View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
no-X
Joined: 19 Jul 2008 Posts: 2495 Location: Budejky, Czech Republic
|
Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 8:58 pm Post subject: Best M42 lenses(?) |
|
|
no-X wrote:
Stupid name for a thread, I know... but I miss this kind of list.
This is my opinion, I'd be happy, if anybody share his experience so I could append it to the list
fish eye
- Pelang 8/3.5 fish eye (thx2 DSG)
- Zenitar 16/2.8 fish eye (thx2 DSG)
14-19mm (rectalinear (non-fish eye) ultra wide-angle)
- Tokina 17/3.5 TL (thx2 DSG)
20mm (extreme wide-angle)
- CZJ Flektogon 20/4 (for architecture - lower distorsion)
- CZJ MC Flektogon 20/2.8 (for nature - sharper)
24-25mm (ultra wide-angle)
- Zeiss Distagon T* 25/2.8 ZS
- CZJ Flektogon 25/4
28-29mm (super wide-angle)
- ???
- Vivitar MC 28/2.8 /Komine/
- Vivitar VMC Series 1 28/1.9 /Tokina/
35mm (wide-angle)
- Zeiss Distagon T* 35/2 ZS
- CZJ MC Flektogon 35/2.4
- Vivitar 35/1.9 /Komine/
- Asahi S-M-C Takumar 35/3.5
- Asahi Super-Takumar 35/2 PRO
50-60mm (standard)
- Zeiss Planar T* 50/1.4 ZS
- Asahi S-M-C Takumar 50/1.4
- CZJ MC Pancolar 50/1.8
- Tomioka MC 55/1.4
- Pentacon MC 50/1.8 (thx2 DSG)
70-90mm (portrait / short tele)
- CZJ Pancolar 80/1.8 (universal)
- CZJ Biotar T 75/1.5
- KMZ Helios 40-2 85/1.5 (portrait)
100-150mm (medium tele)
- CZJ MC Sonnar 135/3.5
- Voigtlander 125/2.5 APO-Lanthar Macro (thx2 rayatphonix)
100-150mm (medium tele)
- CZJ MC Sonnar 180/2.8 (thx2 DSG)
_________________ (almost) complete list of Helios lenses
Last edited by no-X on Sat Sep 13, 2008 8:37 am; edited 5 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
rayatphonix
Joined: 24 Mar 2008 Posts: 28
|
Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:33 pm Post subject: A few more... |
|
|
rayatphonix wrote:
How about the Oly 28mm f 2.0? My favorite 28mm lens.
On the long end, Voigtlander 125mm macro. Possibly my favorite lens of any focal length.
In between, the Helios-40 85mm f 1.5. Nothing else like it (although to some that's a good thing). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008 Posts: 3754 Location: Argentina
|
Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 11:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
NO-X
And what happen if you must choose only one Flekt 20mm. F/2,8 or F/4?
Is the F/2,8 as good for arch as the F/4 and the F/4 as good for nature
as the F/2,8?. The answer is NO, endeed.
But in the compromise I prefer less sharpness and NOT distortion.
For my taste, the choose is the F/4 flekt
Rino _________________ Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
no-X
Joined: 19 Jul 2008 Posts: 2495 Location: Budejky, Czech Republic
|
Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 6:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
no-X wrote:
rayatphonix: Do you mean M42 version of Voigtlander 125/2.5 APO-Lanthar Macro? As for the 28/2, I can't find any info about M42 version. Could you post any link or picture of this lens? Thanks!
estudleon: Each user can have different preferrences and that's why I mentioned both of them and didn't rank them numericaly. But I appreciate your opinion and I'm moving the 20/4 up _________________ (almost) complete list of Helios lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DSG
Joined: 04 Mar 2007 Posts: 544 Location: London, UK.
|
Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 8:14 am Post subject: Re: Best M42 lenses(?) |
|
|
DSG wrote:
no-X wrote: |
Stupid name for a thread, I know... but I miss this kind of list.
