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

CZ super dynarex 135mm f4 ( m42 icarex )
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Aug 25, 2015 8:39 pm    Post subject: CZ super dynarex 135mm f4 ( m42 icarex ) Reply with quote

My favorite 135, perfect except haze on the third lens ( cleaned ) :
Bokeh..
CZ super dynarex 135 f4 by mickael DUPONT, sur Flickr
CZ super dynarex 135 f4 by mickael DUPONT, sur Flickr

Sharp!

CZ super dynarex 135 f4 by mickael DUPONT, sur Flickr
CZ super dynarex 135 f4 by mickael DUPONT, sur Flickr
CZ super dynarex 135 f4 by mickael DUPONT, sur Flickr

Sorry for my english Embarassed


PostPosted: Tue Aug 25, 2015 11:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nice and sharp lens. Thanks for sharing.

Actually it's a Voigtländer lens developed and produced by Voigtländer for the Bessamatic/Ultamatic series of cameras and later on for the Zeiss Ikon (Voigtländer) Icarex TM in M42 mount marked as "Carl Zeiss" instead.
The Zeiss marked version (i.e. your version) was produced by Voigtländer in Braunschweig betw. 1968 and 1972. (Voigtländer was a Zeiss owned company at these times).
It's a 4/3 lens construction, however not bad at all. Wink


PostPosted: Tue Aug 25, 2015 11:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is a sharp lens, but lacking in contrast. Doesn't help that a lot of them have the cloudiness on an inner element and they are hard to open to clean.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2015 12:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
It is a sharp lens, but lacking in contrast. Overall, the Sonnar 4/135 is a better lens.


Ian, I am sorry to correct you, but the F4 version was called "Tele-Tessar" and the F2.8 version "Sonnar".

However, it is said quite often that the Carl Zeiss Tele-Tessar 135/4 is the better lens, which was also available under licence from Rollei/Singapore even marked as Voigtländer Color-Dynarex (I have the Voigtländer marked version in M42). The obvious differences are that the newer Tele-Tessar is a 4/4 construction whereas the older Voigtländer lens (as shown here) is a 4/3 construction.

Still I would be interested to see those lenses in direct comparison. However, it's rather likely that the newer version from Zeiss/Oberkochen (1974) would be the better version as the older version goes back to Voigtländer in 1959.

At least my Voigtländer book (from Claus Prochnow) is telling it like this.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2015 5:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tb_a wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
It is a sharp lens, but lacking in contrast. Overall, the Sonnar 4/135 is a better lens.


Ian, I am sorry to correct you, but the F4 version was called "Tele-Tessar" and the F2.8 version "Sonnar".

However, it is said quite often that the Carl Zeiss Tele-Tessar 135/4 is the better lens, which was also available under licence from Rollei/Singapore even marked as Voigtländer Color-Dynarex (I have the Voigtländer marked version in M42). The obvious differences are that the newer Tele-Tessar is a 4/4 construction whereas the older Voigtländer lens (as shown here) is a 4/3 construction.

Still I would be interested to see those lenses in direct comparison. However, it's rather likely that the newer version from Zeiss/Oberkochen (1974) would be the better version as the older version goes back to Voigtländer in 1959.

At least my Voigtländer book (from Claus Prochnow) is telling it like this.


It is you who are incorrect. There was most certainly a 4/135 Sonnar, I own four of them! The best is a 1958 Oberkochen made example for the Contax RF. although the Jena made versions in M42 and Exakta are fine lenses too.

Don't you ever get tired of this overbearing preaching?


PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2015 9:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="iangreenhalgh1"]
tb_a wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
It is a sharp lens, but lacking in contrast. Overall, the Sonnar 4/135 is a better lens.


Ian, I am sorry to correct you, but the F4 version was called "Tele-Tessar" and the F2.8 version "Sonnar".

[ . . . ] Don't you ever get tired of this overbearing preaching?


Ian, that's not really a friendly riposte, is it? To be fair to Thomas, his comments clearly refer to the family of lenses made for the Icarex series (i.e. the focus of this thread), rather than those for other cameras.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2015 9:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ian, I just want to be as precise as possible as otherwise the likelihood for confusion is more than high, especially when Zeiss lenses are involved. Hardly any other lens brand is similar complicated to identify correctly as Zeiss West/East and even Voigtländer or anything else may be behind. Also the Voigtländer brand is almost as tricky. That was also the reason for me to buy certain books about the issue which are unfortunately only available in German, though I am happy to translate and report from this books for the English speaking community here.
So for this community it may be worthwhile to know what's really behind if a lens is marked as Zeiss or Voigtländer or which lens might be the right one if you are talking about a lens which was made in various different versions at different factories over several decades.

