Meyer Optik and Pentacon, same thing?

[SonicScot]

I'm still new to this world but I've just seen a Meyer Optik Gorlitz 50/1.8 Oreston on ebay which looks almost identical to my Pentacon 50/1.8.
Are they the same company? Did one take over the other and change the name?

I'm confused (not difficult).

[BRunner]

Yes Meyer Optik changed his name to Pentacon in half of sixties.

[SonicScot]

[iangreenhalgh1]

Meyer Optik was one of several companies that was merged to form Pentacon VEB (VEB - people's enterprise) it was part of the communist system of consolidation of industry into large conglomerates.

The Pentacon 1.8/50 is the same lens as the Meyer Oreston 1.8/50.

There is one slight difference - coatings, the Meyers were single coated, as were the Pentacons until a certain point when they adopted multi-coating.

The only difference I could discern between the Meyer and Pentacon versions of the 1.8/50 was in colors, the different coatings gave slightly different colours, but it was very slight indeed and for all intents and purposes, the output of the two lenses was the same.

The later PB mount Pentacon 1.8/50 is a different lens. I'm not sure what differences it has in optical formula but it's definitely changed from the earlier M42 versions as the bokeh is very different and the overall rendering is too.

[SonicScot]

Thanks Ian, always interesting to know the history of lenses.

[Aanything]

Also, meyers and early pentacons derivied from them have different number of iris blades from the later pentacon multi coated versions, while sharing with them a very similar - if not the same - optical design: for example, meyer orestor (and early pentacon) 135/2.8 have a 15 blades iris, while later pentacon multi coated version has a 6 blades iris. Same for the 200/4.
I'm talking of m42 pentacons, never had one in PB mount.

[iangreenhalgh1]

Yes, they reduced the blades at some point in the 70s. They also reduced the build quality over time, older ones are better made and with less variation between copies, it's just a typical story of decline of quality under communism. The 1950s and 1960s Meyers are really stunning lenses, as good as what CZJ was making, in some cases maybe better, but after they became Pentacon this changed, sadly.

The PB ones have the lower blade count like the late M42 lenses.

The PB lenses are very good, the 2.8/28, 1.8/50 and 2.8/135 are all worth having, they stand upto much more expensive lenses. The 2.4/50 pancake is also very good.

To me, all Meyer/Pentacon lenses are worth collecting, for the money they cost, they are bargains. There are some exceptions such as the 2.8/100 Trioplan and 1.9/50 Primoplan, those fetch big prices sadly.

[ChromaticAberration]

[tel33]

actually there are older type Orestons (still Meyer Optik) with 6 blades only so that changed must have happened before they become Pentacon. Also there are newer Pentacons from around 1990 that were relabeled to Meyer Optik.

[aspen]

I am beginning to discern a drop-off in the quality of Meyer's construction. I've read that when Meyer was adsorbed into the Pentacon conglomerate there was a great deal of political animosity between Zeiss side and the Meyer side. They had been competitors for many years, and Zeiss, apparently, received many favors from the various governmental/political groups that held power; contracts, tax breaks, etc. Meyer was considered an equal in many ways. They certainly manufactured quality. But when they were adsorbed, the Zeiss decision makers sent the Meyer technicians and engineers to work on the lowest quality products, which created even more factional bitterness between the two.
I love the colors of the orestons, and the glass is high standard, but the mechanical build is troublesome. I've four 50mm f1.8's and only one is usable (wide open only). One unique problem is, apparently, a slight discrepancy in the filter threads and any modern filter made in Japan. Filters become hopelessly stuck on the front. Forceful twisting can unscrew entire top, exposing the front element and helicoil, which may, or may not be a good thing; because one will probably need to get inside and coax the blades open and closed. And then, there is the wobbly focus ring. So, if you get a good copy, or one that has been cla'd by a competent technician, the later Meyer Orestons will display their exquisite charm.

[Excalibur]

***Filters become hopelessly stuck on the front**

Just use a hacksaw to cut grooves and a flat bit of sheet metal can be used to unscrew

[tel33]

[fermy]

[iangreenhalgh1]

[fermy]

Sure, but it's weird how this hype thing works. Trioplan is not particularly rare, not particularly good, and as you say there are other lenses with similar bokeh too, so it's not particularly unique either. There are also countless other manual focus lenses with some interesting upside (take collapsible Industars for instance), but they don't achieve cult following after a couple of posts here.

[ChromaticAberration]

Thing is, and I have seen it on MFLenses too, despite some hyped lenses being just that (not particularly good) and most of us recognizing that fact, they are still sold/bought around here for those exact values. Can we blame sellers who aware of that if they know someone will pay?

Trioplan is one of those examples where people really show how funny they can be. If it was any other lens the bokeh would be ugly and distracting but since it is the Trioplan it shows character and distinguishes it from other lenses. Funny.

[aspen]