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 50 1.8 MC vs Pancolar 50 1.8 MC vs Zenitar-M 50 1.7
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 8:53 am    Post subject: Pentacon 50 1.8 MC vs Pancolar 50 1.8 MC vs Zenitar-M 50 1.7 Reply with quote
resolution test

With the Pentacon I still have focused on every aperture, for the others I focused the 1.8 and only changed the position of the aperture ring... so they are not all focused right but it is enough to get an idea what the lens are made of Wink.
The crops will be seen in 100% when you download the whole image from the options bellow it is a 9.3МР file. There is not sharpening, no cleaning CAs, ... nothing they are natural from the convertor(ACR6).
I hope you like it!


PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 9:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Smile very interested!!
i have mc zenitar f1.9 50mm. I take only few pic but i can say that is very impressive! sharp and funny to use like no other lenses!!


PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The file is 1.7 MB. What am I doing wrong?


PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 3:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
dimitrygo wrote:
The file is 1.7 MB. What am I doing wrong?

nothing it is the right file 9.3MP which is 1.7MB Smile


PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 3:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
simbon4o wrote:
dimitrygo wrote:
The file is 1.7 MB. What am I doing wrong?

nothing it is the right file 9.3MP which is 1.7MB Smile

Ah, didn't pay attention, though it is 9.3 MB


PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 6:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I didn't bother downloading the files, but a cursory look sure makes that Pancolor look bad by comparison. I always thought the Pancolor was way to overerly praised anyway, any number of 50mm lenses can equal or better it. The Oreston (Pentacon) looks pretty blecch compared to both. How rare are these 50mm F 1.7 Zenitars anyway, compared to a garden variety 58mm F 2.0 Helios?


PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 10:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
anscochrome wrote:
I didn't bother downloading the files, but a cursory look sure makes that Pancolor look bad by comparison. I always thought the Pancolor was way to overerly praised anyway, any number of 50mm lenses can equal or better it. The Oreston (Pentacon) looks pretty blecch compared to both. How rare are these 50mm F 1.7 Zenitars anyway, compared to a garden variety 58mm F 2.0 Helios?


Well the Pancolar have some special skills Smile curved bokeh like helios 44 but much more sharper and contrasty and ...better in every way than a helios 44. Overal it is great lens! About the price - yes I think the name Zeiss sells it more than perfect Smile.
But it is not a bad lens, not for sure, It has unique render, great colors(for it's age the colors are quite nice on digital body), contrast is very nice without any PP, the resolution is great without any CA(I mean zero CA!!!) especially after F4.0 and down to F16. Yes this lens like the CZJ Flektogon 35 2.4 has this ability to make sharp images even at F16 I don't know how but it is like diffraction is not a problem for it. I have many great portraits with it and it is very sharp for macro(when closed to 8.0 the resolution is great even on many tubes for extreme macro).

About the pentacon - it is a cheap lens. In it's time it was the cheap option of the Pancolar and the lens is nothing special but the prices on market shows this perfectly. It is very soft wide open compared to Pancolar and the corners even on 1.5x crop are soft even at F5.6. Personally me - I don't like it and prefer the Helios 44-2!

The Zenitar-M 50 1.7 - yeees it is a rare lens. To the day I found this one I have never knew about the existence of such lens. It was very strange for me to find that it was not G.D.R. lens replica like many other Russian lenses. It looked different and I think it is Japanese design. The lenses looked pretty much like Chinon 50 1.7, the aperture settings and ring too, it is different. When I searched for the history of the lens it was like a expensive for production lens and the Russians stopped it in some years at the edge to make it multi coated and replaced it with helios 77(which is cheaper and pretty much like Pentacon 50 1.8 MC). But the lens itself is something unique for me. The render is very different from anything I have seen. The closest looks have the render of the Chinon 50 1.7 but even the chinon is not that smooth. This Zenitar has a version with 2 bladed diaphragm - the Zenitar-ME 50 1.7 which makes odd bokeh with squared shape which is very strange.
So it is single coated very sharp with a little CA(very little), poor contrast and gets poorer when closed down, sounds like bad lens... but the low contrast is very nice for portraits sometimes, landscapes are nice with it. The sharpness in combination with its great smooth render makes it perfect for portrait shots wide open - It separates the model perfectly from background in every condition.
I think it is perfect art instrument!

PS Here you can see a bokeh samples.


PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 10:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Agree the Zenitar has that character the Chinon has, I love the chinon 1.7 for the oil like paintings i can render when the right conditions are present, I nickname it the Monet,
I like it so much i have 2 my original leather clad version and the newer Multicoated version.
If i had to choose one lens from that setup it would be the zenitar.
Agree with what you say on the pancolar its a great lens and its the character that it brings to the images, yes technicly there is a million times better 50's but like the chinon it brings something to the table.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 6:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
simbon4o wrote:

About the pentacon - it is a cheap lens. In it's time it was the cheap option of the Pancolar and the lens is nothing special but the prices on market shows this perfectly. It is very soft wide open compared to Pancolar and the corners even on 1.5x crop are soft even at F5.6. Personally me - I don't like it and prefer the Helios 44-2!


