiss Jena Sonnar MC 2.8/135mm (M42): My two samples were de-centered; corner could be sharp in a good sample, very little CAs
* Leica Elmarit-R 2.8/135mm (II): very heavy (730g), extremely well made and a joy to work with, slightly missing details in the corners (field curvature?)
* Minolta MC/MD 2.8/135mm [4/4]: heavy (515g), very well made, wide open slightly missing details in the corners
* Minolta MD-III 2.8/135mm [5/5]: Lightweight (about 380g). Nearly as good as the legendary MC/MD [4/4]
* Zeiss Oberkochen Sonnar CY 2.8/135mm: perfectly sharp corners at f2.8, stopping down to f5.6 increases only the contrast. Little CAs (slightly more than the Jena Sonnar 3.5/135mm)
* Zeiss Oberkochen Vario-Sonnar 4/80-200mm @ f=135mm: Clearly the best performance of all lenses in my list. No CAs at all (even less than the Jena Sonnar 3.5/135mm), nearly no distortion, high contrast wide open and at f5.6. Heavy.

All the lenses mentioned in this list I got for <150 USD. Zeiss Sonnar 2.8/135mm and Leica Elmarit 2.8/135mm were the most expensive at 120 CHF/USD/EUR. Since I recently got a Leica R3 and a Leica R4 for CHF 50.--, this means you could get a Leica & 135mm for <200 USD these days ... or a Zeiss CY Sonnar 2.8/135mm plus a Contax RTS ... However, from a reliability point of view, the Nikon FE/FE2/F2/F3 are hard to beat. Canon F-1 or New F-1 might be an option, too, but they would be at least 150.-- to 250.-- camera only.

Also good options:
* Konica Hexanon 2.5/135mm and 3.2/135mm: A bit soft wide open, but very sharp and very little CAs at f5.6.
* Canon FD 2.8/135mm: Comparable to Minolta MD-III 2.8/135mm. Colors a bit dull.

Not recommended:
* Enna 2.8/135mm
* Topcor RE 3.5/135mm (corners not sharp, similar to Prakticar 2.8/135mm)
* Mamiya CS/E 2.8/135mm (sharp, but lots of CAs)

I do know neither the 3.5/135mm and the 2.8/135mm Nikkors, nor the corresponding Takumars - but I'm sure others will join with their experience!

Stephan


PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2020 6:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Three very good 135mm lenses IMO:
- Mamiya SX 135/2.8
- Konica Hexanon 135/3.2
- Nikkor Ai(s) 135/2.8


PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2020 6:54 pm    Post subject: Re: New SLR - tired of my Praktica BMS and Prakticar Lenses Reply with quote
Forest_rain wrote:
how are the Nikon 135mm AIS lenses?


Superb.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2020 7:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
There is copy variation in the East German lenses. I have two identical 2.8/135s, the M42 electric version with close serial numbers. One is sharp at f2.8 and has no clearly visible CA at f4, the other doesn't get sharp until f5.6 and has clearly visible CA until f5.6. You can guess which one I use and which is kept for spare parts.

I have three copies of the Prakticar 3.5/135 and all three are excellent, then again, I'm not obsessed with the extreme corners.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2020 8:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:

I have three copies of the Prakticar 3.5/135 and all three are excellent, then again, I'm not obsessed with the extreme corners.




The differences i observe between the corners of my 3.5/135mm CZJ Sonnar are quite pronounced. See image above: Two 100% croips from the extreme corners of a 24 MP FF JPG (Sona A7II). Same problem with my first sample which I don't own any more.

I just have checked my 3.5/135mm CZJ Sonnar with two different adapters again. Same result. Either all three adapters I have (two M42 => Sony E and one M42 => Sony/Minolta A) are defective, or both my Sonnars were decentered.

I have two CZJ Sonnars 4/13.5 cm (a wartime uncoated for Contax RF and a postwar with Praktina bayonet). Both are very good lenses, without obvious decentering, but with LoCAs typical for these older Sonnar designs.

S


PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
There are M42 to Praktica Bayonet adapters, I don;t know if they achieve infinity though.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:38 pm    Post subject: Re: New SLR - tired of my Praktica BMS and Prakticar Lenses Reply with quote
Quote:

The best possible 135mm is probably the Sony (=Minolta) Master G 1.8/135mm. Check Roger Cicalas measurements. Other very good 135mm lenses are the Zeiss ZA 1.8/135mm, the Zeiss 2/135mm APO, the Zeiss (=Tamron) Batis 2.8/135mm and probably several modern fast 135mm lenses from othe manufacturers. I am pretty sure the Canon EF and the Nikkor 2/135mm will be outperformed by those mentioned before.


