OM Zuiko 135/2.8, CZJ 135/3.5, Pentacon 135, all on E-M5

[memento]

I recently got a CZJ 135/3.5 and an Olympus OM Zuiko 135/2.8 MC. On the E-M5, the pixel density is really high so there is no guarantee that even these very good 135s will perform really flawlessly here. I want to use the 135 for tele macro shots during next spring and summer, so I set up a test target at home.... also threw in a Pentacon 135/2.8:



This is the test target, a tropical insect about 8 inches long:



I uploaded a series of 100% crops here:

http://tomscameras.wordpress.com/2012/11/30/yet-another-135mm-comparison-on-the-e-m5-om-zuiko-vs-zeiss-jena-vs-pentacon/

IMO, the OM Zuiko beats the CZJ, but just ever so slightly.... in practice, I'm sure they both will be almost identical.

Thomas

[hifisapi]

Interesting comparison. Wow the Pentacon is bad. I would get rid of it, and I dont mean sell it.
It wouldnt be fair to sell that dog to someone expecting a normal lens.

[simbon4o]

I think that the focus with the CZJ 135 is a little not in place. It looks like it is a little moved forward. I'm also not surprised about the Pentacon, this latest version is very poor performer. The older preset one is much better in sharpness!

[memento]

I'm not going to sell that Pentacon – reason is that it's an electric and so it makes a nice "body cap" for my Praktica EE2 which does not work properly anyway but looks nice in my small collection

I did several comparison pictures. So far, my impression is that the Olympus does more or less always have that very slight edge in sharpness over the CZJ. But you are right, the smallest focusing errors can spoil these results. I'm probably going to use both these 135s for some time with my E-M5, until I find a definite favourite.... or not.

[fermy]

[memento]

This is the second Pentacon that I have and they are both equally poor performers. The guy where I bought the second one also said something like "do you really want that lens? Pentacons don't perform that good" ....

I never tried one of the 15-bladed variety, though.

Also don't forget that the E-M5 sensor shows the limits of these lenses much more than, say, a Canon 5D.

[fermy]

Yes, OM-D is demanding, more so than my E-PL1, but I also have two copies of Pentacon Auto and both perform equally well. Bottom line is that if the lens were marginal on E-PL1, I wouldn't be surprised that it becomes poor on OM-D. But it's not marginal, it's pretty much as good as any other 135mm lens that I have, which includes Zebra Sonnar 3.5/135, 4/4 Minolta MD 2.8/135 and 3.2/135 Hexanon. Finally, a simple search would reveal loads of great pictures taken with it...

[simbon4o]

About older preset version - I have tested one with fungus - it was sharper than many other 135s and I think equally sharp to the CZJ 135 3.5 on it's aperture. But the fungus was bad and the contrast of the images was very poor. Preset versions of this lens is great especially for the money! I could say the same thing for the Orestor 100 2.8(the smaller 135 2.8 ) sharp and nice lens! If the sharpness is most important - I can can say only - nikkor even micro-nikkor .

[hifisapi]

[Pancolart]

[simbon4o]

[Pancolart]

I said nothing about aperture. Closing down makes the difference of course.

[simbon4o]

My point was that the lenses are not the same, construction of the older and newer versions are different, lenses too. And it affects the IQ. I do not know even one copy of the new Auto/Electric MC 135 2.8 to be as sharp as the older Preset(again any copy).

[Attila]

[iangreenhalgh1]

I had an electric one that was really sharp, sharper than the old Meyer 135 I had, but the Meyer had nicer bokeh, both had the typical bright Meyer/Pentacon colours. Later PB one, I have had three, one was poor, one was average and one was good.

