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

Communist 135mm Sonnars comparison
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Dec 28, 2010 1:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Keysersoze27 wrote:
BRunner wrote:
For comparison I added same shot from Elmarit 2.8/135 @f4

Is it v2 of the lens?

I think it's the first version. I will check the SN later. But I didn't found how does the v1 and v2 differ.
Don't compare the sharpness, the Elmarit and silver Sonnar shots are very slightly backfocused in comparison to Sonnar MC.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 28, 2010 7:15 pm    Post subject: 135mm 2.8 Reply with quote
Hi! Can you recommend me a good, sharp 135mm lens at f2.8 in a good price?(M42 mount)
I know Sonnar T* 2.8/135mm is very good, but it is a bit expensive for me.

Is there an underestimated or very common 135mm 2.8 lens on the used market?

3.5s are sharp too, but I need some extra light...

I have a seller with a good price (Super Carenar 135mm 2.8 ) but I think this is a bit soft, it is a portre soft lens.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 29, 2010 8:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
BRunner wrote:
Keysersoze27 wrote:
BRunner wrote:
For comparison I added same shot from Elmarit 2.8/135 @f4

Is it v2 of the lens?

I think it's the first version. I will check the SN later. But I didn't found how does the v1 and v2 differ.

According SN and this page I own early second version with E55 made in 1969.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 29, 2010 8:30 am    Post subject: Re: 135mm 2.8 Reply with quote
killmz wrote:
Hi! Can you recommend me a good, sharp 135mm lens at f2.8 in a good price?(M42 mount)
I know Sonnar T* 2.8/135mm is very good, but it is a bit expensive for me.

Is there an underestimated or very common 135mm 2.8 lens on the used market?

3.5s are sharp too, but I need some extra light...

I have a seller with a good price (Super Carenar 135mm 2.8 ) but I think this is a bit soft, it is a portre soft lens.

I think that for it's price, the Pentacon 2.8/135 MC is unbeatable. Same optical schema as preset version (Meyer Orestor/Pentacon 2.8/135 aka. "Bokeh monster"), but you can get it <20€ with some luck. The only difference is 6 blade aperture vs. 15 blades in preset version.
But don't expect same picture quality as with wide-open CZJ Sonnar MC.
Tair 11A is very sharp in center too at f2.8 but the sharpness falls quickly to corners and needs to be stopped down to f8 to recover (even on APS-C). And contrast is worse in comparison to Pentacon (as usual with Soviet lenses).
I've tested other cheap 2.8/135 lenses (Porst, Revuenon, Vivitar, Tokina, Soligor, Tamron), but none of them can beat the Pentacon @f2.8.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 29, 2010 11:08 am    Post subject: Re: 135mm 2.8 Reply with quote
BRunner wrote:
killmz wrote:
Hi! Can you recommend me a good, sharp 135mm lens at f2.8 in a good price?(M42 mount)
I know Sonnar T* 2.8/135mm is very good, but it is a bit expensive for me.

Is there an underestimated or very common 135mm 2.8 lens on the used market?

3.5s are sharp too, but I need some extra light...

I have a seller with a good price (Super Carenar 135mm 2.8 ) but I think this is a bit soft, it is a portre soft lens.

I think that for it's price, the Pentacon 2.8/135 MC is unbeatable. Same optical schema as preset version (Meyer Orestor/Pentacon 2.8/135 aka. "Bokeh monster"), but you can get it <20€ with some luck. The only difference is 6 blade aperture vs. 15 blades in preset version.
But don't expect same picture quality as with wide-open CZJ Sonnar MC.
Tair 11A is very sharp in center too at f2.8 but the sharpness falls quickly to corners and needs to be stopped down to f8 to recover (even on APS-C). And contrast is worse in comparison to Pentacon (as usual with Soviet lenses).
I've tested other cheap 2.8/135 lenses (Porst, Revuenon, Vivitar, Tokina, Soligor, Tamron), but none of them can beat the Pentacon @f2.8.