This is my opinion, I'd be happy, if anybody share his experience so I could append it to the list
fish eye
14-19mm (rectalinear (non-fish eye) ultra wide-angle)
20mm (extreme wide-angle)
- CZJ Flektogon 20/4 (for architecture - lower distorsion)
- CZJ MC Flektogon 20/2.8 (for nature - sharper)
24-25mm (ultra wide-angle)
- Zeiss Distagon T* 25/2.8 ZS
- CZJ Flektogon 25/4
28-29mm (super wide-angle)
- ???
- Vivitar MC 28/2.8 /Komine/
- Vivitar VMC Series 1 28/1.9 /Tokina/
35mm (wide-angle)
- Zeiss Distagon T* 35/2 ZS
- CZJ MC Flektogon 35/2.4
- Vivitar 35/1.9 /Komine/
- Asahi S-M-C Takumar 35/3.5
- Asahi Super-Takumar 35/2 PRO
50-60mm (standard)
- Zeiss Planar T* 50/1.4 ZS
- Asahi S-M-C Takumar 50/1.4
- CZJ MC Pancolar 50/1.8
- Tomioka MC 55/1.4
- Pentacon 50mm f1.8
70-90mm (portrait / short tele)
- CZJ Pancolar 80/1.8
- CZJ Biotar T 75/1.5
- Helios 40-2 85/1.5
100-150mm (medium tele)
- CZJ MC Sonnar 135/3.5
- Voigtlander 125/2.5 APO-Lanthar Macro (thx2 rayatphonix)
160-300mm (telephoto)
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Séamuis
Joined: 20 Jul 2008 Posts: 157 Location: here & now
|
Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 9:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Séamuis wrote:
Quote: |
# Zeiss Planar T* 50/1.4 ZS
# Asahi S-M-C Takumar 50/1.4 |
why do you always put the zeiss glass on top of the pentax glass? the takumar 50 1.4 is one of the best (though not the sharpest) 50mm pentax ever made. granted a lot of lenses are built on older zeiss designs but is the zeiss that much better than the pentax? lets us not forget that pentax worked closely with zeiss quite often during the takumar days as well as the early K days. I don't know, I think a lot of people (im not insinuating anything here) think of the zeiss glass as better simply because of the zeiss name and it bothers me to some degree that it puts the pentax glass as second rate to another brand when performance wise that might simply not be true. this would hold true for any lens, im not trying to be a pentax 'fanboy' here. _________________ Fish-Eye -- Fish-Eye-Takumar 1:11/18
WideAngle -- Super-Takumar 1:3.5/28, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3/35, Auto-Takumar 1:3.5/35, Super-Takumar 1:3.5/35
Normal -- S-M-C Takumar 1:1.4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:1.8/55, Super-Takumar 1:1.8/55, S-M-C Takumar 1:1.8/55, SMC Takumar 1:1.8/55, Auto-Takumar 1:2/55
TeleType -- S-M-C Takumar 1:1.8/85, S-M-C Takumar 1:2.8/105, Super-Takumar 1:3.5/135, Tele-Takumar 1:6.3/300
Zoom -- Super Takumar-Zoom 1:4.5/70~150
Macro -- Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, S-M-C Macro-Takumar 1:4/100, Bellows-Takumar 1:4/100
Medium Format -- S-M-C Takumar 6X7 1:2.8/90 LS
----------------------------------------
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
no-X
Joined: 19 Jul 2008 Posts: 2495 Location: Budejky, Czech Republic
|
Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 9:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
no-X wrote:
I like most of my Asahi lenses more than Zeiss lenses. The order doesn't mean quality (unless I marked them by ordinal numbers). I don't have Planar, I only own S-M-C, Pancolar and Tomioka and I consider S-M-C the best (bokeh, coating, extreme built quality... even the most well-worned Takumar I have ever tried, was mechanically superior to my "mintest" CZJ) _________________ (almost) complete list of Helios lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008 Posts: 3754 Location: Argentina
|
Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
The taste of each one is, endeed, a personal question. For somebody the SMC has a better bokeh, well, for others ( like me) the pancolar has the better bokeh. And It's OK for each one, isn't it?
