View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
hemmo
Joined: 30 Mar 2010 Posts: 504 Location: Helsinki, Finland
Expire: 2016-12-17
|
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 6:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
hemmo wrote:
woodrim wrote: |
Another way of answering... if I can pick only one M42 lens to have, it would be Flek 35 f2/4
|
+1 _________________ 500px l ¿ .. ? l Jalbum |
|
Back to top |
|
|
no-X
Joined: 19 Jul 2008 Posts: 2495 Location: Budejky, Czech Republic
|
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 7:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
no-X wrote:
I tried several copies of flektogon 35/2.8 and non was as sharp as 35/2.4.
Anyway, as for "must have" M42 lenses, I think i depend if you prefer sharpness or character.
for sharpness:
Vivitar Series 1 28/1.9
S-M-C Takumar 35/3.5 or Flektogon 35/2.4
S-M-C Takumar 50/1.4
S-M-C Macro Takumar 50/4
CZJ Pancolar 80/1.8
CZJ Biometar 80/2.8
CZJ Sonnar 135/3.5 or Jupiter-37 135/3.5
for character:
Auto Takumar 35/2.3 (also very sharp at f/11)
Meyer Primagon 35/4.5 (sharp)
Meyer Helioplan 40/4.5
Volna-9 Macro 50/2.8 (sharp but not at Takumar level; best ever bokeh)
Meyer Trioplan 50/2.9
Meyer Primoplan 58/1.9
Jupiter-9 85/2
Meyer Trioplan 100/2.8 _________________ (almost) complete list of Helios lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
djmike
Joined: 01 Apr 2009 Posts: 930 Location: Taiwan
|
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 7:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
djmike wrote:
Paul, you will find the answer for this inquiry is WIDE OPEN as you can also find almost everyone in Forum here has at least five M42 lenses and even more than 10. IMHO, CZJ/EBC and SMC (as you had laready) are good and some Russian lenses are good, too. You better to collect ALL to experience them.
Mike _________________
DSLR: Canon 400D
SLR: Nikon FM2 + Canon A-1 + Canon AE1-P + Praktica MTL-5B + Pentax Spotmatic F + Fujica ST801 + Voigtlander Bassematic + Voigtlander Vito + Rollei 35S + Rolleiflex SL35 ME + Canon QL17 GIII + Olympus Pen EE-3
Lenses
M42: CZJ Flektogon 35/2.4 + CZJ Flektogon Zebra 35/2.8 + CZJ Pancolar 50/1.8 + CZJ Sonnar 135/3.5 + CZJ Tessar 50/2.8 Chrome + Pentacon 135/2.8 + Pentacon 50/1.8 + SMC Takumar 50/1.4 + SMC Takumar 55/2 + SMC Takumar 135/3.5 + Fujinon 55/1.8 + Jupiter-9 85/2 + Jupiter-37A 135/3.5 + Helios 44-6 58/2
Nikor: Nikkor 50/1.4 + Nikkor 28/3.5 + Nikkor 35-105 Zoom + 36-72 Series E Zoom
Canon: Canon FD + 28/2.8 + 50/1.8 + Canon 35-105 Macro Zoom
Other: Rollei Planar HFT 50/1.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston
|
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
walter g wrote: |
Not an adapter. They now offer relacement mounts for certain Minolta lenses that converts it to a true M42 mount. They are starting to get pretty popular to. |
Who is "They" ? I have a Rokkor 50mm f/1.4 that I've wanted to convert, but given up on because of the difficulty. In fact, I can't even figure out how to remove the mount. _________________ Regards,
Woodrim |
|
Back to top |
|
|
F16SUNSHINE
Joined: 20 Aug 2007 Posts: 5486 Location: Left Coast
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
F16SUNSHINE wrote:
My only 2 "Must have" M42 lenses. Plenty others I'm happy I do have.