They should be better, forgot about them.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2020 10:57 am    Post subject: Re: New SLR - tired of my Praktica BMS and Prakticar Lenses Reply with quote
blotafton wrote:
Quote:

The best possible 135mm is probably the Sony (=Minolta) Master G 1.8/135mm. Check Roger Cicalas measurements. Other very good 135mm lenses are the Zeiss ZA 1.8/135mm, the Zeiss 2/135mm APO, the Zeiss (=Tamron) Batis 2.8/135mm and probably several modern fast 135mm lenses from othe manufacturers. I am pretty sure the Canon EF and the Nikkor 2/135mm will be outperformed by those mentioned before.


They should be better, forgot about them.


Can you elaborate on that a bit more? That sounds really strange to me, since we have printed large landscape images e. g. taken with the ZA 1.8/135mm @ f1.8. Perfect results, people couldn't believe the images were taken wide open. And the (newer) Zeiss 2/135mm is even better, let alone the Master G 1.8/135mm!


PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2020 11:31 am    Post subject: Re: New SLR - tired of my Praktica BMS and Prakticar Lenses Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
blotafton wrote:
Quote:

The best possible 135mm is probably the Sony (=Minolta) Master G 1.8/135mm. Check Roger Cicalas measurements. Other very good 135mm lenses are the Zeiss ZA 1.8/135mm, the Zeiss 2/135mm APO, the Zeiss (=Tamron) Batis 2.8/135mm and probably several modern fast 135mm lenses from othe manufacturers. I am pretty sure the Canon EF and the Nikkor 2/135mm will be outperformed by those mentioned before.


They should be better, forgot about them.


Can you elaborate on that a bit more? That sounds really strange to me, since we have printed large landscape images e. g. taken with the ZA 1.8/135mm @ f1.8. Perfect results, people couldn't believe the images were taken wide open. And the (newer) Zeiss 2/135mm is even better, let alone the Master G 1.8/135mm!


I am agreeing with your quoted statement above.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2020 4:13 pm    Post subject: Re: New SLR - tired of my Praktica BMS and Prakticar Lenses Reply with quote
blotafton wrote:
stevemark wrote:
blotafton wrote:
Quote:

The best possible 135mm is probably the Sony (=Minolta) Master G 1.8/135mm. Check Roger Cicalas measurements. Other very good 135mm lenses are the Zeiss ZA 1.8/135mm, the Zeiss 2/135mm APO, the Zeiss (=Tamron) Batis 2.8/135mm and probably several modern fast 135mm lenses from othe manufacturers. I am pretty sure the Canon EF and the Nikkor 2/135mm will be outperformed by those mentioned before.


They should be better, forgot about them.


Can you elaborate on that a bit more? That sounds really strange to me, since we have printed large landscape images e. g. taken with the ZA 1.8/135mm @ f1.8. Perfect results, people couldn't believe the images were taken wide open. And the (newer) Zeiss 2/135mm is even better, let alone the Master G 1.8/135mm!


I am agreeing with your quoted statement above.


Oh sorry, my mistake - my less-than-perfect English ...!! I was reading "forget about them" which, translated word by word, in German would mean "they are really bad" ... Laugh 1


PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2020 5:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:

I have three copies of the Prakticar 3.5/135 and all three are excellent, then again, I'm not obsessed with the extreme corners.




The differences i observe between the corners of my 3.5/135mm CZJ Sonnar are quite pronounced. See image above: Two 100% croips from the extreme corners of a 24 MP FF JPG (Sona A7II). Same problem with my first sample which I don't own any more.

I just have checked my 3.5/135mm CZJ Sonnar with two different adapters again. Same result. Either all three adapters I have (two M42 => Sony E and one M42 => Sony/Minolta A) are defective, or both my Sonnars were decentered.

I have two CZJ Sonnars 4/13.5 cm (a wartime uncoated for Contax RF and a postwar with Praktina bayonet). Both are very good lenses, without obvious decentering, but with LoCAs typical for these older Sonnar designs.

S


We didn't need reminding that there is copy variation, it's already well known.

What are you trying to prove - that you have a decentred copy? So what, that doesn't mean other copies are also decentred.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2020 8:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Similar question here. Sonnar 3.5/135mm and Orestor/Pentacon Prakticar 2.8/135 cannot be decentered.

I mean Meyer / Pentacon 2.8/29mm, 2.8/28mm, Zeiss 2.4/35mm, Pentacon 1.8/50mm actually can be decentered due funky construction with 3 screws that center the rear system (29mm, 28mm, 50mm) or front system (35mm).

