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

Pentacon 135 2.8 "bokeh monster"
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2011 6:39 pm    Post subject: Pentacon 135 2.8 "bokeh monster" Reply with quote
How much money value for this lens?

Meyer-Optik Orestor 2,8/135 15 blades is it similar in image quality?

Thank you very much.


PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2011 6:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
From what I have seen, I would even prefer the Meyer lens to the Pentacon.
I once had a Pentacon 2.8/135 and, yes, it was a good lens but by no means as fantastic as many say it is, rather slightly above average.


PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2011 7:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
They are both same lenses with same optical scheme. Latter Pentacon versions can be slightly more contrasty.

If you can get it ~30€ it's very good value for the money.


PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2011 5:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Better 135 f2.8 15 blades or 200 f4 15 blades for bokeh and 3d effect?
Thanks


PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2011 7:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
sinner79 wrote:
Better 135 f2.8 15 blades or 200 f4 15 blades for bokeh and 3d effect?
Thanks


I have Meyer Primotar 3.5/135 with 15 blades and Pentacon 4/200 with 15 blades.

Tomorrow I will do a specific bokeh test of these two lenses if you like, that will give you an answer.

I think the two lenses are similar in IQ, both are good buys imho.

This is a shot I took with the Pentacon 4/200 the other day:



PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2011 8:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
There are many threads on this forum about the Pentacon 135/2.8 bokeh monster. It's an incredible lens:


Flamingo by ManualFocus-G, on Flickr


Hungry! by ManualFocus-G, on Flickr


PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2011 9:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Greek seller manages to sell samples for around 150 EUR or even more. Buyers thrust that his speciments are good. And if the sample is a good one, it might even be awesome. Anyway lens has to be clean inside (no grease condensation or coating deterioration).


PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2011 10:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I had couple of copies from this lens, all were excellent. In my opinion older Pentacon and Meyer lenses have NO copy variation issue all are same.


PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2011 11:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
I had couple of copies from this lens, all were excellent. In my opinion older Pentacon and Meyer lenses have NO copy variation issue all are same.


Apart from the Domiplan all of my Meyer/Pentacon lenses are good, I collect them.

Zeiss are more expensive but are they actually better?


PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2011 11:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Attila wrote:
I had couple of copies from this lens, all were excellent. In my opinion older Pentacon and Meyer lenses have NO copy variation issue all are same.


Apart from the Domiplan all of my Meyer/Pentacon lenses are good, I collect them.

Zeiss are more expensive but are they actually better?


Depends what you mean by better. A Zeiss Sonnar 135/2.8 T* has more micro contrast and therefore pop, but the Pentacon has buttery bokeh.


PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2011 11:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ManualFocus-G wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Attila wrote:
I had couple of copies from this lens, all were excellent. In my opinion older Pentacon and Meyer lenses have NO copy variation issue all are same.


Apart from the Domiplan all of my Meyer/Pentacon lenses are good, I collect them.

Zeiss are more expensive but are they actually better?


Depends what you mean by better. A Zeiss Sonnar 135/2.8 T* has more micro contrast and therefore pop, but the Pentacon has buttery bokeh.


One day I'll collect some Zeises then I cam compare them to my Meyer/Pentacon collection. Flektogon 28 vs Pentacon 2.8/28 could be interesting, Planar 1.8/50 vs Pentacon Electric 1.8/50 etc.

Maybe we could arrange a forum meetup this summer and we can bring some lenses to compare...

I do think Meyer/Pentacon aperture mechanisms are more robust though, all of mine work fine apart from the 1.8/50 that is stuck wide open but that is my fault. I see a lot of Zeiss lenses with broken apertures.


PostPosted: Sun May 08, 2011 12:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
ManualFocus-G wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Attila wrote:
I had couple of copies from this lens, all were excellent. In my opinion older Pentacon and Meyer lenses have NO copy variation issue all are same.


Apart from the Domiplan all of my Meyer/Pentacon lenses are good, I collect them.

Zeiss are more expensive but are they actually better?


Depends what you mean by better. A Zeiss Sonnar 135/2.8 T* has more micro contrast and therefore pop, but the Pentacon has buttery bokeh.