Pancolar MC 50mm
Pancolar MC 80mm
_________________ Moderator |
|
Back to top |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston
|
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 3:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
no-X wrote: |
for character:
Auto Takumar 35/2.3 (also very sharp at f/11)
Meyer Primagon 35/4.5 (sharp)
Meyer Helioplan 40/4.5
Volna-9 Macro 50/2.8 (sharp but not at Takumar level; best ever bokeh)
Meyer Trioplan 50/2.9
Meyer Primoplan 58/1.9
Jupiter-9 85/2
Meyer Trioplan 100/2.8 |
You seem to like Meyer. Is the 100mm anything like the Pentor 100mm f/2.8? Do you know anything about the Pentor? Is the Meyer 200mm f/4 worth anything? _________________ Regards,
Woodrim |
|
Back to top |
|
|
hexi
Joined: 01 Jul 2009 Posts: 1631 Location: France
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 3:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
hexi wrote:
Hi here, i agree with the following :
estudleon wrote: |
I suggest: 1,8/50 Pancolar, very economical 1,8/50 pentacon, |
I'd like to add the 2.8/29 Pentacon, very good and cheap as well, but that's not the main issue. I found th e 50mm Pentacon to be soft as gum, thus good for portraits.
ok i'm sure have also said CZJ Sonnar 135 or Tessar, yes, very good also, but the choice of m42's is HUGE ! _________________ Happy owner and user of :
SLR's > Contax Aria - RX
DSLR > Canon 5D
Lenses : C/Y Planar 1.4/50 - Distagon 2.8/35 - Planar 1.4/85
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sonnar85 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008 Posts: 3754 Location: Argentina
|
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
hexi wrote: |
Hi here, i agree with the following :
estudleon wrote: |
I suggest: 1,8/50 Pancolar, very economical 1,8/50 pentacon, |
I'd like to add the 2.8/29 Pentacon, very good and cheap as well, but that's not the main issue. I found th e 50mm Pentacon to be soft as gum, thus good for portraits.
ok i'm sure have also said CZJ Sonnar 135 or Tessar, yes, very good also, but the choice of m42's is HUGE ! |
I found my 50 pentacon MC at F/8 and 11 really indistinguishable to my eyes to the MC pancolar at F/8 and 11. Both very similar at F/4 and 5,6 (a bit better the pancolar for me) and widest the pancolar the best.
To my eyes the pentacon is a good 50 mm. Very versatil: focus from 30 cm, it's a F/1,8 lens, very econimical too. Not much of the 50 mm lenses can said that.
In the rain, snow, sand, the pentacon will do the job with a filter over it, no more. Is it broken working ? It´s easy to repair. Isn't possible ? Well take a 5E and buy another one. The new will be the job too.
A second 50 mm to have ? May be. I have one. Not the second, it's the 3 erd. to me. (S-M-C and pancolar first).
About the 3,5/135 CZJ. I read several times that the 4/135 CZJ is better than the 3,5 version.
And I had the 3,5 in both versions, the MC and the non MC. The last is the best for me. Less CA, more resolution power and a bit less warmish colors. The MC has a bit more contrast.
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 |
|
|
hinnerker
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 Posts: 929 Location: Germany near Kiel
Expire: 2015-08-09
|
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
hinnerker wrote:
Attila wrote: |
LucisPictor wrote: |
The present prices for the Flek 2.4/35 are silly... sorry... ridiculous. 50% is due to a hype. |
I not agree Flek 35 is good as many higher priced competitors and lot better than most lenses. |
Disagree with you Attila.
The Flek is a cheap and mechanical very instable lens. You have to look for lots of copies to find one, which is mechanical and optical good.
In comparison to a Leica 2.8/35mm Elmarit the Flek is faster but not as good as i expected. I did some comparison shots on a meeting in Marburg with a copy which was completely serviced and adjusted by Foto Service Görlitz (Olbrich). It cant win my interest according to the Elmarit.
Ok, its a useful lens, great short focus distance, sharp stopped down, but overpriced IMHO..
It beats some competitors in the lower segment, thats all.
Dont know what you mean with "...better then most lenses".. but the Flek doesnt suprised me and i have seen a lot of 35mm lenses.
So i agree with Carsten, there is a Hype for the Flek, not more.
Cheers
Henry _________________ some light-painting lens stuff..
... and an EOS 5D MKII
www.digicamclub.de |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57865 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
I hold over twenty copy of Flek 35 only a few of them had blades problem. None of them had bad optical quality just some of them was better than usual. So I keep my opinion current lens prices are not high at all. _________________ -------------------------------
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: Fri Apr 09, 2010 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
no-X wrote:
hinnerker: Which M42 35mm lens is cheaper and better performing than the Flektogon? I can't say it's my favourite lens, but there are many 35mm M42 lenses, which are more expensive, but worse.
