Flektagon 35/2,4

[estudleon]

Here are two samples of the flekt 35/2,4. At f/8, Iso 100, m42 camera.






I can't decide between the ZCJ 35 and 50. Both pics, Flekt.

Rino.

[Excalibur]

Old thread but can't think of anywhere else to post my question:-
I've used a M42 35mm f2.4 Flek many years ago and found it very sharp and thought I'd use it again and without going into my story it's unusable now. Since then have bought Canon fdn 35 f2.8, Hexanon 40mm, loads of 28mms, 24mms, 20mm...lenses so don't use a 35mm lens much.
Well my question is:- what have I missed in not using the 35mm flek when compared to say a Canon fdn 35mm f2.8 or Hexanon 40mm or any other 35mm lenses from different makes, does the flek have some "magic" or is it just another sharp lens?

[Oldhand]

Yes, it is a sharp lens as we would expect from Zeiss.
It does also display some 3D pop on occasions.
There are lots of great 35mm lenses of course and the Flek is not alone in its characteristics.
Mine is in PB mount so I use it when I am using other PB mount lenses and have just the one adapter.
T


#1


#2

[fujicorry]

I've the 35mm 2.8 version- it's sharp at 5.6- 8 but not much contrast.
This version 2.4 is very good, maybe how much a modern lens.

[Lightshow]

The Flek 35 does have a closer than average MFD, it's half the distance of many other lenses which can give you some unique perspectives.
Most 35mm FL lenses range in the .3 to .4 meter MFD range, few focus down to .2 meters, some Flek 35's have a shorter than .18 meters MFD.

[Oldhand]

[D1N0]

Good sharpness, contrast and rendering, good bokeh. Aperture bit wider than most and still sharp wide open. Close focussing is a bonus. It's really a very well rounded lens. (until Steve show us his corner house at F2.4, don't test it Steve)

[vivaldibow]

[Excalibur]

Well guys we know the flek was a VG lens but it seems from posts that there were no other 35mm made that could match it for its qualities...but would have thought Nikon, Minolta, Canon etc would have examined the optics and produced something similar OR one explanation could be that Nikon etc realised when 28mms become more common that people were switching to that, so the designers concentrated more on the optics for those (28mms).

[D1N0]

28mm was together with 135mm the first second or third lens people would get. So many are very cheaply made for the consumer market. Camera makers still made excellent 35's but not many people were buying them. Most mayor brand 35mm's brighter than F2.8 will fetch prices at least as high as the Flektogon. The Flek is partly legendary because it used to be cheaper than all of those and at least as good.

[IAZA]

I have lots of lenses between 24 and 40 mm too, like Lightshow said, it has short MFD which is made it sometimes being called hidden macro lens.
I always used it for close objects, food, still life, macro etc. I think it's the best part of it compared to other lenses. despite colors andrendering also good.

[Excalibur]

[iangreenhalgh1]

Silly question really, no lens has 'magic' it's all down to the person using it.

I've seen amazing photos taken with ancient uncoated triplets and terrible photos taken with the latest state of the art multi-thousands of dollars lenses.

and don't get me started on the pointlessness of squinting at the extreme corners of lenses shot wide open, it's just stupid.

[Excalibur]

[iangreenhalgh1]

No, you can buy one cheap, I have three, didn't pay more than 30ukp for any of them and they are all in very nice condition and work perfectly. I see them going for under 50ukp all the time on ebay and considering how good it is, that's a real bargain.

There is a lot more to a lens than sharpness BTW.