MFlenses - A new life in a digital age
MFLenses 2026

Manual Focus Lenses Forum

Explore the world of vintage lenses through repair notes, real test shots, and detailed archive threads packed with images.

Explore the world of vintage lenses through repair notes, real test shots, and detailed archive threads packed with images.
logovectorizer.com
Spotlight

Featured partner placement for the forum front page.

She's a beauty...
Post new topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  


Post
Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 10:25 am
Post subject: She's a beauty...
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 10:25 am
Post subject: She's a beauty...
Reply
... but I had to rebuild her. Sad Confused Wink



It is a Carl Zeiss Super-Dynarex 4/135 (which I got for about € 10,- - € 17,- incl. shipping). The "problem" was that is came in a Zeiss Ikon Icarex mount, not in M42. That's probably why it went so cheap.

This mount is a very strange, automatic one. So, in oder to mount it to my Canon, I had to remove the aperture mechanism (the blades are stil there) and I had to change the focus tube (everything is reversable).

I can focus from about 1,50m to infinity, but can only use f4. Well...

It still is a beauty. Wink

Example shots will follow...


Post
Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 10:27 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 10:27 am
Post subject:
Reply
It should be similar to the Zeiss Rollei Tele-Tessar which I have.


Post
Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 11:48 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 11:48 am
Post subject:
Reply
OK, here are some shots (350D, all of course f4, see above):

1. Indoors, ISO800
...

2. ISO100... Highlight bokeh, well... It's wide open!


3.


4. Infinity test


5.


5. 100% crop


6.


7.


Last edited by LucisPictor on Mon Dec 31, 2018 1:22 pm; edited 1 time in total


Post
Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 1:30 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 1:30 pm
Post subject:
Reply
The picture quality is excellent, even if you only have f/4.


Post
Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 1:37 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 1:37 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Your Pictures looks great, this Carl Zeiss Super-Dynarex 4/135 is one of the best 135mm, I see.
What´s about the distance from sensor to lens (germany: Auflagemaß), is this like M42. you wrote, you had to trick.

I like your enthuisasmus, thank´s for this report.

respectfully Peter


Post
Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 2:45 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 2:45 pm
Post subject:
Reply
The rear part of the lens looks like this:


Unfortunately, the diameter of this mount is a lot bigger than M42.


I first thought about widening an M42-EOS-adapter, but that would not have left much material, since the diameter of the EOS-mount is not much bigger.

So I had to remove the bulky rear part. Unfortunately, this system is an automatic one that enables the cam to control the aperture. And thus the whole aperture control mechanism had to go.


I then thought about fixing the internal aperture bolt to the aperture ring. Thus would have been possible and by turning the ring I could have changed the f-stop. But then I would not have been able to focus anymore.
So I had to decide between a fixed aperture and a fix-focus. This was an easy decision for me and I chose f4, because this lens is more than just useable wide open.. Wink

This is what it looks like now (with an EOS-bayonet):


Post
Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 2:56 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 2:56 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Excellent presentation Carsten! Many thanks!


Post
Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 2:58 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 2:58 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Carsten, great shots with the lens, and an excellent conversion!

Thanks for sharing!

Bill


Post
Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 3:05 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 3:05 pm
Post subject:
Reply
And a little nice shot of the lens...


Post
Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 3:09 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 3:09 pm
Post subject:
Reply
I find the focus ring interesting, is that pebble grain comfortable to use?

Great glamor shot of the lens!


Post
Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 4:37 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 4:37 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Nice quality to the pics. I have a Voigtlander Super-Dynarex 135/4 which I've not got an EOS adapter for yet, but I will try it out with film. There's a similarity to the two lenses, I suppose the Voigt S-D was probably Zeiss built too.


Post
Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 6:01 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 6:01 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Farside wrote:
Nice quality to the pics. I have a Voigtlander Super-Dynarex 135/4 which I've not got an EOS adapter for yet, but I will try it out with film. There's a similarity to the two lenses, I suppose the Voigt S-D was probably Zeiss built too.

As far as I know, these two lenses are similar.

Katastrofo wrote:
I find the focus ring interesting, is that pebble grain comfortable to use?

Actually, that's not the focus ring, it's a sliding lens hood. I also was surprised about that, since I thought it to be the focus ring as well.


Post
Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 8:54 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 8:54 am
Post subject:
Reply
great pics Carsten!


Post
Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 9:29 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 9:29 am
Post subject:
Reply
Fotal wrote:
great pics Carsten!