Some lenses are similarly sharp stopped down - S-M-C 35/3.5 or Auto Tak 35/2.3... But none of them is also as good at wider apertures. None of them allows macro 1:2 focusing and none of them has smoother bokeh. All 35mm lenses I tried had significantly harder OOF lights.
How can be a lens considered as overpriced, if equivalent performer for a better price doesn't exist? _________________ (almost) complete list of Helios lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston
|
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
When speaking about lens prices, high, low, expensive, and cheap are all subjective terms. I have the Flek 35mm f/2.4 and also a Soligor 35mm f/2.8 T-4 lens (from way back). The Soligor can probably be had for $10, the Flek cost me $100 and most go higher. So, the Flek is high priced relative to my Soligor, but certainly not a high priced lens relative to new lenses or even the better Zeiss lenses. However, I will agree that the build quality isn't as good as it should be. On that level, I will say the Soligor is a better build. When it comes to IQ, the Flek is much better overall, although the Soligor does very well in some circumstances.
Today, and because of this thread, I took my Soligor and Flek out to do some comparison shots for my own purposes. The Flek broke. This was the second time the aperture stopped working. The first time it was an easy fix, but this time I allowed a bearing to slip out and had to disassemble more of the lens mount. What a nightmare. I still think those designers had demented minds. After several attempts to get it all back together and working, the last attempt seems to have worked. It works flawlessly now, so I'm not sure yet what I did wrong. Anyway, I think it was the A/M switch that led to the problem. Allowing the switch to get in the halfway position and changing the aperture seems to force a lever out of its sleeve. _________________ Regards,
Woodrim |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57865 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 9:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
woodrim wrote: |
Anyway, I think it was the A/M switch that led to the problem. Allowing the switch to get in the halfway position and changing the aperture seems to force a lever out of its sleeve. |
Yes , this is weak part of Carl Zeiss Jena design. In my experience if blades did clean well they works for many , many years trouble free. _________________ -------------------------------
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 |
|
|
aoleg
Joined: 22 Feb 2008 Posts: 1387 Location: Berlin, DE
|
Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 3:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
aoleg wrote:
no-X wrote: |
hinnerker: Which M42 35mm lens is cheaper and better performing than the Flektogon? |
Mir-24M (35/2) and SMC Takumar 35/2 are both cheaper ($90 and under-$200'ish respectively), almost a stop brighter, and generally offer a very pleasing rendition.
If we're talking about 35mm lenses in general, then Nikkor 35/2 is superb (an AI version can be had for around $130). I've heard good things about SMC Pentax M 35/2, but can't confirm as I can't mount it on the 5D. Yashica ML 35/2.8, although slightly slower, is way cheaper than the Flek, and offers even sharpness across the frame with superb colors and contrast; it costs about $85.
As you see, there are plenty of alternatives that are both cheaper *and* better than the Flek. _________________ List of lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
no-X
Joined: 19 Jul 2008 Posts: 2495 Location: Budejky, Czech Republic
|
Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
no-X wrote:
I was never successful to find the M42 Mir in good condition for better price then Flektogon. Maybe I'll sometimes offer a Flektogon for exchange
As for S-M-C 35/2, it is sharp wide open, but it has also the most significant CA of all 35mm I have ever tried. Flektogon also has much softer bokeh and is way sharper stopped down.
Takumars are good, S-M-C 35/2.0 for low-light, S-M-C 35/3.5 for sharpness and 35/2.3 for low CA and sharpness at f/11, but 3 lenses are needed to beat 1 flektogon.
