Request for Info - CZJ Flek 35/2.4 or CZJ Flek 2.8

[Laurence]

Hello all: I am looking for a nice 35 lens for my film camera (M42), and have pretty much decided on the probability that the old CJZ Flek
lenses are as good as any, and probably my best choice overall.

Now, I'm trying to figure out if the f:2.4 version would be better to get than the f:2.8.

In essence, I know that the difference in "wide open" is really not much at all, in fact so small for my purposes that it is redundant to me.

But, my question is: Is there a pronounced optical difference between the two, and is it enough to justify the extra expense of the 2.4 over the 2.8?

Thanks as always.

[Attila]

Look pictures here.

http://www.mflenses.com/gallery/v/german/zeiss/flektogon/

2.8 are single coated and clearly visible difference against 2.4 with 2.8 you need to fix contrast on every images it is easy but have to do. I think 2.4 better lens from every aspects.

[F16SUNSHINE]

Hi Larry
I traded for a 2.4 with Graham.
The lens was to be for a friend of mine. She beat me to the punch and already picked one up.
We are in the same neighborhood so............ there you have it.
Not sure what these should cost but I would let you test drive if you like and we can come up with a value.

Cheers
Andy

[indianadinos]

Hi Laurence,

I did a "non-professional" comparison test between some 35mm, including the Flek 35/2.4 and the 35/2.8 Alu finish. If you want to take a look, the pictures are on my Flickr photostream at http://www.flickr.com/photos/indianadinos/collections/72157605249162082/.

All the pics are available in full 10MP size, so feel free to download them and check the differences between the two Flektogons.

Cheers

[naplam]

I don't know about the 2.8, but I have the 2.4 and I can say it has very good contrast and saturation, and it easily outresolves my 400D in the center wide open. The bokeh is good too. I use it mostly with film on C/Y bodies with an adapter.

[alex]

I have the 35/2.4 Flek, and I can endorse what others say in praise of it.

Putting a price on it can be difficult. I have, of late, noticed some extraordinary surging in the closing prices of these Fleks on eBay, with a recent 35/2.4 fetching five times what I paid for mine a couple of years ago, a sum greater than what would have bought a Zeiss Distagon 35 (CY mount). The Flek is very good, but it's hard to argue it's a match for the Distagon. Of course, eBay is also prone to wide fluctuations, and one can get lucky too.

[Orio]

Larry,
why not a MIR-24M ?
Bokeh-wise and colour-wise it's the number 1.
(Fleks are sharper though)

[martinsmith99]

I have the 2.4. Great lens!

[Attila]

Larry if not urgent I will try to hunt for you a 2.4 lens for less than 100 USD, if we are lucky perhaps I able to get one around 70 USD.

[Laurence]

Thanks all! And Andy, I'll keep that generous offer in mind. Orio, I will take a look at Mir lenses. Attila, thank you!

Larry

[F16SUNSHINE]

No problem Larry.
I have the Mir also an ST 2/35.
You can try them all if you like.
Only the extra Flek is 4sale..
I can't fit the f-ing things on my RF

Actually I live the Mir but have not tried the ST much yet
Prefer the distagon over all.

[Laurence]

Hmmm...Flek 35/2.4s are going for anywhere from $160 to $300!

I am on the lookout for the Mir 24 per Orio's suggestion, as I am not
a guy for pixel-peeping sharpness. I'm reading reviews on the Mir 24
and they are mostly favorable, and lots of them praise the color
rendition.

And....cheap in comparison to the current prices of the Flek.

What happened? Did all the purely AF people finally "find out" how good the older manual lenses really are?

[Attila]

[Laurence]

Attila wrote: I think people buy a DSLR camera with two kit lenses and they found result is same than picture taken with a compact camera.
If they have more money they take an $$ AF lenses result is good finally , but then see pictures taken with old MF lenses they recognize costly new AF lens don't better ...

I quite agree Attila. In the overall picture, sure there is a difference between an older lens and say...some kind of Canon "L" lens or whatever. However, the differences are minor compared to the REAL factors such as composition, exposure, and other things that the photographer comes up with. Many many lenses are quite sharp, whether they be old Takumars or new Nikons. I sometimes wonder why there is SO MUCH emphasis on getting just a tiny bit more sharpness, especially since from what I can see, most people only post on the web. I'm betting that only a small percentage of photographers constantly enlarge their work. Except of course, a professional.

It's rather fun to compare sharpness, I like to see the comparisons too. But, sometimes people almost get nasty about it! I guess it's just human nature to some extent.

[martinsmith99]

Larry - Hang out for a flek. They do come up in your price range. I got one for 60gbp. Look at old cameras as well as sometimes bargains appear to be missed.

IQ in general is always important. I like sharpness over many other characteristics as I can alter colours and contrast in PP but I cannot make a soft image sharp. That's my own preference. Bokeh I think is something that photographers like, but the average Joe really isn't too bothered. If you show someone a shallow DOF that isn't a photog it seems to be lost on them.