View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
mika58
Joined: 11 May 2015 Posts: 11 Location: France
|
Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2015 8:39 pm Post subject: CZ super dynarex 135mm f4 ( m42 icarex ) |
|
|
mika58 wrote:
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 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tb_a
Joined: 26 Jan 2010 Posts: 3678 Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2015 11:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tb_a wrote:
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. _________________ Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2015 11:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tb_a
Joined: 26 Jan 2010 Posts: 3678 Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2015 12:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
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. _________________ Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2015 5:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
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? _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
scsambrook
Joined: 29 Mar 2009 Posts: 2167 Location: Glasgow Scotland
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2015 9:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
scsambrook wrote:
[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. _________________ Stephen
Equipment: Pentax DSLR for casual shooting, Lumix G1 and Fuji XE-1 for playing with old lenses, and Leica M8 because I still like the optical rangefinder system. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tb_a
Joined: 26 Jan 2010 Posts: 3678 Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2015 9:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
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. _________________ Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mika58
Joined: 11 May 2015 Posts: 11 Location: France
|
Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2015 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mika58 wrote:
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 It is very difficult to cleaning.
sorry for my english again... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2015 11:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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, 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. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tb_a
Joined: 26 Jan 2010 Posts: 3678 Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2015 1:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
tb_a wrote:
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. _________________ Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Tedat
Joined: 08 Nov 2011 Posts: 800 Location: Berlin/Germany
|
Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2015 7:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
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 _________________ Regards
Jan
flickr
Sony A7RM2
Contax T*: Distagon 4/18, Distagon 2/28, Distagon 1.4/35, PC-Distagon 2.8/35, Planar 1.4/50, Planar 1.4/85, Planar 2/100, Planar 2/135, S-Planar 2.8/60, Tessar 2.8/45, Mirotar 8/500, Vario Sonnar 3.4/35-70, Vario Sonnar 4.5-5.6/100-300
Carl Zeiss for Rollei QBM: F-Distagon 2.8/16 HFT, Distagon 2.8/25, Planar 1.4/50 HFT, Sonnar 2.8/85
Konica Hexanon AR: 2.8/21, 1.2/57
Other: Minolta F2.8 [T4.5] 135mm STF, Meopta Meostigmat 1.4/70, Tokina AT-X 2.5/90.. and lots of early M42 Yashinon, Rikenon and Mamiya lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tb_a
Joined: 26 Jan 2010 Posts: 3678 Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2015 8:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
The average is still by far below. Simple mathematics.
13.600 divided by 4 years gives you ? _________________ Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
scsambrook
Joined: 29 Mar 2009 Posts: 2167 Location: Glasgow Scotland
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2015 10:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
scsambrook wrote:
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 ? _________________ Stephen
Equipment: Pentax DSLR for casual shooting, Lumix G1 and Fuji XE-1 for playing with old lenses, and Leica M8 because I still like the optical rangefinder system. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4058 Location: Charleston
|
Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2015 11:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
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!" _________________ Regards,
Woodrim |
|
Back to top |
|
|
l9magen
Joined: 13 Jul 2011 Posts: 326 Location: Calgary, Canada
Expire: 2016-10-21
|
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2015 4:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
l9magen wrote:
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. _________________ Lochlann
Digital Camera: Leica MM246 & M10
RF lenses: Zeiss ZM, assorted Japanese LTMs & Nikkor-S |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Tedat
Joined: 08 Nov 2011 Posts: 800 Location: Berlin/Germany
|
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2015 6:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
The average is still by far below. Simple mathematics.
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 _________________ Regards
Jan
flickr
Sony A7RM2
Contax T*: Distagon 4/18, Distagon 2/28, Distagon 1.4/35, PC-Distagon 2.8/35, Planar 1.4/50, Planar 1.4/85, Planar 2/100, Planar 2/135, S-Planar 2.8/60, Tessar 2.8/45, Mirotar 8/500, Vario Sonnar 3.4/35-70, Vario Sonnar 4.5-5.6/100-300
Carl Zeiss for Rollei QBM: F-Distagon 2.8/16 HFT, Distagon 2.8/25, Planar 1.4/50 HFT, Sonnar 2.8/85
Konica Hexanon AR: 2.8/21, 1.2/57
Other: Minolta F2.8 [T4.5] 135mm STF, Meopta Meostigmat 1.4/70, Tokina AT-X 2.5/90.. and lots of early M42 Yashinon, Rikenon and Mamiya lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tb_a
Joined: 26 Jan 2010 Posts: 3678 Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2015 7:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
tb_a wrote:
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 |
The average is still by far below. Simple mathematics.
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 |
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.
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. _________________ Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Tedat
Joined: 08 Nov 2011 Posts: 800 Location: Berlin/Germany
|
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2015 10:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
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 _________________ Regards
Jan
flickr
Sony A7RM2
Contax T*: Distagon 4/18, Distagon 2/28, Distagon 1.4/35, PC-Distagon 2.8/35, Planar 1.4/50, Planar 1.4/85, Planar 2/100, Planar 2/135, S-Planar 2.8/60, Tessar 2.8/45, Mirotar 8/500, Vario Sonnar 3.4/35-70, Vario Sonnar 4.5-5.6/100-300
Carl Zeiss for Rollei QBM: F-Distagon 2.8/16 HFT, Distagon 2.8/25, Planar 1.4/50 HFT, Sonnar 2.8/85
Konica Hexanon AR: 2.8/21, 1.2/57
Other: Minolta F2.8 [T4.5] 135mm STF, Meopta Meostigmat 1.4/70, Tokina AT-X 2.5/90.. and lots of early M42 Yashinon, Rikenon and Mamiya lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tb_a
Joined: 26 Jan 2010 Posts: 3678 Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2015 11:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
tb_a wrote:
Tedat wrote: |
And I only mentioned this fact because I found it funny |
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. _________________ Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4058 Location: Charleston
|
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2015 2:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
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 |
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. _________________ Regards,
Woodrim |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|