[hifisapi]

[Pancolart]

[iangreenhalgh1]

I think the problem is the QC gets worse as times goes on, so the really good copies get fewer and farther between. Also, the mechanical quality is crappy so I expect with a lot of them, they are in less than perfect order and that has an impact on the IQ. The PB mount versions are particularly poor mechanically, I had one that was all loose and wobbly, I took it apart and put it back together and all was fine and it shot well, but it soon became wobbly again and I got rid of it. I think the issue was the screws and/or the tapping of the threads in the screw holes. You'd tighten them up and it would be fine, then as you used it the damn things would work themselves loose. The apertures often stick wide open too, just not well made, sadly as the optics can be first rate.

Older lenses, especially the silver Meyers from the 50s and 60s are so much better, the Primagon 4.5/35, Primotar 3.5/50, Primoplan 1.9/58, Primotar 3.5/135 etc are all first rate for their time, the barrels and mechanical quality are the same as CZJ of the same age and the IQ is at the same level as the CZJ equivalents. But at some point, I think the end of the 60s, the quality starts to decline, I think CZJ were allocated priority in resources and Meyer/Pentacon ha to make do with what was left, if you compare a 1960s Trioplan to a 1970s Domiplan, there's a massive decline in quality, the Trioplan , for example in Altix mount is in a very nice aluminium barrel with excellent engraving and mine still has perfect smooth focus and snappy clicky aperture (with a ton of blades) and is identical in quality to the CZJ Tessar of the same time. The Domiplan is crap, really cheaply made, they often fall apart with use, IQ of most of them is rotten. CZJ also experienced a decline in the 70s, Tessars, Pancolar, Flektogons and Sonnars are notorious for developing problems with focus and aperture which the 1960s lenses don't.

I've compared 1960s Tessar 3.5/50 to Primotar 3.5/50, Flektogon 2.8/35 to Primagon 4.5/35, it's a matter of taste which one would prefer, they are equally capable lenses, I've never owned a Primoplan 1.9/58 as they are expensive, but I have a Biotar 2/58 and I bet they are comparable too. I owned both Pancolar 1.8/50 and Oreston 1.8/50 of the same age and they were comparable in quality too, they were both early copies. Sonnar 4/135 was sharper and contrastier than Primotar 3.5/135 though, but I kept the Primotar as it's got special bokeh and colours. In fact, all the silver Meyers have great bokeh and colours, I love them for their great vintage character.

Someone with greater knowledge of the economic conditions of the GDR might have some insight into why there was a decline in quality.

Anyways, the silver Meyers are great, I kept those and sold all my Pentacons apart from 28, 50 and 135 in PB mount because they are worth very little and might come in handy one day with one of the Praktica bodies I have lying around.

[memento]

Thanks for your observations about QC issues.

I can't say anything about the internals, but from the outside, my copy of the 135/2.8 Pentacon electric is very good and "tight". But both the Pentacon and my CZJ which is a 1977 (according to the serial) are not a real match for the Olympus which just looks and feels a bit more "refined" altogether, for example smoother yet lighter focusing and the aperture ring of the Olympus also feels somewhat better.

I have a Primotar 58/1.9 that once came with an old Praktica FXII into my collection. I did only use it on my Pentax K10D at the time, it was very soft open but had a beautiful aperture mechanism with very nice oof highlights.

Thomas

[memento]

This one was recently shot with the OM Zuiko 135/2.8 at f/4. It's sharp at the focus point and has little false colour. IMO, already at f/4 it easily beats all current native MFT 100mm+ lenses for sheer optical quality.

So far, the lens seems to give really nice quality provided I have the time and patience to focus it 100% spot-on. I think it's much easier to shoot a 135/2.8 on an EOS 5D or 1D series (I once did) with the split focusing screen and get perfect results. But then, you'd need a 270mm lens on that 5D to match this 135 on the E-M5.

Anyway, I saw some geese on a pond and was not able to take one good pic of them. I'm still way too slow with focusing. So, my current plan is to relegate this lens for tripod use and rather static objects (including those dragonflies sitting at the pond because they often don't move at all for some time.) Hand-held, it feels more like a punishment for me, at the moment.

Having said all that, I'm looking after a 200 or even a 300, probably.... lens collecting fever Thomas

full pic (100% crop below):