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

Better 35 mm. in m42
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 8:53 pm    Post subject: Better 35 mm. in m42 Reply with quote
I want to buy a 35 mm lens in m42.
I have some but, in m42, my best is the flektogon 2,4 and want to have one more sharp (tack sharp) at 5,6 or 8, like my elmarit R or summicron M, the summilux aspheric-M is sharp too at 5,6
Thanks.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 9:05 pm    Post subject: Re: Better 35 mm. in m42 Reply with quote
estudleon wrote:
I want to buy a 35 mm lens in m42.
I have some but, in m42, my best is the flektogon 2,4 and want to have one more sharp (tack sharp) at 5,6 or 8, like my elmarit R or summicron M, the summilux aspheric-M is sharp too at 5,6
Thanks.


Well, your comparison standards are perhaps a bit too high for M42... and I'm not sure that the lenses I am going to present to you are really sharper than the Flek... perhaps yes perhaps no... anyway:

- Zeiss Distagon 2.8/35 for Rollei SL with threaded mount (be careful not to pick a copy with bayonet mount); these are quite rare to find

- SMC Takumar 35mm, I don't have it but I read good reports about it

- a Tamron 35mm lens with adaptall 2 to M42, I don't know well the Tamron catalogue but I'm pretty sure there should be one.

Then there is the MIR-24M, but it's not sharper than the Flek. I love it for other qualities (colour density, bokeh, 3d)


PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 9:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't think so you will get better lens than Flek 35mm in M42, perhaps your copy is weak .. Try to sell and buy another one.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 9:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Zeiss Distagon 2/35 ZS is the best in M42.

Ingo


PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 9:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The SMC Takumar 3.5 is a fine lens, punchy and sharp right away. Probably the other Takumar versions are just as good.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 9:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ingo wrote:
Zeiss Distagon 2/35 ZS is the best in M42.
Ingo


I forgot about it Embarassed
in fact I was concentrating on used lenses...


PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 10:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hmmm... S-tak 3,5/35, Flek 2,4/35 , Mir-1v . I have a copy of the mir that I consider better than the two others .
I own also an uncommon Novoflex Noflexar macro 3,5/35 which is astonishing ...





100% crop :



Konica 200 asa Film , scan by polaroid sprintscan 35 , body Pentax MX


PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 11:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for all. Your words are valuable piece of advise.


PostPosted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 12:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I love your picture, Helios!


PostPosted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 12:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I want to see it in B&W. Cool


PostPosted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 12:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Here is an image of my flek 2,4








PostPosted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 12:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Too small, to dark I can't see any benefits from Flek.


PostPosted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 9:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Novoflex Noflexar looks like an awesome lens, at least with your eye, Helios. It's a new one to me, thanks for the tip.


PostPosted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 12:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I will tray again.

The image is dark because I do B&W in this form, with much contrast and limited tonal extension. This is the reason that I need more sharp lens, the contrast match the resolution power.

I useXP2 and scaner at 3633 x 2433 (@ 8.8 megap)



PostPosted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 12:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't think so you will found significally sharper 35mm M42 lens.


PostPosted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 12:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Helios wrote:
Hmmm... S-tak 3,5/35, Flek 2,4/35 , Mir-1v . I have a copy of the mir that I consider better than the two others .
I own also an uncommon Novoflex Noflexar macro 3,5/35 which is astonishing ...


Novoflex Noflexar macro 3,5/35 Shocked Shocked

Hello~~Helios!

Can you show me your lens have a look ?


PostPosted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 12:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ATILA

Thank you, Yor time and attention are valored for me.

It's very possoible that, in the B&W way that I use, you're right and not be better than Flek in m42.

HELIOS

Are you sure that the Novoflex macro 35 mm. isn't a better build Enna macro 35 mm F/3,5?