With 135mm variants it is usually bad copy / bad series, or different types of haze. Well, Sonnar mostly problem with easy cleanable condensation haze but rarely other problem.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2020 10:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Pancolart wrote:
Similar question here. Sonnar 3.5/135mm and Orestor/Pentacon Prakticar 2.8/135 cannot be decentered.


Well, my copy proves the contrary ...

S


PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2020 12:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Pancolart wrote:
Similar question here. Sonnar 3.5/135mm and Orestor/Pentacon Prakticar 2.8/135 cannot be decentered.


Certain lenses, such as the Pentacon 29mm F2.8, may be decentered due to incorrect assembly/adjustments, but nonetheless lenses that do not have centering adjustments, such as the Pentacon 135mm F2.8 and Sonnar 135mm F3.5, can also suffer from decentering.

The decentering is basically a result of imperfect grinding of the mechanical parts and surfaces/edges of the optical elements. When the mechanical and optical parts can be machined with sufficient precision, no adjustment during assembly is necessary. Whenever possible, manufacturers try to eliminate adjustments during assembly, as these adjustments increase the cost of manufacturing a lens.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2020 3:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
My options in 135 mm

Tele Elmar M 135/4 (it's soo good)
Nikkor Ai 135/3,5. Another great lens
Rolleinar MC (Mamiya SX) 135/2,8.
Telezenitar 135/2,8
Sonnar 135/3,5 (not MC, please)

And one that surprised me : Mamiya/sekor Auto 135/2,8 V. 2 (Tokina made). If it had more contrast........


PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2020 5:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gerald wrote:
Pancolart wrote:
Similar question here. Sonnar 3.5/135mm and Orestor/Pentacon Prakticar 2.8/135 cannot be decentered.


Certain lenses, such as the Pentacon 29mm F2.8, may be decentered due to incorrect assembly/adjustments, but nonetheless lenses that do not have centering adjustments, such as the Pentacon 135mm F2.8 and Sonnar 135mm F3.5, can also suffer from decentering.

The decentering is basically a result of imperfect grinding of the mechanical parts and surfaces/edges of the optical elements. When the mechanical and optical parts can be machined with sufficient precision, no adjustment during assembly is necessary. Whenever possible, manufacturers try to eliminate adjustments during assembly, as these adjustments increase the cost of manufacturing a lens.


Perhaps decentering also as result of lens being bumped. Or even non-equal glass surface (bad quality check).


PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2020 5:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have to agree with the Konica 135mm 3.2 assessment. You should be able to get that, a working Autoreflex a 50mm 1.4 and a 35mm 2.8 for the 150 dollars. Where are you located (country)?


PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2020 5:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well I will continue to enjoy my Sonnars and won't bother to squint at the corners when shot wide open to see if there might be some decentering, it's all a big waste of time. If the lens shoots well then that's all you need to know.

I also love the Hexanon 3.2/135, I'd use it a lot more if it fitted on more of my cameras. It's particularly great for close work.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2020 5:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
D1N0 wrote:
There are M42 to Praktica Bayonet adapters, I don;t know if they achieve infinity though.

If you get the original Prakticar one with the lug, then yes it can achieve infinity no problem. Used on my Prakticar BX20 so I know it works so you can keep the camera and collect millions of M42 lenses.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2020 7:01 pm    Post subject: Re: New SLR - tired of my Praktica BMS and Prakticar Lenses Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
blotafton wrote:
stevemark wrote:
blotafton wrote:
Quote:

The best possible 135mm is probably the Sony (=Minolta) Master G 1.8/135mm. Check Roger Cicalas measurements. Other very good 135mm lenses are the Zeiss ZA 1.8/135mm, the Zeiss 2/135mm APO, the Zeiss (=Tamron) Batis 2.8/135mm and probably several modern fast 135mm lenses from othe manufacturers. I am pretty sure the Canon EF and the Nikkor 2/135mm will be outperformed by those mentioned before.


They should be better, forgot about them.


Can you elaborate on that a bit more? That sounds really strange to me, since we have printed large landscape images e. g. taken with the ZA 1.8/135mm @ f1.8. Perfect results, people couldn't believe the images were taken wide open. And the (newer) Zeiss 2/135mm is even better, let alone the Master G 1.8/135mm!


I am agreeing with your quoted statement above.


Oh sorry, my mistake - my less-than-perfect English ...!! I was reading "forget about them" which, translated word by word, in German would mean "they are really bad" ... Laugh 1


No problem, my English is also less than perfect!


PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2020 7:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
My vote for a fun and cheap 135mm goes to Canon FD 135/2.5. Compared to Hexanon 135/2.5 it's (often) cheaper, sharper wide-open, has more contrast wide-open, has similar amount of CA wide-open and features an 8-bladed aperture.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2