I can say that if you need more DOF, the pancolar is usefull than the SMC because at F/8 and F/11 the panky is sharpest than the SMC - and for my experience, it's right.
And If you need use a F/2,8 or F/4, the SMC is the winner.
But both are usefull in overall cases and greats lenses, each choose your winner. I choose the Panky
Rino. _________________ Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
patrickh
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 Posts: 8551 Location: Oregon
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
patrickh wrote:
I agree with Rino on this. I also think you will find that we have several threads like this one and they are all fun and informative. As you look at the pictures posted here and on other fora it becomes very clear that people all develop their own styles and much of that can be driven by the character of the lenses they own. Not all of us can afford Zeiss/Leica/Hassie etc. We have many contributors here who have the best value lenses out there and do incredible things with them. This thread is part of the fabric of what this forum is about - to display what older MF lenses can do, so that they can be treasured (not necessarily valued) for their often unique qualities.
Sermon over
patrickh _________________ DSLR: Nikon D300 Nikon D200 Nex 5N
MF Zooms: Kiron 28-85/3.5, 28-105/3.2, 75-150/3.5, Nikkor 50-135/3.5 AIS // MF Primes: Nikkor 20/4 AI, 24/2 AI, 28/2 AI, 28/2.8 AIS, 28/3.5 AI, 35/1.4 AIS, 35/2 AIS, 35/2.8 PC, 45/2.8 P, 50/1.4 AIS, 50/1.8 AIS, 50/2 AI, 55/2.8 AIS micro, 55/3.5 AI micro, 85/2 AI, 100/2,8 E, 105/1,8 AIS, 105/2,5 AIS, 135/2 AIS, 135/2.8 AIS, 200/4 AI, 200/4 AIS micro, 300/4.5 AI, 300/4.5 AI ED, Arsat 50/1.4, Kiron 28/2, Vivitar 28/2.5, Panagor 135/2.8, Tamron 28/2.5, Tamron 90/2.5 macro, Vivitar 90/2.5 macro (Tokina) Voigtlander 90/3.5 Vivitar 105/2.5 macro (Kiron) Kaleinar 100/2.8 AI Tamron 135/2.5, Vivitar 135/2.8CF, 200/3.5, Tokina 400/5,6
M42: Vivitar 28/2.5, Tamron 28/2.5, Formula5 28/2.8, Mamiya 28/2.8, Pentacon 29/2.8, Flektogon 35/2.4, Flektogon 35/2.8, Takumar 35/3.5, Curtagon 35/4, Takumar 50/1.4, Volna-6 50/2.8 macro, Mamiya 50/1.4, CZJ Pancolar 50/1,8, Oreston 50/1.8, Takumar 50/2, Industar 50/3.5, Sears 55/1.4, Helios 58/2, Jupiter 85/2, Helios 85/1.5, Takumar 105/2.8, Steinheil macro 105/4.5, Tamron 135/2.5, Jupiter 135/4, CZ 135/4, Steinheil Culminar 135/4,5, Jupiter 135/3.5, Takumar 135/3.5, Tair 135/2.8, Pentacon 135/2.8, CZ 135/2.8, Taika 135/3.5, Takumar 150/4, Jupiter 200/4, Takumar 200/4
Exakta: Topcon 100/2.8(M42), 35/2.8, 58/1.8, 135/2.8, 135/2.8 (M42), Kyoei Acall 135/3.5
C/Y: Yashica 28/2.8, 50/1.7, 135/2.8, Zeiss Planar 50/1.4, Distagon 25/2.8
Hexanon: 28/3.5, 35/2.8, 40/1.8, 50/1.7, 52/1.8, 135/3.2, 135/3.5, 35-70/3.5, 200/3.5
P6 : Mir 38 65/3.5, Biometar 80/2.8, Kaleinar 150/2.8, Sonnar 180/2.8
Minolta SR: 28/2.8, 28/3.5, 35/2.8, 45/2, 50/2, 58/1.4, 50/1.7, 135/2.8, 200/3.5
RF: Industar 53/2.8, Jupiter 8 50/2
Enlarg: Rodagon 50/5,6, 80/5,6, 105/5.6, Vario 44-52/4, 150/5.6 180/5.6 El Nikkor 50/2,8,63/2.8,75/4, 80/5,6, 105/5.6, 135/5.6 Schneider 60/5.6, 80/5.6, 80/4S,100/5.6S,105/5.6,135/5.6, 135/5.6S, 150/5.6S, Leica 95/4 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DSG
Joined: 04 Mar 2007 Posts: 544 Location: London, UK.