Thx, for your answer. Then I think I go for a 3.5 135mm(smc takumar, or sonnar), because I have seen some test pics with the pentacon 2.8 electric, http://galactinus.net/vilva/retro/comp135.html and it is a bit soft for me and my 18mpx... 0,7f is not soo much, i think a sharper lens suits for me more. Smile


PostPosted: Wed Dec 29, 2010 1:31 pm    Post subject: Re: 135mm 2.8 Reply with quote
killmz wrote:
Thx, for your answer. Then I think I go for a 3.5 135mm(smc takumar, or sonnar), because I have seen some test pics with the pentacon 2.8 electric, http://galactinus.net/vilva/retro/comp135.html and it is a bit soft for me and my 18mpx... 0,7f is not soo much, i think a sharper lens suits for me more. Smile

Then go for Sonnar. Both Super-Takumar and SMC Takumar I've tested showed lower resolution wide open than Sonnars.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 29, 2010 3:36 pm    Post subject: Re: 135mm 2.8 Reply with quote
BRunner wrote:
killmz wrote:
Thx, for your answer. Then I think I go for a 3.5 135mm(smc takumar, or sonnar), because I have seen some test pics with the pentacon 2.8 electric, http://galactinus.net/vilva/retro/comp135.html and it is a bit soft for me and my 18mpx... 0,7f is not soo much, i think a sharper lens suits for me more. Smile

Then go for Sonnar. Both Super-Takumar and SMC Takumar I've tested showed lower resolution wide open than Sonnars.


thx Cool


PostPosted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:17 pm    Post subject: Re: 135mm 2.8 Reply with quote
Quote:
I think that for it's price, the Pentacon 2.8/135 MC is unbeatable. Same optical schema as preset version (Meyer Orestor/Pentacon 2.8/135 aka. "Bokeh monster"), but you can get it <20€ with some luck. The only difference is 6 blade aperture vs. 15 blades in preset version.
But don't expect same picture quality as with wide-open CZJ Sonnar MC.
Tair 11A is very sharp in center too at f2.8 but the sharpness falls quickly to corners and needs to be stopped down to f8 to recover (even on APS-C). And contrast is worse in comparison to Pentacon (as usual with Soviet lenses).
I've tested other cheap 2.8/135 lenses (Porst, Revuenon, Vivitar, Tokina, Soligor, Tamron), but none of them can beat the Pentacon @f2.8.


Sorry, You mean this lense?:
lense:http://images.hadips.multiply.com/image/2/photos/28/500x500/12/IMGP1904-Edit.jpg?et=pI6Mi8e%2BNdQFT38YP46C8g&nmid=225599519
foto:http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2756/4180999401_0272dd3134_b.jpg
foto:http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2794/4135404551_e9474b63c8_b.jpg
This seems better than the pentacon electric 135mm 2.8!

An other thing: SMC takumar 2.5 worth 130$? is it sharp enough?

Last thing: I noticed very good prices (~60$)and some good review experiences of "Soligor Tele-Auto 135mm 2.8 135 mm M42"
comparsion:http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/czj-sonnar-135mm-vs-soligor-135mm-comparison_topic16298.html
Is it a good lens? I want to get a pic quality close to sonnar 3.5 Embarassed

Happy New Year! Twisted Evil


PostPosted: Tue Jan 04, 2011 8:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
All versions of Meyer Orestor/Pentacon MC (electric) 2.8/135 are optically the same lens. There can be some copy variation, but overall they perform equally.

I tested one 2.8/135 Soligor too. Well built lens, but optically worse than Pentacon. Wide open not as sharp and overall significantly lower contrast.

If you want CZJ Sonnar 3.5 quality at f2.8 then CZ Planar 2/135 is probably your lens of choice.

