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

Zeiss T* vs. Pentax SMC coatings
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 2:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Pentax lenses are not as good as their Zeiss equivalents, that's why I expect the Distagon to be better. I mean, the Pentax-M 1.7/50 is a good lens but it's not as good as the Planar T* 1.7/50, etc etc.

Is the lens you mention the SAME optical design, because if it is I seriously doubt there would be significant performance difference as back in the 70's pentax had excellent mfg and quality control, better than today or the later m series lenses.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 3:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It doesn't matter whether it is the same optical design, they are equivalent lenses, both are double gauss type 1.7/50s. Give me an example of a Pentax lens that outperforms it's Zeiss T* counterpart?


PostPosted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 3:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
It doesn't matter whether it is the same optical design, they are equivalent lenses, both are double gauss type 1.7/50s. Give me an example of a Pentax lens that outperforms it's Zeiss T* counterpart?

Being the same optical design and same "type" is not the same thing. Besides the 15mm in question, I dont know of any other zeiss and pentax lenses with the same exact optical design.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 3:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
You're missing my point, name me a Pentax lens that is optically superior to a Zeiss T* lens in the same focal length. It's immaterial whether they are the same design or not.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 3:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
You're missing my point, name me a Pentax lens that is optically superior to a Zeiss T* lens in the same focal length. It's immaterial whether they are the same design or not.

I have NOT personally tested any pentax vs zeiss T* so I cant comment but I do know my very best pentax lenses are superb when compared to some other brands I have tried. Some of these include the K18mm f3.5, the 28/3.5, 35/3.5, 85/1.8 135/2.5 300*/4.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 3:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sure, Pentax lenses are good ones and sharp, but I am pretty sure Zeiss T* are better. I sold all my Pentax-M lenses, they were good but not as good as Konica, Minolta or Zeiss DDR imho.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 4:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Sure, Pentax lenses are good ones and sharp, but I am pretty sure Zeiss T* are better. I sold all my Pentax-M lenses, they were good but not as good as Konica, Minolta or Zeiss DDR imho.

I agree pentax M SERIES lenses are not that great, pentax downgraded them to save cost and make them small. The lenses I mentioned were the earlier more expensive smc pentax K SERIES lenses which are both opticallly and mechanically better than the m series.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 4:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hifisapi wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
It doesn't matter whether it is the same optical design, they are equivalent lenses, both are double gauss type 1.7/50s. Give me an example of a Pentax lens that outperforms it's Zeiss T* counterpart?

Being the same optical design and same "type" is not the same thing. Besides the 15mm in question, I dont know of any other zeiss and pentax lenses with the same exact optical design.


"Lens formula" and "Optical Design" and "Optical Type" are equivalents (in this discussion). Two lenses may have the same of each, but use glass with different index of refraction, which requires tweaking of curvatures and spacings for optimization. Which manufacturer was more skilled or artful or just plain lucky will have the better IQ.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 4:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:
hifisapi wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
It doesn't matter whether it is the same optical design, they are equivalent lenses, both are double gauss type 1.7/50s. Give me an example of a Pentax lens that outperforms it's Zeiss T* counterpart?

Being the same optical design and same "type" is not the same thing. Besides the 15mm in question, I dont know of any other zeiss and pentax lenses with the same exact optical design.


"Lens formula" and "Optical Design" and "Optical Type" are equivalents (in this discussion). Two lenses may have the same of each, but use glass with different index of refraction, which requires tweaking of curvatures and spacings for optimization. Which manufacturer was more skilled or artful or just plain lucky will have the better IQ.

If a lens uses different index of refraction and different curvatures and different spacings and different coatings then its NOT the same optical design and direct comparisons of the mfgr and quality control are not possible.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 5:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Of course comparisons are possible, to say otherwise is wrong, just take a look at all the comparisons of lenses of the same focal length on this site. Konica also downgraded the quality in the 1980s, the 1.8/50 is a cheaper replacement for the 1.7/50, the 1.7 is the better lens but the 1.8 is sharp even wide open. Both are better than the Pentax-M 1.7/50 I had.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 5:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hifisapi wrote:
visualopsins wrote:
hifisapi wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
It doesn't matter whether it is the same optical design, they are equivalent lenses, both are double gauss type 1.7/50s. Give me an example of a Pentax lens that outperforms it's Zeiss T* counterpart?