As for build quality - primary problem of black CZJ lenses is the lube. It was certified only for temperatures lower than 40°C. Reaching this temperature some substances start to evaporate and condense at the coldest part of the lens - aperture blades. The bigger blades, the sooner it will tick them together. At the era of these lenses many owners tried to fix this issue by themselves making damage like deforming the blades, decentering optics, breaking adjusted infinity focus, aperture mechanism etc. These "home-serviced" lenses caused much of the bad build-quality reputation. It was CZJ fault, but multiplied by thumby hands... _________________ (almost) complete list of Helios lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aleksanderpolo
Joined: 24 Jan 2010 Posts: 684
|
Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
aleksanderpolo wrote:
The flek 35/2.4 is selling for around $200 US in general, similar in price to Distagon 35/2.8. Do they have considerably different character to warrant having both? Or are they too similar? _________________ Panny GF1
Looking for: More articles to read
Current lens:
m4/3: 20/1.7; 14-45/3.5-5.6
C/Y: CZ 28/2.8; CZ 35/2.8; CZ 50/1.4
G: 45/2; 90/2.8
M: CV 35/1.4
Rollei: 50/1.8
m42: S-M-C Tak 50/1.4, Helios 44-2
F: AI 28/2; AIS 35/2; AIS 50/1.4; E 50/1.8
FL: 55/1.2
FD: Vivitar(Komine CF) 28/2; Kiron 28/2; nFD 50/1.4; nFD 35-105/3.5-4.5
AR: 40/1.8; 50/1.4; Adaptall 35-80/2.8-3.5
MD: Vivitar(Kiron) 24/2; MD 50/1.4
OM: 21/3.5; 24/2.8; 50/1.4; 135/3.5 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
no-X
Joined: 19 Jul 2008 Posts: 2495 Location: Budejky, Czech Republic
|
Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 3:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
no-X wrote:
I don't have Distagon 35/2.8 but I can say, that optical design of Flektogon 35/2.4 is very different to flektogon 35/2.8 (which is typical early retrofocal lens), but very similar to some distagons:
_________________ (almost) complete list of Helios lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008 Posts: 3754 Location: Argentina
|
Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
a) Price : As all of us know, while there is a buyer that want to pay determinated price to obtain certain lens, it will be the price. Market win. The price isn't subjective.
There is a buyer or not. It's objective. Now, the price formation's process can be subjective, but not the price in itself.
If one person want to pay E 200 for the flektogon 2,4/35 (or for any other lens) and do it, that will be the market's price for the lens. No more to me.
b) The M42 mount isn't the best one to wide angle lenses. I have a flek 2,4/35 and I hoped so much from it. But, in other hand, not much better 35 lenses in the M42 world.
If you like the wide angle pics, I suggest that change the mount (elmarit and distagon are the lenses to go to for me) I don't know much about nikon and canon lenses.
c) The CZJ lenses have a plastic base over one the blades are moving (open and close). That plastic base wear away with the rubbing of blades and are restraining blades. I could verify that with my own eyes and in my own lens.
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 |
|
|
dab63
Joined: 17 Dec 2009 Posts: 65 Location: robbiate - LC - italy
|
Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 4:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
dab63 wrote:
estudleon wrote: |
.... I don't know much about nikon and canon lenses...... |
Considering all available lenses, including AF ones, Canon 35L 1.4 imho is "the absolute" lense of such focal length ....
.... apart from price, of course _________________ Canon 1DmarkIII & 5D old
EF AF: 17-40 f/4 L - 35mm f/1.4 L - 70-200 f/4 L
M42: Helios-44M-4 58mm f/2 - Jupiter-21M 200mm f/4
C/Y: Yas ML Macro 55mm f/2.8
Nik: Nikkor 50 f/1.4 Ais - Nikkor 85mm f/2 Ais
Leica: Summicron 50 f/2 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
my_photography
Joined: 03 Nov 2008 Posts: 2772 Location: Pearl of the Orient
Expire: 2016-12-25
|
Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
my_photography wrote:
dab63 wrote: |
estudleon wrote: |
.... I don't know much about nikon and canon lenses...... |
Considering all available lenses, including AF ones, Canon 35L 1.4 imho is "the absolute" lense of such focal length ....