I don't have Takumar 2.5/135, but I'm little bit skeptical. Many highly rated Takumar lenses perform mediocre in my eyes. Their good perceived sharpness comes from high contrast, but their resolvance power is not on pair with CZ(J) lenses or Leicas.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 23, 2011 8:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
UPDATE 23.4.2011
Anu wrote:
Also, you used a APS-C camera? (Please, borrow a high resolution FF Wink ).

Well, here is latest addendum with 5DmkII. Done on tripod with infrared remote control and 2s mirror lock-up. Lens hood was always on. WB set to daylight. Focused with liveview (on 5D is really usable). RAW files converted in Canon DPP with same profile. Sharpening set to Unsharp mask with parameters 1,10,1.

Only 4 lenses tested. I don't already own the others.

In comparison to APS-C nothing surprising. Looks, like the Silver CZJ Sonnar still holds very slight advantage in resolving power and in the field in comparison to MC versions. The russian Jupiter11 is very capable lens even on FF, but it's bad coating holds it back. Looks like all lenses suffer from tiny decentering issues.
(these JPEGs are compressed at 96 quality because of abload.de 10MB limit, here you can download files compressed at 100 JPEG quality
http://www.mediafire.com/?v04uvc803mpbv, but they are huge ~15MB each)

silver pre-set Jupiter-11 4/135
f4, f5.6


silver CZJ Sonnar 4/135
f4, f5,6


MC CZJ Sonnar 3.5/135 (red coating) first copy in previous tests
f3.5, f5.6


MC CZJ Sonnar 3.5/135 (red-violet coating) new contender
f3.5, f5.6


PostPosted: Sun Apr 24, 2011 3:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
For all practical purposes, the lenses look equal.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 24, 2011 5:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have the silver CZJ 4/135mm since years and was always very pleased with it. Thanks for your confirmation and the efforts of testing them out.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 24, 2011 9:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
woodrim wrote:
For all practical purposes, the lenses look equal.

I don't agree, look at my latest update....

kds315* wrote:
I have the silver CZJ 4/135mm since years and was always very pleased with it. Thanks for your confirmation and the efforts of testing them out.

And it goes even better (for silver Sonnar)....

Last edited by BRunner on Sun Apr 24, 2011 9:51 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Sun Apr 24, 2011 9:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
UPDATE 24.4.2011
And one more update. This torture test shows, how well the lens handles backlighting situations... Looks like FF is significantly more demanding in this aspect than APS-C. Conclusion is short, the silver CZJ Sonnar is a killer!
Test conditions same as in previous update. Click the image for full-res to check the sharpness, focusing point is left top corner of Cacao box.

silver pre-set Jupiter-11 4/135
f4, f5.6





silver CZJ Sonnar 4/135
f4, f5,6




MC CZJ Sonnar 3.5/135 (red coating) first copy in previous tests
f3.5, f5.6




PostPosted: Sun Apr 24, 2011 10:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Years ago, I sold my 3.5/135 MC Sonnar and kept my two 4/135 silver Sonnars.
Nuff said.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 25, 2011 12:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Argh, I read this topic too late. I just bought the CZJ 135/3.5 MC. Smile

I still wonder why on the last test the new MC has lower contrast than the silver one.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 25, 2011 12:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
nixland wrote:

I still wonder why on the last test the new MC has lower contrast than the silver one.


Jena lenses in the last period (from the 70s onward) were built with cheap materials. This is quite evident with the mechanical parts: more than half of my Jena lenses of the 70s did experience failure of the aperture mechanism. I took them to servicing which usually means 50 Euros plus the gasoline price or shipping price. So the bargain purchase prices became not bargain anymore. This is the reason why I started selling them: I am tired of spending money to get them fixed.
On the contrary, I never had a single mechanical problem with silver barrel Jena lenses from the 50s and the early 60s.
This probably because there were still stocks of good quality material from prewar age, and because the financial situation of DDR was not as compromised then as it started to get in the 70s and 80s.
So what is now tried and true for mechanical parts may also be true for glass components and coating materials: although single coated, the lenses from the 50s and 60s did maybe use better quality coating materials than the multicoated lenses of the 70s.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 25, 2011 1:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
nixland wrote:

I still wonder why on the last test the new MC has lower contrast than the silver one.