Being the same optical design and same "type" is not the same thing. Besides the 15mm in question, I dont know of any other zeiss and pentax lenses with the same exact optical design.


"Lens formula" and "Optical Design" and "Optical Type" are equivalents (in this discussion). Two lenses may have the same of each, but use glass with different index of refraction, which requires tweaking of curvatures and spacings for optimization. Which manufacturer was more skilled or artful or just plain lucky will have the better IQ.

If a lens uses different index of refraction and different curvatures and different spacings and different coatings then its NOT the same optical design and direct comparisons of the mfgr and quality control are not possible.


That's a distinction you alone are making here. Technically you may be correct, however, here we are speaking more generally -- here the lenses' optical formulas, optical designs, and optical types can be the same, yet have different numbers plugged into the optical formula for the given design & type, to adjust for different glass. You are making the distinction that plugging different numbers into the formula constitutes a new formula. There is of course, a different result, but not a different formula.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 6:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Of course comparisons are possible, to say otherwise is wrong, just take a look at all the comparisons of lenses of the same focal length on this site. Konica also downgraded the quality in the 1980s, the 1.8/50 is a cheaper replacement for the 1.7/50, the 1.7 is the better lens but the 1.8 is sharp even wide open. Both are better than the Pentax-M 1.7/50 I had.

The pentax m 50mm f1.7 is a cheapo lens they gave away with low end bodies, it says nothing about the high end lenses in the smc k series that sold for big bucks and are high performance.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 6:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:
hifisapi wrote:
visualopsins wrote:
hifisapi wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
It doesn't matter whether it is the same optical design, they are equivalent lenses, both are double gauss type 1.7/50s. Give me an example of a Pentax lens that outperforms it's Zeiss T* counterpart?

Being the same optical design and same "type" is not the same thing. Besides the 15mm in question, I dont know of any other zeiss and pentax lenses with the same exact optical design.


"Lens formula" and "Optical Design" and "Optical Type" are equivalents (in this discussion). Two lenses may have the same of each, but use glass with different index of refraction, which requires tweaking of curvatures and spacings for optimization. Which manufacturer was more skilled or artful or just plain lucky will have the better IQ.

If a lens uses different index of refraction and different curvatures and different spacings and different coatings then its NOT the same optical design and direct comparisons of the mfgr and quality control are not possible.


That's a distinction you alone are making here. Technically you may be correct, however, here we are speaking more generally -- here the lenses' optical formulas, optical designs, and optical types can be the same, yet have different numbers plugged into the optical formula for the given design & type, to adjust for different glass. You are making the distinction that plugging different numbers into the formula constitutes a new formula. There is of course, a different result, but not a different formula.

You are not putting this into context. The earlier post claimed that if the 15mm was made by zeiss it would be much better than if made by pentax which I dont agree ASSUMING they are the same design. And in that context by design I meant same glass, same curvatures, same spacings, etc. Coatings would be different in the early 70's when these lenses came out and pentax would be superior to zeiss at that time as pentax was world leader in multicoatings having invented them in the early 70's with smc which was patented.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 6:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hifisapi wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Of course comparisons are possible, to say otherwise is wrong, just take a look at all the comparisons of lenses of the same focal length on this site. Konica also downgraded the quality in the 1980s, the 1.8/50 is a cheaper replacement for the 1.7/50, the 1.7 is the better lens but the 1.8 is sharp even wide open. Both are better than the Pentax-M 1.7/50 I had.

The pentax m 50mm f1.7 is a cheapo lens they gave away with low end bodies, it says nothing about the high end lenses in the smc k series that sold for big bucks and are high performance.