|
Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DSG wrote:
[quote="Séamuis"]
Quote: |
# Zeiss Planar T* 50/1.4 ZS
# Asahi S-M-C Takumar 50/1.4
why do you always put the zeiss glass on top of the pentax glass?
|
Because Carl Zeiss make better lenses than Pentax...Not just optically but mechanically too.
Séamuis wrote: |
the takumar 50 1.4 is one of the best (though not the sharpest) 50mm pentax ever made.
|
Perhaps, but its also the softest lens in the world when WO...Well, at least my one was
Séamuis wrote: |
granted a lot of lenses are built on older zeiss designs but is the zeiss that much better than the pentax?
|
Yes...I once had a SMC 50/1.7 literally fall apart in my hands, before I could even use it!!!...That would NEVER happen with a Zeiss...Not even with a CZJ!
Séamuis wrote: |
lets us not forget that pentax worked closely with zeiss quite often during the takumar days as well as the early K days. I don't know, I think a lot of people (im not insinuating anything here) think of the zeiss glass as better simply because of the zeiss name and it bothers me to some degree that it puts the pentax glass as second rate to another brand when performance wise that might simply not be true.
|
Its not just the name...The minute you try Zeiss, nothing else is as nice!
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008 Posts: 3754 Location: Argentina
|
Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
[quote="patrickh"]I agree with Rino on this. I also think you will find that we have several threads like this one and they are all fun and informative. As you look at the pictures posted here and on other fora it becomes very clear that people all develop their own styles and much of that can be driven by the character of the lenses they own. Not all of us can afford Zeiss/Leica/Hassie etc. We have many contributors here who have the best value lenses out there and do incredible things with them. This thread is part of the fabric of what this forum is about - to display what older MF lenses can do, so that they can be treasured (not necessarily valued) for their often unique qualities.
Sermon over
patrickh[/quote]
Yes Patrickh.
Each member look for his own interest. For ones, it's a game and the lenses are like toys, and try one, two.......millars. For others who want to shows yours pics, the lenses are the medium to take pics, not toys. Anothers look for both, play and photography. Others.......
Then, the lenses will be differents things for each one and the comportment of each one will be relationed with the interes that may have.
Rino. _________________ Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57865 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
[quote=DSG]Its not just the name...The minute you try Zeiss, nothing else is as nice! [/quote]
Opinion always changing at least for me what is the best lenses.
After first AF lenses (Nikon, Olympus kit lenses+Sigma 70-300mm APO DG)
any old lenses was incredible good one, even if their price was only 10-20 EUR.
Now is different... when I able to use high class lenses like Zeiss 35mm f1.4 , Zeiss 135mm f2 , Zeiss 2.8/180mm now I know what does it mean ZEISS and lenses. I have many Takumar lenses none of them reach Zeiss quality , this not means they are not good lenses, it means Zeiss made one of the best lenses on the planet.