Jena lenses in the last period (from the 70s onward) were built with cheap materials. This is quite evident with the mechanical parts: more than half of my Jena lenses of the 70s did experience failure of the aperture mechanism. I took them to servicing which usually means 50 Euros plus the gasoline price or shipping price. So the bargain purchase prices became not bargain anymore. This is the reason why I started selling them: I am tired of spending money to get them fixed.
On the contrary, I never had a single mechanical problem with silver barrel Jena lenses from the 50s and the early 60s.
This probably because there were still stocks of good quality material from prewar age, and because the financial situation of DDR was not as compromised then as it started to get in the 70s and 80s.
So what is now tried and true for mechanical parts may also be true for glass components and coating materials: although single coated, the lenses from the 50s and 60s did maybe use better quality coating materials than the multicoated lenses of the 70s.


Thanks a lot Orio. Very valuable info for me.

Super thanks to BRunner for your effort comparing the lenses.

I've been using my CZJ MC for couple of days and I like it, the color-sharpness-bokeh and shorter MFD, but havent tested it for backlight condition yet.
CZJ silver will be on my wishlist then Smile


PostPosted: Mon Apr 25, 2011 6:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
nixland wrote:
Argh, I read this topic too late. I just bought the CZJ 135/3.5 MC. Smile

I still wonder why on the last test the new MC has lower contrast than the silver one.

nixland wrote:
Argh, I read this topic too late. I just bought the CZJ 135/3.5 MC. Smile
I still wonder why on the last test the new MC has lower contrast than the silver one.

My overall experience is that these two lenses perform very close. This test is true torture (wait for comparable test of my 2.8/135, you will be surprised, how poorly some highly regarded lenses perform in this situation).
Don't forget, that MC version offers more neutral color rendering and is faster. It's similar behavior like SMC Takumar 1.4/50 and Pentax-M 1.4/50. Takumar looks slightly more contrasty, but Pentax-M (and latter versions) render much more neutral colors.
On the quality side. I service lenses myself. Black versions are well build lenses, but often suffer from oily blades. But lot of comparable old Japanese and West German lenses have this problem too (I've got even C/Y Planar 1.4/50, HFT Distagon 2.8/25 and some Pentax-M/Takumar lenses with oily aperture blades). I think it's problem of storage.
Silver CZJ lenses have often very dry lubricant and have stiff focusing, 90% of them needs cleaning and relubing. Another common issue on silver CZJ lenses is haze on internal lenses (even on mint copies) which significantly lowers contrast. Again, I think this is problem of storing them in original box for long time. The evaporated lubricant deposits on the lenses.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 25, 2011 8:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks a lot for the info. I got lot of important knowledge in here.

I will share my 135/3.5 photos in a new post as soon as I have adequate photos to represent my lens copy.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:16 pm    Post subject: is this the correct silver model? Reply with quote
Hi,

I'm Spanish, new at the forum, and new at manual lenses.

I got a Olympus e-m1.

¿Is this one the better Silver model of Zeiss Jena ...

[img]



Or any other?

sorry the post is very long and my english reading capacity is limited.


Thanks!


I will go now to introductions section if there is any.
[/img]


PostPosted: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:17 pm    Post subject: Re: is this the correct silver model? Reply with quote
Welcome to the forum Socram! I hope you enjoy your stay.

Links and photos won't show in your first post; an anti-spam measure. You'll be ok from now on.

Socram wrote:
Hi,

I'm Spanish, new at the forum, and new at manual lenses.

I got a Olympus e-m1.

¿Is this one the better Silver model of Zeiss Jena ...

[img]



Or any other?

sorry the post is very long and my english reading capacity is limited.


Thanks!


I will go now to introductions section if there is any.
[/img]
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4