Jeez, arguing with a fanboy sure is tedious. I still am sure K series lenses aren't as good as Zeiss T*, but of course, being a fanboy, you won't agree.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 6:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
hifisapi wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Of course comparisons are possible, to say otherwise is wrong, just take a look at all the comparisons of lenses of the same focal length on this site. Konica also downgraded the quality in the 1980s, the 1.8/50 is a cheaper replacement for the 1.7/50, the 1.7 is the better lens but the 1.8 is sharp even wide open. Both are better than the Pentax-M 1.7/50 I had.

The pentax m 50mm f1.7 is a cheapo lens they gave away with low end bodies, it says nothing about the high end lenses in the smc k series that sold for big bucks and are high performance.


Jeez, arguing with a fanboy sure is tedious. I still am sure K series lenses aren't as good as Zeiss T*, but of course, being a fanboy, you won't agree.

Well which ones in particular did you do testing comparisons with. the smc - m 50mm f1.7??? lol


PostPosted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 7:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Very Happy


PostPosted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 11:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
+ Very Happy

It may have escaped attention here so far, but Zeiss and Pentax collaborated and shared their knowledge on glass technology and lens design for quite some time I believe. There is a strong similarity between them in many ways. Someone will no doubt correct me, because I know very little, but I believe this is one reason, if not the only one, why Pentax adopted the M42 mount and register distance way back when.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 12:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
No they originally used their own M37 mount then switched to M42. The co-operation with Zeiss led to the PK mount. Interestingly, the Contax/Yashica mount is almost identical. The Pentacon bayonet mount is very similar too, just has slightly thicker lugs and a slightly shorter register.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 12:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
peterqd wrote:
+ Very Happy

It may have escaped attention here so far, but Zeiss and Pentax collaborated and shared their knowledge on glass technology and lens design for quite some time I believe. There is a strong similarity between them in many ways. Someone will no doubt correct me, because I know very little, but I believe this is one reason, if not the only one, why Pentax adopted the M42 mount and register distance way back when.

AFAIK, only two pentax lenses were collaborated on by zeiss and pentax, the 15mm/3.5 and the 28mm/2.0. Pentax adopted the m42 mount because it was already popular at the time in the late 1950's.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 12:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
No they originally used their own M37 mount then switched to M42. The co-operation with Zeiss led to the PK mount. Interestingly, the Contax/Yashica mount is almost identical. The Pentacon bayonet mount is very similar too, just has slightly thicker lugs and a slightly shorter register.

I dont think zeiss had anything to do with the development of the pk mount as its same registration as m42, pentax's previous mount, and zeiss went another way with the contax bayonet mount.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 2:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
You're wrong, PK and C/Y are virtually identical, Zeiss started working with Yashica in 1975 and they worked with Pentax for about a year before that, the PK mount was one result of that collaboration. I thought this was common knowledge among Pentaxians.

M42 was designed by Zeiss too, it first appeared on the Contax SLR after ww2, Pentax just copied it. M42, PK and C/Y all have the same register because they are all Zeiss designs.

The PK and C/Y mounts are so similar a C/Y rear lens cap will fit a PK lens or vice-versa. People have even made slight modifications to Pentax DSLRs so they will accept C/Y lenses. Why? Because the Zeiss T* glass is better than the Pentax glass. Zeiss designed the K mount, and Pentax also got the Glatzel design for the 2/28 Distagon too.

Marco Cavina has an in-depth article on that lens which covers the technology exchange between Zeiss and Pentax:

http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/Pentax_28_2_M/00_pag.htm


PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 2:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
In my experience all T* Contax glasses are above Nikon, Pentax, Konica, Leica . I don't know any other manufacturer who has same stable quality top of line series than Zeiss Contax all other makers has some lens what reach Contax level for sure, but those are rather an exception. Usually Contax has better contrast,microcontrast details etc.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 2:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Zeiss fanboys!


( Laughing )


PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 8:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Fabian wrote:
Zeiss fanboys!
( Laughing )

+1 Laughing


PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 1:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LOL

Smile
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 1 of 4