PostPosted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 12:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
My experience with lenses still is very limited, there are many more qualified people here, but I'd think you should give the Super Tak or S.M.C. Tak a try. It is very cheap and very sharp.
check what they have to say about the 35mm f3.5 here: http://stans-photography.info/
cheers,
Andreas


PostPosted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 1:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Andreas, thank you very much. I will consider your suggestion


PostPosted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 11:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I insistin with the flek 2,4 because the m42 equipment is cheaper and here, in my country, are a lot of armed robbery (in this way, I lost my M4), but I do something wrong because the sharpness isn't it. HELP!!

Handheld, Flekt 35 mm at F/4 , XP2 Super at iso 400, scan 3637x2433



PostPosted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 12:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
estudleon wrote:
I insistin with the flek 2,4 because the m42 equipment is cheaper and here, in my country, are a lot of armed robbery (in this way, I lost my M4), but I do something wrong because the sharpness isn't it. HELP!!
Handheld, Flekt 35 mm at F/4 , XP2 Super at iso 400, scan 3637x2433


Leon, I really don't understand what kind of other help you expect.
We have already told you that the model is good, but there is copy variation with this lens as with all Jena lenses of the Seventies/Eighties. It is possible that you got a bad copy. I assure you that with a good copy, the lens performs more than acceptably.
I made a blindfold test some time ago on this forum.
The test involved the Flek 2.4/35 (an export version) and the Distagon 2.8/35 (an AE version), but the people did not know about the identity of the lenses.
I proposed some pictures and asked to choose.
The results gave the Distagon AE as the winner, but the Flek did very well in the comparison. The Flek is weaker wide open, in the colour density, and a bit in the corners also. But shot at f/5.6 or f/8, it gets very close to the Distagon performance.
Here's the page with the test:

http://forum.mflenses.com/blindfold-test-t6715.html

There are some things that you can do to improve the sharpness. One is to always wear a lens hood as the multicoating on the Flek is good but not excellent. A hood will improve on the microcontrast. Secondly, try to never shoot below f/5.6 or above f/8 if sharpness is your concern. Your last sample is shot at f/4, this is not enough to get optimal sharpness out of the Flek.
If these measures are not enough for you, try to do what we already suggested, that is, try another copy of the lens.

Bottom line, you can't get blood out of a rape (meant as vegetable!).
The best 35mm lenses are not in the M42 mount, but you don't want to risk expensive lenses because of theft freight, but you still expect top quality... this is not possible! But believe me the Flek 2.4/35 is a very good compromise. But you must have a good copy and must use it in a way that maximizes the quality of the results.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 4:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes, you're right. thank you very much. You are very generous with your time.
I thougt that the lens was better.
I will use it only at 5,6/8 with hood.

An another item, I will return to digital camera (Idon't like the results very much in B&W but are better than with a scan, for me)

Thanks again.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 4:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
estudleon wrote:
Handheld, Flekt 35 mm at F/4 , XP2 Super at iso 400

It looks fine to me Smile


PostPosted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I read somewhere that the novoflex 3,5/35 macro was a Schneider design , elsewhere a steinheil product , or Enna and Schacht . . I'm sure of nothing but Schacht was a Novoflex provider for l105 mm lens heads 3,5 and 4,5 in M39 mount , and therefore why not Schacht ? A. Schacht worked for Steinheil ... This lens has a strange 4 stages telescopic focus device + the helicoïdal , and this give the 1:1 ratio.
It is surely of Tessar 4 elements formula relevant.
It is very tricky to resolve some lens origins , like Agfa . Agfa lenses , triplets and Tessar types are excellent ! (Apotar, Solinar, Solagon, Jgestar Agnar ) who made the glasses ? Steinheil ? Schneider ? Schott ? Some Zeiss lenses like the Anastigmat Novar were reputedly made by Schneider ...

Here 3 Q&D pics of the Noflexar











and some pics :


Château des Brasseurs (Brewery's owner "house" (castle) )




painted advertisement and 100% crop (Beer !) in the same town , 10 km from my home









I didn't make frankly better pictures with my two flek's (2,8 and 2,4) , Smc-Pentax 3,5/35 "K" (Same lens as M42) or Mir-1v .

Last edited by Helios on Thu Jun 05, 2008 9:02 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 8:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
So beautiful clear images!
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2