I strongly suggested what DSG said try once a lens from Carl Zeiss and look. if you think Carl Zeiss Jena is not better try some Contax lens ! _________________ -------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
no-X
Joined: 19 Jul 2008 Posts: 2495 Location: Budejky, Czech Republic
|
Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
no-X wrote:
DSG wrote: |
Because Carl Zeiss make better lenses than Pentax...Not just optically but mechanically too. |
I tested about 10-15 50/1.4 Takumars and each of them was in perfect mechanical condition. My friend resells CZJ lenses and about 1/3 of them have stiff focusing or problems with diaphragm (quite typical problem is diaphragm working only in horizontal position - when you direct the camera up a bit, the blades don't respond...).
DSG wrote: |
the takumar 50 1.4 is one of the best (though not the sharpest) 50mm pentax ever made. |
At least all f/1.4 Tomiokas (about four Revuenons, DS-M Yashinon, Yashinon 55/1.2, Porst MC and Cosina MC) I have ever tried, were softer than 50/1.4 Takumars. _________________ (almost) complete list of Helios lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008 Posts: 3754 Location: Argentina
|
Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
[quote="no-X"] My friend resells CZJ lenses and about 1/3 of them have stiff focusing or problems with diaphragm (quite typical problem is diaphragm working only in horizontal position - when you direct the camera up a bit, the blades don't respond...).[/quote]
Yes, I have a flek 35/2,4 with this prolems, lens to down and the blades closed to F/8 no more.
Have solution????
Rino. _________________ Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
no-X
Joined: 19 Jul 2008 Posts: 2495 Location: Budejky, Czech Republic
|
Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
no-X wrote:
He simply sells them for fraction of their real price _________________ (almost) complete list of Helios lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008 Posts: 3754 Location: Argentina
|
Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
The repairmen can't do anything?? _________________ Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
no-X
Joined: 19 Jul 2008 Posts: 2495 Location: Budejky, Czech Republic
|
Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
no-X wrote:
I have no idea. Professional repairmen are very rare and expensive here. Almost mint MC Flektogon 35/2.4 costs about $100 and typical repair about $60... _________________ (almost) complete list of Helios lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008 Posts: 3754 Location: Argentina
|
Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
I will pass it to a new topic.
Thanks. _________________ Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DSG
Joined: 04 Mar 2007 Posts: 544 Location: London, UK.
|
Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DSG wrote:
no-X wrote: |
DSG wrote: |
Because Carl Zeiss make better lenses than Pentax...Not just optically but mechanically too. |
I tested about 10-15 50/1.4 Takumars and each of them was in perfect mechanical condition. My friend resells CZJ lenses and about 1/3 of them have stiff focusing or problems with diaphragm (quite typical problem is diaphragm working only in horizontal position - when you direct the camera up a bit, the blades don't respond...).
|
But your talking about pre-fall of the Berlin wall- East German Carl Zeiss Jena lenses, not West German and Japanese Carl Zeiss lenses...The names may be very similar but there is a huge difference between the two in both mechanical and optical quality.
Carl Zeiss lenses are nice but at a price but Carl Zeiss Jena's are only worth a tenner! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
no-X
Joined: 19 Jul 2008 Posts: 2495 Location: Budejky, Czech Republic
|
Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 9:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
no-X wrote:
Yes, but I consider Pancolar and Takumar as direct competitors (similar timeframe, similar price range) and for me, Takumar is the winner. I can't compare incomparable. Newer Zeiss/Contax lenses can be better for sure, but they are a lot expensive too.