One day I'll collect some Zeises then I cam compare them to my Meyer/Pentacon collection. Flektogon 28 vs Pentacon 2.8/28 could be interesting, Planar 1.8/50 vs Pentacon Electric 1.8/50 etc.

Maybe we could arrange a forum meetup this summer and we can bring some lenses to compare...

I do think Meyer/Pentacon aperture mechanisms are more robust though, all of mine work fine apart from the 1.8/50 that is stuck wide open but that is my fault. I see a lot of Zeiss lenses with broken apertures.


Sorry, I misunderstood and was talking about the higher quality West German made Carl Zeiss T* lenses (never ever had a problem with any of those...built like tanks!).

Comparable lenses would from East Germany would be:

Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar 50/1.8 v Pentacon 50/1.8
Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 35/2.4 v Pentacon 29/2.8 or 30/3.5
Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 135/3.5 v Pentacon 135/2.8

The only real contender there is the Pentacon 135/2.8 IMO.

West German versions are:

Carl Zeiss Planar T* 50/1.7
Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 28/2.8
Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 135/2.8

All of them stunning Shocked


PostPosted: Sun May 08, 2011 2:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
ManualFocus-G wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
ManualFocus-G wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Attila wrote:
I had couple of copies from this lens, all were excellent. In my opinion older Pentacon and Meyer lenses have NO copy variation issue all are same.


Apart from the Domiplan all of my Meyer/Pentacon lenses are good, I collect them.

Zeiss are more expensive but are they actually better?


Depends what you mean by better. A Zeiss Sonnar 135/2.8 T* has more micro contrast and therefore pop, but the Pentacon has buttery bokeh.


One day I'll collect some Zeises then I cam compare them to my Meyer/Pentacon collection. Flektogon 28 vs Pentacon 2.8/28 could be interesting, Planar 1.8/50 vs Pentacon Electric 1.8/50 etc.

Maybe we could arrange a forum meetup this summer and we can bring some lenses to compare...

I do think Meyer/Pentacon aperture mechanisms are more robust though, all of mine work fine apart from the 1.8/50 that is stuck wide open but that is my fault. I see a lot of Zeiss lenses with broken apertures.


Sorry, I misunderstood and was talking about the higher quality West German made Carl Zeiss T* lenses (never ever had a problem with any of those...built like tanks!).

Comparable lenses would from East Germany would be:

Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar 50/1.8 v Pentacon 50/1.8
Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 35/2.4 v Pentacon 29/2.8 or 30/3.5
Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 135/3.5 v Pentacon 135/2.8

The only real contender there is the Pentacon 135/2.8 IMO.

West German versions are:

Carl Zeiss Planar T* 50/1.7
Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 28/2.8
Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 135/2.8

All of them stunning Shocked


Thanks for clearing up my confusion!

Reason I haven't bothered with collecting any Zeiss lenses so far is the price issue - those Zeiss lenses that are within my price range aren't that great, such as the 2.8/50 Tessar, 2/58 Biotar and 3.5/135 Sonnar.

I mean, why buy those when I have the Russian copies I got cheap and all work good. Also, the Pentacon 1.8/50 is as common and cheap as the 2.8/50 Tessar.

I guess I'm gonna have to save up my pennies for some West German Zeiss and see for myself.

P.S. I don't have the Lydith 3.5/30 or the Pentacon 2.8/29 but I do have the later 2.8/28 Pentacon and like it a lot, plan to get a 2.4/35 Flektogon when I see one with a working aperture cheap. Be interesting to compare them. Nearly bought a Lydith the other day, the 15 blades appeals to me.


PostPosted: Sun May 08, 2011 7:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
I had couple of copies from this lens, all were excellent. In my opinion older Pentacon and Meyer lenses have NO copy variation issue all are same.


Well, I think that the built of Meyer lenses is more consistent, i.e. A Pentacon lens can easily be faulty because of bad manufacturing, the older Meyer lenses have a better built.
If you get a decent Pentacon copy, it's a very nice lens, though.

