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

E
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2013 5:38 am    Post subject: E Reply with quote

Edited

Last edited by bernhardas on Tue May 03, 2016 10:10 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2013 8:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The CZJ Biometar 80mm is a fine lens and gives excellent results.
I have the MC version and use a standard P6-Nikon adapter. This has no problems with infinity focus.
I haven't tried a tilt shift adapter so can't help you with a suitable replacement for yours.
Which lens do you have - out of interest?
OH


PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2013 9:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Edited

Last edited by bernhardas on Tue May 03, 2016 10:10 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2013 9:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is the adapter that I use.
I have found it to be excellent. There is also an M42 adapter which works well.
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/121100147186?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1439.l2649

Cheers
OH


PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2013 10:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks


PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2013 5:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I used it (single coat one) with film in the end of 80's.

Good lens. In my records, the best of it was at f/11-16.

Did you try yours at f/11-16?


PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2013 7:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Edited

Last edited by bernhardas on Tue May 03, 2016 10:10 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2013 10:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm going north today and will take the CZJ Biometar with me. Will post some images when I get home.
Here is a sample - only my second bella donna of the season:



PostPosted: Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Do not expect top sharpness from medium format lenses on small format digital cameras. They simply won't give it.
Those lenses were conceived for a format where the frame size counted a lot more than the optical quality for the final result.

It would be extremely costly to produce medium format lenses that can perform as sharply as small format lenses.
Even the best lenses ever made for medium format (Zeiss for Hasselblad) do never reach the same performance
of the same-time lenses made for SLR (Contax/Yashica system).
Check the MTFs here: http://lenses.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/en_de/service/download_center/hasselblad_c.html
and compare with: http://lenses.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/en_de/service/download_center/contax_yashica.html

The Jena Biometar is a sort of "hybrid" optical scheme that combines aspects of Planar-type lens with aspects of Sonnar-type lens,
in order to reduce the manufacturing costs and to reduce the problem of contrast loss inherent to double-Gauss optical scheme
made of all glass-to-air surfaces applied to large diameter lenses (such as those required to cover the frame area of a 6x6 camera).

The performance of the Biometar 80 is widely known to be modest unfortunately. The Italian magazine "Nadir" says openly in their
review of Jena medium format lenses that the Soviet equivalent (the Vega-12) is a better performer than the Biometar 80:
http://lenses.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/en_de/service/download_center/hasselblad_c.html

The Biometar 80 has a good bokeh and I recommend it for such use. As a sharpness performer, I think most medium teles made
for small format (including the excellent and cheap Series E Nikon 2.8/100) will outperform it.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 15, 2013 2:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orio wrote:
Do not expect top sharpness from medium format lenses on small format digital cameras. They simply won't give it.
Those lenses were conceived for a format where the frame size counted a lot more than the optical quality for the final result.

It would be extremely costly to produce medium format lenses that can perform as sharply as small format lenses.
Even the best lenses ever made for medium format (Zeiss for Hasselblad) do never reach the same performance
of the same-time lenses made for SLR (Contax/Yashica system).
Check the MTFs here: http://lenses.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/en_de/service/download_center/hasselblad_c.html
and compare with: http://lenses.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/en_de/service/download_center/contax_yashica.html

The Jena Biometar is a sort of "hybrid" optical scheme that combines aspects of Planar-type lens with aspects of Sonnar-type lens,
in order to reduce the manufacturing costs and to reduce the problem of contrast loss inherent to double-Gauss optical scheme
made of all glass-to-air surfaces applied to large diameter lenses (such as those required to cover the frame area of a 6x6 camera).

The performance of the Biometar 80 is widely known to be modest unfortunately. The Italian magazine "Nadir" says openly in their
review of Jena medium format lenses that the Soviet equivalent (the Vega-12) is a better performer than the Biometar 80:
http://lenses.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/en_de/service/download_center/hasselblad_c.html

The Biometar 80 has a good bokeh and I recommend it for such use. As a sharpness performer, I think most medium teles made
for small format (including the excellent and cheap Series E Nikon 2.8/100) will outperform it.


You may well be right.
Here are some other more distant images:



[/i]


PostPosted: Tue Oct 15, 2013 7:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you have a compatible medium format camera (a Pentacon 6, a Hasselblad, a Pentax 645, etc) use the Biometar on it,
it will not disappoint you there.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 15, 2013 2:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

How would you compare it against the Volna-3 (80mm f/2.8 ) ?.

I used it on the NEX some time ago and found it quite sharp...

http://forum.mflenses.com/volna-3-80mm-f2-8-on-the-nex-5-t39843,highlight,%2Bvolna.html


PostPosted: Tue Oct 15, 2013 2:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jesito wrote:
How would you compare it against the Volna-3 (80mm f/2.8 ) ?.


hi Jes
I had both. I personally prefer the Volna-3. The Volna-3 (also known as Arsat) is a true double Gauss lens.
The optical scheme is different than the Biometar:

Biometar 2.8/80 :



Volna-3 2.8/80 :



PostPosted: Tue Oct 15, 2013 3:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orio wrote:
Do not expect top sharpness from medium format lenses on small format digital cameras. They simply won't give it.
Those lenses were conceived for a format where the frame size counted a lot more than the optical quality for the final result.

It would be extremely costly to produce medium format lenses that can perform as sharply as small format lenses.
Even the best lenses ever made for medium format (Zeiss for Hasselblad) do never reach the same performance
of the same-time lenses made for SLR (Contax/Yashica system).
Check the MTFs here: http://lenses.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/en_de/service/download_center/hasselblad_c.html
and compare with: http://lenses.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/en_de/service/download_center/contax_yashica.html

.