Indeed there was a rather old RF lens for the Contax RF camera too. But the OP showed a SLR lens and I was talking about SLR lenses as well.

All other SLR lenses came from Zeiss/Jena instead which is another story.

As a matter of fact the shown lens here is definitely a Voigtländer lens, although it's marked as Zeiss. On the other hand the "Tele Tessar" is a Zeiss lens which is also available as Voigtländer lens. There is a logical and clear context (at least for me) as at least both lenses have been available as Voigtländer "Dynarex" as well.

In this context your statement that an old RF lens from Zeiss (which is not easy to identify if you just say "Sonnar 135/4" and which goes back to a construction from Bertele 1933) might be better is similar conclusive like you would state that a lens from Nikon or Canon or from somebody else would be better, which may be the case as well. I don't know.

However, I am not surprised at all and as long as you don't leave the path of normal and friendly communication again I am happy to discuss this further if you wish.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2015 5:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
It is a sharp lens, but lacking in contrast. Doesn't help that a lot of them have the cloudiness on an inner element and they are hard to open to clean.

this lens is very easy to open but the third element is not removable Confused It is very difficult to cleaning.
sorry for my english again...


PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2015 11:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tb_a wrote:
Ian, I just want to be as precise as possible as otherwise the likelihood for confusion is more than high, especially when Zeiss lenses are involved. Hardly any other lens brand is similar complicated to identify correctly as Zeiss West/East and even Voigtländer or anything else may be behind. Also the Voigtländer brand is almost as tricky. That was also the reason for me to buy certain books about the issue which are unfortunately only available in German, though I am happy to translate and report from this books for the English speaking community here.
So for this community it may be worthwhile to know what's really behind if a lens is marked as Zeiss or Voigtländer or which lens might be the right one if you are talking about a lens which was made in various different versions at different factories over several decades.

Indeed there was a rather old RF lens for the Contax RF camera too. But the OP showed a SLR lens and I was talking about SLR lenses as well.

All other SLR lenses came from Zeiss/Jena instead which is another story.

As a matter of fact the shown lens here is definitely a Voigtländer lens, although it's marked as Zeiss. On the other hand the "Tele Tessar" is a Zeiss lens which is also available as Voigtländer lens. There is a logical and clear context (at least for me) as at least both lenses have been available as Voigtländer "Dynarex" as well.

In this context your statement that an old RF lens from Zeiss (which is not easy to identify if you just say "Sonnar 135/4" and which goes back to a construction from Bertele 1933) might be better is similar conclusive like you would state that a lens from Nikon or Canon or from somebody else would be better, which may be the case as well. I don't know.

However, I am not surprised at all and as long as you don't leave the path of normal and friendly communication again I am happy to discuss this further if you wish.


I am sick of your long-winded and self-important 'corrections'.

Hard to be friendly to someone who thinks it necessary to continually preach at people.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 27, 2015 1:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:

I am sick of your long-winded and self-important 'corrections'.


I am not really sick yet but getting somehow tired of your repeating unfriendly attacks.
BTW, you are the only one of several thousand registered users here who is not able to discuss in a normal and friendly way.
Nobody is forced to read my comments and I don't have the impression that everybody is suffering from my contributions like you.
Especially the feedback I am receiving via p.m. is telling something different.


iangreenhalgh1 wrote:

Hard to be friendly to someone who thinks it necessary to continually preach at people.


Says somebody who posted here already 13.600 times in a shorter membership than me with "only" 1.087 postings.

How do you feel when you are telling a first time poster who is proudly showing his pictures here from his old self-renovated lens that this lens is lacking in contrast and that any other lens is far better? That was a very worthwhile contribution? As many times before you didn't even prove your statement, e.g. by showing us a more contrasty picture from your perfect lens.
My comment was a little bit more friendly and I didn't see any lack of contrast in his pictures. The contrary is the case: These pictures are very sharp and contrasty. There is nothing to complain about.