It's easy to shoot nice pics when the weather is so nice. Wink


Post
Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 12:40 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 12:40 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Farside wrote:
I have a Voigtlander Super-Dynarex 135/4 which I've not got an EOS adapter for yet, but I will try it out with film. There's a similarity to the two lenses, I suppose the Voigt S-D was probably Zeiss built too.


They are indeed the same lens. When Zeiss Ikon acquired Voigtländer, many Voigtländer cameras and lenses were sold under the "Zeiss" brand. As Zeiss needed a cheap telephoto for its entry level Icarex SLR, it used the Super-Dynarex that was previously available for the Voigtländer Bessamatic series.

Cheers!

Abbazz


Post
Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 1:45 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 1:45 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Abbazz wrote:

They are indeed the same lens. When Zeiss Ikon acquired Voigtländer, many Voigtländer cameras and lenses were sold under the "Zeiss" brand. As Zeiss needed a cheap telephoto for its entry level Icarex SLR, it used the Super-Dynarex that was previously available for the Voigtländer Bessamatic series.


Handy, thanks. I wasn't sure if Voigtlander did their own glass at the time. Must've been decent enough for Zeiss to carry it on.


Post
Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 2:59 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 2:59 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Abbazz wrote:
Farside wrote:
I have a Voigtlander Super-Dynarex 135/4 which I've not got an EOS adapter for yet, but I will try it out with film. There's a similarity to the two lenses, I suppose the Voigt S-D was probably Zeiss built too.


They are indeed the same lens. When Zeiss Ikon acquired Voigtländer, many Voigtländer cameras and lenses were sold under the "Zeiss" brand. As Zeiss needed a cheap telephoto for its entry level Icarex SLR, it used the Super-Dynarex that was previously available for the Voigtländer Bessamatic series.

Cheers!

Abbazz


Interesting. "Cheap" as in "money" and "f-stop" but not as in "performance", I guess. Wink


Post
Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 3:24 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 3:24 pm
Post subject:
Reply
That looks great, and gives me ideas for my Voigtlander Super-Dynarex that I got in a "grab-bag". It had the mount removed.

Voigtlander made great lenses, "strange" bodies. Zeiss bought the company when they were going out in the late 60s or early 70s.


Post
Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 5:25 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 5:25 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Carsten

Amazing. The lens is a real performer.


patrickh


Post
Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 1:29 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 1:29 am
Post subject:
Reply
LucisPictor wrote:
Interesting. "Cheap" as in "money" and "f-stop" but not as in "performance", I guess. Wink


Of course. Zeiss doesn't rhyme with bad lens.

What I meant was that the top of the line lenses (Biogon, Distagon, Planar, Sonnar) marketed for the Contarex series were too expensive for the average user. The Skoparex, Ultron, Dynarex and Super-Dynarex lenses had a simpler design, so Zeiss Ikon was able to sell them at a price level more affordable for the average Icarex camera user.

Cheers!

Abbazz


Post
Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 7:46 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 7:46 am
Post subject:
Reply
Abbazz wrote:
What I meant was that the top of the line lenses (Biogon, Distagon, Planar, Sonnar) marketed for the Contarex series were too expensive for the average user...


And thus for me! Wink


Post
Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 7:45 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 7:45 am
Post subject:
Reply
You seen the current family tree:
http://www.cosina.co.jp/sitemap/index.html
Looks cool doesn't it? Twisted Evil
EDIT: Remember to click the links on the map ..


Post
Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 10:05 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 10:05 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Great, Carsten. Voigtlander was a great company. They produced in 1840 the first lens for portrait in modern design. In 1936 some reviews had photography with it. They had your own glasses, and produced the skopagon 40 mm F/2 in the 60's that was one of the sharpest and contrastier lens ever made and unfortunatelly today is an collector item. Your super dinarex, by Zeiss factory, has schoot glass and voigtlander design with little modification. It's better than the original (for the bessamatics and ultramatics series). And isn't the same lens that the tessar 135 mm F/4, because this is a zeiss design for the contax of the 30's (and then for the contarex and the same for the CZJ). Differences: the voigtlander had 4 elements, 2 in front an 2 in rear. The last 2 rear to improvement the corners of the picture; and the classic tessar design had 4 elements, 3 in front and 1 rear. All of them are OK.


Post
Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 7:04 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 7:04 am
Post subject:
Reply
Thanks for these interesting information! Very Happy
Post new topic Reply to topic
Page 1 of 1