Indeed I would agree as they were saying that about 30 -40 years ago, and wouldn't know if modern Medium format lenses are better, as I'm in a time warp of yesteryear Wink


PostPosted: Tue Oct 15, 2013 4:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Excalibur wrote:

Indeed I would agree as they were saying that about 30 -40 years ago, and wouldn't know if modern Medium format lenses are better, as I'm in a time warp of yesteryear Wink


At the time, nobody was pixel-peeping Wink
Today, it's possible that the new Hasselblad lenses may be better (don't really know), but for sure the overall concept remains valid.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 15, 2013 5:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

20 years ago we were examining 6x6 transparencies and BW negatives on lightboxes with 20 and 30x loupes, if that counts. Smile

I'll have to try my Mamiya K/L 140mm Macro on digital sometime, if the MTF charts are correct, it easily matches 35mm lenses.

But I agree, in general, most MF lenses are a little lower in resolution than 35mm ones. There are some exceptions though, the Kodak Special Anastigmat 4.5/100 resolution figures would raise more than a few eyebrows. I'll try to dig them out.


Last edited by iangreenhalgh1 on Tue Oct 15, 2013 5:29 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Oct 15, 2013 5:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here you go, pretty strong results for a 1940s Tessar type:

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/cameras/kodak.html

Quote:
Kodak 620 Special with 100mm f/4.5 Anastigmat

Resolution in Lines per mm (center/middle/edge)

With target distance set at 12 feet
40 63 45 f/11 at 13' on lens scale
63 57 31 f/11 at 11' on lens scale
57 63 36 f/16 at 12' on lens scale
63 57 50 f/22 at 12' on lens scale


Chris Perez also lists many other MF lens resolution tests:

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html

I picked out some of the best:

Quote:
Rolleiflex 2.8E Model 1 US (serial #1,62x,xxx) 80mm f/2.8 Schneider Xenotar
54 30 13 f/2.8
107 96 13 f/4
120 68 17 f/5.6
107 96 27 f/8
85 68 48 f/11
76 76 54 f/16
54 54 48 f/22

Mamiya 7 80mm f/4
120 120 60 f/4
120 120 68 f5.6
120 107 68 f/8
107 107 76 f/11
76 76 68 f/16
60 60 60 f/22

Mamiya 7 50mm f/4.5 68 76 68 f/4.5
107 96 42 f5.6
107 107 48 f/8
96 96 68 f/11
85 85 68 f/16
54 54 60 f/22

Hasselblad 500CM (late 1980's) 80mm f/2.8 Planar CT*
68 68 38 f/2.8
60 60 34 f/4
96 96 54 f/5.6
96 107 60 f/8
85 76 60 f/11
68 68 60 f/16
54 48 48 f/22

Hasselblad 903 SWC 38mm f/4.5 Biogon T*
68 76 54 f/4.5
96 96 60 f/5.6
85 106 76 f/8
68 76 68 f/11
60 60 60 f/16


PostPosted: Tue Oct 15, 2013 5:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

H'mm I suppose after posting this all medium format lenses will shoot up in price...better get my Etrs lenses quick Smile


PostPosted: Wed Oct 16, 2013 1:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There were some lenses with mediocre lpm but great IQ, like the Heliar, dagor, old summicrons M, thambar, etc.

Don't know viceversa.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 16, 2013 7:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orio wrote:

hi Jes
I had both. I personally prefer the Volna-3. The Volna-3 (also known as Arsat) is a true double Gauss lens.
The optical scheme is different than the Biometar:


...



Thanks for the explanation, Orio. I also prefer the Volna.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 19, 2013 1:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I decided to write this here instead of creating a whole new post. For probably a year now I've been looking for a Biometar with a serial number between 42,000-48,000. Apparently this particular batch of 6000 lenses was built using a optical re-calculation done in 1979 while all the other Biometars were made using a calculation done in 1956. More can be read here: http://www.pentaconsix.com/zeissdes.htm and http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/main.asp?webtag=kievreport&ctx=&cacheTag=7-9&msg=8120.39.

I would like to compare the two, on 6x6, as best I can. The verdict is still out as to whether re-calculation actually meant improvement or cost-cutting. Hopefully I can share my findings soon. The new Biometar is on its way to me now. Thanks!


PostPosted: Sat Oct 19, 2013 1:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I still need to get the Hasselblad Planar 2.8/80 I picked up for peanuts because the shutter is bust converted to P6 so I can compare it to my Biometar.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 19, 2013 2:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orio wrote:
The Jena Biometar is a sort of "hybrid" optical scheme that combines aspects of Planar-type lens with aspects of Sonnar-type lens, in order to reduce the manufacturing costs and to reduce the problem of contrast loss inherent to double-Gauss optical scheme made of all glass-to-air surfaces applied to large diameter lenses (such as those required to cover the frame area of a 6x6 camera).


Oberkochen simply calls it a 5-element Gauss. See : http://blogs.zeiss.com/photo/en/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/en_CLB_40_Nasse_Lens_Names_Planar.pdf


PostPosted: Sat Oct 19, 2013 2:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sickho, please DO NOT ruin yet another thread with pointless pedantry.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 19, 2013 3:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sichko wrote:

Oberkochen simply calls it a 5-element Gauss. See : http://blogs.zeiss.com/photo/en/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/en_CLB_40_Nasse_Lens_Names_Planar.pdf


John, it's not the same design. The Biometar has two cemented elements. The Planar in the scheme has 5 elements
in 5 groups.
Having that said, it's still possible that lens designers consider that a gauss lens. Definition depends on the way the light
is transmitted and not necessarily in the physical position of the elements. In order to know we should ask a lens designer,
but I don't know any Smile