.... apart from price, of course |
Have you forgotten about C/Y Distagon 35/1.4? Don't think Canon 35L can beat that. _________________
Zeiss: CJZ Flektogon 20/2.8, CJZ Flektogon 20/4, , CJZ Pentacon 29/2.8, CJZ Flektogon 35/2.4, CJZ Pancolar 50/1.8, Tessar 50/2.8, Biotar 7.5cm/1.5, CJZ Pancolar 80/1.8, CJZ Sonnar 135/3.5, CJZ Pentacon 135/2.8 CJZ Sonnar 200/2.8
Other Germany: Meyer Primoplan 50/1.8, Meyer Trioplan 100/2.8
Takumar: SMC 50/1.4 Super Tak 55/2, Super Tak 85/1.9, S-M-C 135/3.5, Super Tak 150/4
Russian: Zenith 16/2.8, Mir-24M 2/35, Volna-9 50/2.8, Helios 44M (58/2), Helios 44M-3 MC (58/2), Helios 40 (85/1.5), Tair 11A (135/2.8 )
Others: Sears 28/2.8, Sankor 35/2.8, Enna M�nchen Tele-Ennalyt 135/3.5
Zoom Sigma Zoom 28-85/3.5-4.5
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
dab63
Joined: 17 Dec 2009 Posts: 65 Location: robbiate - LC - italy
|
Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
dab63 wrote:
my_photography wrote: |
Have you forgotten about C/Y Distagon 35/1.4? Don't think Canon 35L can beat that. |
except for some purple fringing wide open, I see no flaws in 35L .. so it would be a very hard (for the lenses) and verrrrry nice (for me ) comparison to do if I had a Distagon in my hands _________________ Canon 1DmarkIII & 5D old
EF AF: 17-40 f/4 L - 35mm f/1.4 L - 70-200 f/4 L
M42: Helios-44M-4 58mm f/2 - Jupiter-21M 200mm f/4
C/Y: Yas ML Macro 55mm f/2.8
Nik: Nikkor 50 f/1.4 Ais - Nikkor 85mm f/2 Ais
Leica: Summicron 50 f/2 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
spleenone
Joined: 26 Dec 2009 Posts: 1130 Location: Slovakia
|
Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
spleenone wrote:
Once somebody start speak about L-glass everething comparing to them and nothing can compare to them... funny =)
but in glass I suppose Zeiss could beat many new Canon primes mainly in specific and own important clues.
hexi wrote: |
I'd like to add the 2.8/29 Pentacon, very good and cheap as well, but that's not the main issue. |
It is not bad lens but mine has own character. Pics at faster asa speed look like painting or what. Rather to have something sharper. (Taks and CZJs spoiled me ) Speaking about non-MC wide Pentacon.
Compare:
Pentacon 29/2.8 @f8-11 Kodak Ultramax 400
Pentacon 29/2.8 @f8-11 Fuji Superia 200 _________________ Shoot on analog mainly with
Nikkor glass
then Pentacon6TL for squares
and Fujica GL690 in case of 6x9
Carpe diem! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
my_photography
Joined: 03 Nov 2008 Posts: 2772 Location: Pearl of the Orient
Expire: 2016-12-25
|
Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
my_photography wrote:
Spleenone, thanks for pulling us back to the topic. Will discuss the other side topics in another thread if interested. _________________
Zeiss: CJZ Flektogon 20/2.8, CJZ Flektogon 20/4, , CJZ Pentacon 29/2.8, CJZ Flektogon 35/2.4, CJZ Pancolar 50/1.8, Tessar 50/2.8, Biotar 7.5cm/1.5, CJZ Pancolar 80/1.8, CJZ Sonnar 135/3.5, CJZ Pentacon 135/2.8 CJZ Sonnar 200/2.8
Other Germany: Meyer Primoplan 50/1.8, Meyer Trioplan 100/2.8
Takumar: SMC 50/1.4 Super Tak 55/2, Super Tak 85/1.9, S-M-C 135/3.5, Super Tak 150/4
Russian: Zenith 16/2.8, Mir-24M 2/35, Volna-9 50/2.8, Helios 44M (58/2), Helios 44M-3 MC (58/2), Helios 40 (85/1.5), Tair 11A (135/2.8 )
Others: Sears 28/2.8, Sankor 35/2.8, Enna M�nchen Tele-Ennalyt 135/3.5
Zoom Sigma Zoom 28-85/3.5-4.5
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
fish4570
Joined: 06 Jan 2010 Posts: 4514 Location: At the confluence of the Locust Fork of the Warrior River and Black Creek, Alabama
Expire: 2012-03-21
|
Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
fish4570 wrote:
nice shots with the pentacon ... _________________ Paul
I chase Light
http://blackcreekjournal.blogspot.com/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
spleenone
Joined: 26 Dec 2009 Posts: 1130 Location: Slovakia
|
Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
spleenone wrote:
my_photography wrote: |
Spleenone, thanks for pulling us back to the topic. Will discuss the other side topics in another thread if interested. |
=) will join with word of wisdom
fish4570 wrote: |
nice shots with the pentacon ... |
thanks _________________ Shoot on analog mainly with
Nikkor glass
then Pentacon6TL for squares
and Fujica GL690 in case of 6x9
Carpe diem! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|