Anyway, I am not a big Pentacon fan. Wink


PostPosted: Sun May 08, 2011 7:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
From what I have seen, I would even prefer the Meyer lens to the Pentacon.
I once had a Pentacon 2.8/135 and, yes, it was a good lens but by no means as fantastic as many say it is, rather slightly above average.


Well I suppose someone can post results of a 135mm lens superior in lines/mm to the Meyer/Pentacon, but my Meyer has some quality (hard to describe quality) that shows using film.


PostPosted: Sun May 08, 2011 8:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excalibur wrote:
LucisPictor wrote:
From what I have seen, I would even prefer the Meyer lens to the Pentacon.
I once had a Pentacon 2.8/135 and, yes, it was a good lens but by no means as fantastic as many say it is, rather slightly above average.


Well I suppose someone can post results of a 135mm lens superior in lines/mm to the Meyer/Pentacon, but my Meyer has some quality (hard to describe quality) that shows using film.


Why did you quote my statement in your post? I don't get that.

Disagreement? Confirmation?


PostPosted: Sun May 08, 2011 8:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
Attila wrote:
I had couple of copies from this lens, all were excellent. In my opinion older Pentacon and Meyer lenses have NO copy variation issue all are same.


Well, I think that the built of Meyer lenses is more consistent, i.e. A Pentacon lens can easily be faulty because of bad manufacturing, the older Meyer lenses have a better built.
If you get a decent Pentacon copy, it's a very nice lens, though.

Anyway, I am not a big Pentacon fan. Wink


For sure the 70s Meyer lenses are better made, they are all-metal and mostly 15 blades, the late 80s Pentacon Electric lenses may be plastic and have 6 blades but the 1.8/50 and 2.8/28 are both lovely lenses imho, largely overlooked because they are in PB mount not M42.


PostPosted: Sun May 08, 2011 9:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Pentacon's (DDR) crucial parts aren't made of plastic.

Despite higher Meyer quality it's the age that started to show on coatings of few elements. Nothing can be done about it - it peels of.

I am still looking for most favorable solution: i believe such coating can be replaced nowadays. If it's only few EUR difference if you choose glasses with anti-reflex coating or without i bet some optical service can apply it to lens element cheaply enough. You might also ask around at your area.


PostPosted: Sun May 08, 2011 10:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I really haven't noticed a difference in build between Meyer 135/2.8 and Pentacon 135/2.8. IQ seems almost the same to me too, although I have one Pentacon 135/2.8 which was better than all others I'd tested in terms of contrast, I presume it's coating was simply less worn!

Ian - The Sonnar 135/3.5 is an amazing lens, and performs a bit better than the Jupiters IMO, contrast wise at least.


PostPosted: Sun May 08, 2011 10:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ok, but about 135mm 2.8 vs 200mm f4? Which one better bokeh and 3d effect?


PostPosted: Sun May 08, 2011 10:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Neither is known for its 3D effect. But the 135mm has creamier bokeh. Are you actually going to buy a Pentacon and a 50/1.4 lens at some point?


PostPosted: Sun May 08, 2011 10:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes, they are my targets:-) I've bought also a helios 44-2 (I'm waiting for it)
I like bokeh really much and for 3d effect...which one lens famous for it?
Thank you.


PostPosted: Sun May 08, 2011 10:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
sinner79 wrote:
Yes, they are my targets:-) I've bought also a helios 44-2 (I'm waiting for it)
I like bokeh really much and for 3d effect...which one lens famous for it?
Thank you.


3D is usually more about contrast, so it's not often you will find lenses optimised for contrast AND bokeh, although the Carl Zeiss T* Sonnar 135/2.8 seems to have both. If you mean "pop", seperating the subject from the bokeh cleanly, then the Pentacon 135/2.8 can do it well from f2.8-4.


PostPosted: Sun May 08, 2011 10:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Actually I've got a Auto Pentacon 135 2.8 6 blades, really good...but I like 15 blades effect. I'm wondering if, having a 135 already, could be a great choice also the 200mm f4 15 blades, what do you think about this lens in regard of 135mm?


PostPosted: Sun May 08, 2011 11:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I MUCH prefer the 135/2.8 15 blade version to the 200/4 but others have got great results from it. It's not a bokeh lens just because it has 15 blades.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2