I leave it to the others to judge the present situation. My standpoint is rather clear.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 27, 2015 7:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tb_a wrote:

Says somebody who posted here already 13.600 times in a shorter membership than me with "only" 1.087 postings.


well that's easy to explain... around 1000 of your 1087 postings are from 2015 Wink


PostPosted: Thu Aug 27, 2015 8:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tedat wrote:
tb_a wrote:

Says somebody who posted here already 13.600 times in a shorter membership than me with "only" 1.087 postings.


well that's easy to explain... around 1000 of your 1087 postings are from 2015 Wink


The average is still by far below. Simple mathematics. Wink

13.600 divided by 4 years gives you ?


PostPosted: Thu Aug 27, 2015 10:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
tb_a wrote:
Ian, I just want to be as precise as possible as otherwise the likelihood for confusion is more than high [ . . . ] .


I am sick of your long-winded and self-important 'corrections'.

Hard to be friendly to someone who thinks it necessary to continually preach at people.


I don't mind being 'preached at' if I'm learning something new. There's a great deal I still know little or nothing about, even after 60 years activity in photography. And I'm not upset if I'm corrected where my supposed knowledge is inadequate or erroneous - I'm not ashamed to admit that I may have misconceptions about some things.

One of the best things about this forum is the way knowledge is shared and I hope nobody is deterred from fleshing out our understanding of even the small details by Ian's comments. How else can we learn more ?


PostPosted: Thu Aug 27, 2015 11:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

When someone is being critical, just remember this:
"I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it!"


PostPosted: Fri Aug 28, 2015 4:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

To get back on topic - great shots. I really like them.

I just wish I didn't come to the forum as much as I see too many lenses I'd like to try out - and my bank manager wouldn't like me doing so.

Excellent work. My favourite was the 4th one, nice detail.


PostPosted: Fri Aug 28, 2015 6:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tb_a wrote:
Tedat wrote:
tb_a wrote:

Says somebody who posted here already 13.600 times in a shorter membership than me with "only" 1.087 postings.


well that's easy to explain... around 1000 of your 1087 postings are from 2015 Wink


The average is still by far below. Simple mathematics. Wink

13.600 divided by 4 years gives you ?


1000 in 4 months would make 12000 postings in 4 years... I can't see your point Wink


PostPosted: Fri Aug 28, 2015 7:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tedat wrote:
tb_a wrote:
Tedat wrote:
tb_a wrote:

Says somebody who posted here already 13.600 times in a shorter membership than me with "only" 1.087 postings.


well that's easy to explain... around 1000 of your 1087 postings are from 2015 Wink


The average is still by far below. Simple mathematics. Wink

13.600 divided by 4 years gives you ?


1000 in 4 months would make 12000 postings in 4 years... I can't see your point Wink


Interesting what effort you are spending in this particular issue. Is it really worth to analyse this further?
It seems to me that you are rather not willing to see my point when you are concentrating on nitpicking.
OK, just for you: "Wenn jemand im Glashaus sitzt........" would have been most probably my statement in a German forum instead of using the number comparison.

BTW, it would have been more interesting for me if you would have commented on any other (off topic) statement from this thread, if you really like to argue about such off topic matters at all.
However, at least an additional new aspect for me. Wink

On the other hand it would be rather boring if we all would always share the same opinions here. I think we can eventually at least agree on that. Smile


PostPosted: Fri Aug 28, 2015 10:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

don't worry.. it just took a click on Find all posts by tb_a to see that you was very quiet before Apr 27 2015.. no big effort at all

And I only mentioned this fact because I found it funny Wink


PostPosted: Fri Aug 28, 2015 11:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tedat wrote:

And I only mentioned this fact because I found it funny Wink


I am glad to serve for your amusement. Though I must admit that I have expected something a little bit more creative from your side now.

At least you are still not sick. That's IMHO a very positive aspect. Wink


PostPosted: Fri Aug 28, 2015 2:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tedat wrote:
don't worry.. it just took a click on Find all posts by tb_a to see that you was very quiet before Apr 27 2015.. no big effort at all

And I only mentioned this fact because I found it funny Wink


Jan: Really? Whether or not Thomas was statistically correct, it was a rather small and insignificant part of a larger issue of which he was 100% correct. This does not require a response and I won't engage in in a debate about posting frequency. Let it go.

Mika58: Nice results, thanks for sharing.