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

Zeiss Biotar 75/1.5 - no Red T ?
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 3:55 pm    Post subject: Zeiss Biotar 75/1.5 - no Red T ? Reply with quote

The CZJ Biotar I recently received looks like all the ones of the same model I can find on the net, but it lacks the red T that I always see.

The Red T indicates a certain type of coating, right ? Therefore this one of mine lacks that ?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3262/2660647757_6e35d3dc71_o.jpg

Note - I will be listing it here for sale or trade.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 4:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

They have two version with T and without T , this is exactly say glass covered with famous Carl Zeiss Jena coating or not.In practical usage doesn't matter.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 7:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is applicable that the old is the best (7,5 cm. better than 75 mm.)?


PostPosted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 7:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have many versions I found the sharpest id 1951 7,5cm thin Biotar later fat version almost that good. Pre-war copy is not same sharp at wide open, but tack sharp also when stopped down. Sharpest lens what I seen at wide open.

http://www.mflenses.com/gallery/v/german/zeiss/carl_zeiss_jena_biotar/


PostPosted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 7:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks, Attila, very much.


Did you see www.pbase.com/recbo/compare_75_80_85?

Regards


PostPosted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 8:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes I know author , he spend pretty much money on this tests and made lot of fine work. Many people like this kind of tests to see lenses strongest parts and weakness. This is too boring to me , I can't do it and not interest also on results. A lens has many more important feature than sharpness. So I like to take best photos what I can and show them for public, people can judge on real pictures this is my way. If you see Louise pictures he use many cheap "crappy" lenses and make better pictures than most of the people with high priced gears. If we compare his lenses on this kind of test surely nobody want them, but if we see beautiful pictures taken by him this lenses has very good chance to survive, because Louise showed to us they real power.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 8:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

By its serial number, your lens should date from about 1956, by which time to the best of my knowledge all CZJ lenses had been coated for over 10 years. It's not possible to tell from your photo, but it should be easy for you to see the blue or violet surface tint that would indicate a coated lens as compared to the neutral gray color of an uncoated one.

I have two 58/2 Biotars and a 50/2.8 Tessar here with serial numbers above 4 million, none of which have the red T; and an 80/2.8 Tessar just below 4 million that does have it. All, of course, are coated lenses. Perhaps CZJ stopped using the red T marking around the 4 million mark, just as manufacturers later stopped marking their lenses "MC" after multicoating had become so common as to be taken for granted.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 8:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have two Biotar 75s; one 66XXXX serial number in Exakta mount and one 62XXXX serial number in M42 mount and a semi-auto Biotar 58 57XXXX serial number in M42 - all are coated as one would expect, but none have the red 'T' designation.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 8:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

T or not doesn't matter especially if lens was cleaned Wink I have several copies from Olympic Sonnar sharpest one is not marked with T and most used from all of them. Really garbage looking my highest offer was 600 USD for this lens I did not sold Wink That for sure 75mm f1.5 a beautiful lens and not many maker could produce better lens today. It is blame most of the lens under 500 EUR.

Last edited by Attila on Sat Jul 12, 2008 8:40 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 8:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Attila wrote:
T or not doesn't matter especially if lens was cleaned Wink


With an 800 grit lens cloth.... Laughing


PostPosted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 8:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Laughing


I bought a rare black Biotar 58mm f2, front lens and rare lens both was "super" cleaned f* asshole cleaned at morning at lunch time and before he went to bed.. Result? I couldn't make any usable capture with this lens.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 4:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="Attila"] A lens has many more important feature than sharpness. So I like to take best photos what I can and show them for public, people can judge on real pictures this is my way. If you see Louise pictures he use many cheap "crappy" lenses and make better pictures than most of the people with high priced gears. ....[/quote]

ATTILA

Of course that you are right, and, in the essencial I'm agree.

But I don't like vey much the pics without "F/64" sharpest, independent of others elements like contrast, saturation, subject matter, social message, etc, except if the soft is specially look for.

And then, I wan to to sell my fujinon SF 85/4.

Regards, Attila.