Here are samples of SMC 50/1.4, Planar T* 50/1.4 and Sigma 50/1.4. Both of them are better than the Sigma and entire difference between SMC and Planar seems to come from sligtly shorter focal length of SMC (either the SMC is <50mm>50mm)
http://210.238.185.197/%7Emaro/lens_test/50_14_s_vs_t_56.jpg
http://210.238.185.197/%7Emaro/lens_test/50_14_s_vs_z_56.jpg _________________ (almost) complete list of Helios lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008 Posts: 3754 Location: Argentina
|
Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 9:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
[quote="DSG"][quote="no-X"][quote="DSG"]Because Carl Zeiss make better lenses than Pentax...Not just optically but mechanically too. [/quote]
I tested about 10-15 50/1.4 Takumars and each of them was in perfect mechanical condition. My friend resells CZJ lenses and about 1/3 of them have stiff focusing or problems with diaphragm (quite typical problem is diaphragm working only in horizontal position - when you direct the camera up a bit, the blades don't respond...).
[/quote]
But your talking about pre-fall of the Berlin wall- East German Carl Zeiss Jena lenses, not West German and Japanese Carl Zeiss lenses...The names may be very similar but there is a huge difference between the two in both mechanical and optical quality.
Carl Zeiss lenses are nice but at a price but Carl Zeiss Jena's are only worth a tenner! [/quote]
dsg
Not all the zeiss contax are better opticaly than czj.
The pancolar 50/1,8 is better optically, in my copies, than the planar 50/1,7 and 1,4.
The same I can say about the czj 135/3,5. It's better, for me of course, than the zeiss contax 135/2,8.
Rino. _________________ Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DSG
Joined: 04 Mar 2007 Posts: 544 Location: London, UK.
|
Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DSG wrote:
no-X wrote: |
Yes, but I consider Pancolar and Takumar as direct competitors (similar timeframe, similar price range) and for me, Takumar is the winner. I can't compare incomparable. Newer Zeiss/Contax lenses can be better for sure, but they are a lot expensive too.
Here are samples of SMC 50/1.4, Planar T* 50/1.4 and Sigma 50/1.4. Both of them are better than the Sigma and entire difference between SMC and Planar seems to come from sligtly shorter focal length of SMC (either the SMC is <50mm>50mm)
http://210.238.185.197/%7Emaro/lens_test/50_14_s_vs_t_56.jpg
http://210.238.185.197/%7Emaro/lens_test/50_14_s_vs_z_56.jpg |
Having examined them very closely I really dont know how you could think the Sigma is worse than the other two?
The Sigma the the Ziess have very similar contrast but the Pentax has noticably lower contrast than the other two, so in that respect its the worst of the three.
I found it extremely difficult to find any differences in resolution between the three...Assuming the focus is bang on infinity (and it may not be) the Zeiss appears to have a tiny edge in resolving detail in the most distant areas of the town but the Sigma seems to better on the closer buildings.
But its not a fair comparison really because all three were at f5.6 and its well known that the Sigma is designed to be, and is, very sharp WO so a fairer test would be to set all three of them to WO and then take pics of the same subject with each...Then I reckon the Sigma will walk it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
no-X
Joined: 19 Jul 2008 Posts: 2495 Location: Budejky, Czech Republic
|
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 8:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
no-X wrote:
DSG wrote: |
Having examined them very closely I really dont know how you could think the Sigma is worse than the other two? |
CA
look at highlited edges:
This crop si recompressed, so it would be better to compare the original files, but you will see, that SMC and Zeiss are almost free of CA when compared to Sigma... _________________ (almost) complete list of Helios lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
zewrak
Joined: 12 Apr 2008 Posts: 1212
|
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 9:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
zewrak wrote:
I am curious to know. This softness you speak of what versions of Takumar's are you talking about? _________________ My homepage, all manual shots |
|
Back to top |
|
|
no-X
Joined: 19 Jul 2008 Posts: 2495 Location: Budejky, Czech Republic
|
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 9:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
no-X wrote:
According to my experience, Takumar loses contrast rather than sharpness:
http://photoweb.xf.cz/lenses/set1.png
(the DS-M is sharpest WO Tomioka 5xmm lens I know) _________________ (almost) complete list of Helios lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|