I finally obtained a clean copy - Meyer Optik Oreston version - after several attempts that failed due to those lenses having fungus.

I like it wide open. It is vulnerable to frontal light (or reflected light) and can give a glow, but if that is avoided sharpness seemed OK to me. I also like the bokeh - seemed special, but I'll need to use the lens more.

I agree that the Helios is a better lens, but the Oreston has the advantage of a closer focusing distance and a bit wider aperture. The Oreston is definitely the better of the Meyer lenses I tried so far - the others being the Domiplan and a 135mm electric Pentacon. Interestingly, while I hated the Domiplan on digital, it has produced very nice images when I used it on film.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Laurentiu Cristofor wrote:
I finally obtained a clean copy - Meyer Optik Oreston version - after several attempts that failed due to those lenses having fungus.

I like it wide open. It is vulnerable to frontal light (or reflected light) and can give a glow, but if that is avoided sharpness seemed OK to me. I also like the bokeh - seemed special, but I'll need to use the lens more.

I agree that the Helios is a better lens, but the Oreston has the advantage of a closer focusing distance and a bit wider aperture. The Oreston is definitely the better of the Meyer lenses I tried so far - the others being the Domiplan and a 135mm electric Pentacon. Interestingly, while I hated the Domiplan on digital, it has produced very nice images when I used it on film.


Fungus is problem not of the lens but the owner and how he stores it or works with it. So being a cheap lens nobody cares about it which is not nice but... that's the situation. Oreston is the early version of pentacon and everybody says it is sharper which is normal because the coatings takes away some of the resolution if they are not set fine. And the PFs are mostly appearing on the MC versions of the lenses and they take resolution too. Another thing is that Oreston is made by Meyer perhaps with more care and quality control. But yes the single coating is a problem when the front element is not deep inside the barrel like in the helios 44, every stronger light makes problems. About bokeh - it depends very much by the personal taste. For me the Pentacon and Oreston are very nervous in OOF areas for a 1.8 lens.
Have you noticed the softness in corners in the Oreston?


PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 3:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
simbon4o wrote:

Fungus is problem not of the lens but the owner and how he stores it or works with it. So being a cheap lens nobody cares about it which is not nice but... that's the situation. Oreston is the early version of pentacon and everybody says it is sharper which is normal because the coatings takes away some of the resolution if they are not set fine. And the PFs are mostly appearing on the MC versions of the lenses and they take resolution too. Another thing is that Oreston is made by Meyer perhaps with more care and quality control. But yes the single coating is a problem when the front element is not deep inside the barrel like in the helios 44, every stronger light makes problems. About bokeh - it depends very much by the personal taste. For me the Pentacon and Oreston are very nervous in OOF areas for a 1.8 lens.
Have you noticed the softness in corners in the Oreston?


The fungus was not a critique - just a description of my adventure in getting this lens. I have only used the Oreston wide open for one afternoon, so corners were usually out of focus and I didn't get time to experiment more with it - I'll do that when weather will allow me to get out. But what I saw so far was promising. As for the bokeh, I am looking for lenses that are distinctive in this area - the main reason I looked for this lens is because I hoped it would have an out of ordinary bokeh. Nervous bokeh can make for some great shots when the subject is the bokeh itself. See Trioplan shots, for example.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 3:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have a Zenitar 50 f2 only shot it once so far, seemed pretty sharp, maybe a tad lackluster on colour. Don't quote me on that as I need to test it more. What is interesting about this lens is the design. My good friend Max Dellaway seems to think they modelled it off a Konica Hexanon. Wink

I have never tried a Pancolar, so cannot comment.

However I do own both a Pentacon electric 50 1.8 and Meyer-Gerlitz Oreston 50 1.8 and have found these 2 beauties to be very different beasts. I will try and do a comparison for you guys in the future. Very Happy


PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Laurentiu Cristofor wrote:
The fungus was not a critique - just a description of my adventure in getting this lens. I have only used the Oreston wide open for one afternoon, so corners were usually out of focus and I didn't get time to experiment more with it - I'll do that when weather will allow me to get out. But what I saw so far was promising. As for the bokeh, I am looking for lenses that are distinctive in this area - the main reason I looked for this lens is because I hoped it would have an out of ordinary bokeh. Nervous bokeh can make for some great shots when the subject is the bokeh itself. See Trioplan shots, for example.


I was talking about the previous owners of the lenses Smile it is not a good thing to leave a lens (any lens) to be eaten by fungus or whatever other methods of destruction.
If you like nervous bokeh, get a Nikkor-S 50 1.4 Wink it is amazing!

Hood wrote:
I have a Zenitar 50 f2 only shot it once so far, seemed pretty sharp, maybe a tad lackluster on colour. Don't quote me on that as I need to test it more. What is interesting about this lens is the design. My good friend Max Dellaway seems to think they modelled it off a Konica Hexanon. Wink

I have never tried a Pancolar, so cannot comment.

However I do own both a Pentacon electric 50 1.8 and Meyer-Gerlitz Oreston 50 1.8 and have found these 2 beauties to be very different beasts. I will try and do a comparison for you guys in the future. Very Happy


About zenitar - it is for sure Japanese lens made in Russia Smile but I'm still not sure which one. Smile
A comparison of the early and late Oreston will be interesting!


PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
simbon4o wrote:
About zenitar - it is for sure Japanese lens made in Russia Smile but I'm still not sure which one. Smile
A comparison of the early and late Oreston will be interesting!


I do not see how can You be sure that Zenitar is a Japanese lens made in Russia - do You have any evidence of it?

Here are two sites describing Zenitar-M 50/1.7, sorry they are both in Russian, but Google translate can help:

http://www.photohistory.ru/1207248188609933.html
http://www.zenitcamera.com/archive/lenses/zenitar-1-7-50.html

Zenitar-M 50/1.7 is not as rare as it might look. Usually there are at least few on eBay. It was a kit lens for Zenit 19.
The rare version is Zenitar-ME1 50/1.7 with electronically controlled aperture with square blades - only about 7000 were made.
I have both, I posted some samples from Zenitar-ME1 some time ago on this forum.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 7:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Alex H wrote:
I do not see how can You be sure that Zenitar is a Japanese lens made in Russia - do You have any evidence of it?

Here are two sites describing Zenitar-M 50/1.7, sorry they are both in Russian, but Google translate can help:

http://www.photohistory.ru/1207248188609933.html
http://www.zenitcamera.com/archive/lenses/zenitar-1-7-50.html

Zenitar-M 50/1.7 is not as rare as it might look. Usually there are at least few on eBay. It was a kit lens for Zenit 19.
The rare version is Zenitar-ME1 50/1.7 with electronically controlled aperture with square blades - only about 7000 were made.
I have both, I posted some samples from Zenitar-ME1 some time ago on this forum.


After a search in the German lenses which are the originals of most Russian lenses I was not able to find anything like this Zenitar so I was forced to go to the other place where lenses were born Smile.
I was searching for information and found that in some years Japanese companies was using Russian optic glass for production lenses and the Russians was probably using their knowledge to produce their own versions of the lenses.

The Auto Chinon 50 1.7 MC looks exactly the same in optic terms, the lenses, the aperture ring and positions, aperture blades, ... of course the Russian version is single coated, heavier, hard to turn focus ring, aperture blades have no treatment, ... looks like a part of tank not photographic instrument Smile, but it shoots almost like the Japanese version.

About the rareness in my country it is not that easy to find one(I didn't even knew about its existence). Most of the sources says that it was in production for only 2-3 years. The MC version never came - there are only 15 made of them for one exhibition and that's it(they are rare for sure!). About the ME1 - yes it was with only 2 aperture blades - no idea why they have done this but...

There were more Zenitar models which never came to mass production - 50 1.4, 85 1.4, ...


PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 7:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The zenitar is an ultron type. Search the forum. It's mentioned and explained in a few posts.
The idea of the 15 MC versions made for exhibition is speculation. I know, it's the post that I made. As much as I'd like to own a lens that rare, I would appreciate it if it was not presented as fact. Thanks.
The ME-1 version was made with two blades just for the sake of simplicity. The zenit 18 was somewhat of a departure for KMZ. It added a great deal of electronic complexity to the usual all-mechanical camera line up. From what I understand it was just to cut down on the chance of possible failure.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 8:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
themoleman342 wrote:
The zenitar is an ultron type. Search the forum. It's mentioned and explained in a few posts.
The idea of the 15 MC versions made for exhibition is speculation. I know, it's the post that I made. As much as I'd like to own a lens that rare, I would appreciate it if it was not presented as fact. Thanks.
The ME-1 version was made with two blades just for the sake of simplicity. The zenit 18 was somewhat of a departure for KMZ. It added a great deal of electronic complexity to the usual all-mechanical camera line up. From what I understand it was just to cut down on the chance of possible failure.

Could you be more specific, I can't find the stuff you are talking about. And If you are talking about Voightlander Ultron 50 1.8 - the bokeh is not the same!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35332052@N08/4729743971/lightbox/
The Zenitar is smoother.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 8:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=35838&view=previous


PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 9:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
simbon4o wrote:


About the rareness in my country it is not that easy to find one(I didn't even knew about its existence). Most of the sources says that it was in production for only 2-3 years. The MC version never came - there are only 15 made of them for one exhibition and that's it(they are rare for sure!). About the ME1 - yes it was with only 2 aperture blades - no idea why they have done this but...


According to serial numbers Zenitar-M was produced for about 6 years at least. As already mentioned its optical schema is simplified Ultron type (6 elements in 5 groups). Yes it is not original and unique formula but many lenses "suffer" from this problem.
Zenitar-ME1 was made for special camera, I've read that the purpose of 2 blades design was to increase a shutter speed and lens sharpness.

I actually don't share your complaints about its build quality. I found it and Helios-44M are build like a tank. You should remember that some of these old Soviet lenses were subject to unqualified repair. So they could be not in their best shape.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 10:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
According to Princelle, the Zenitar M was made for 8 years and the ME1 was made for 7.
I'm not entirely sure how a 2 blade design has anything to do with shutter speeds other than that it ensured less friction and could potentially move faster to accommodate the Zenit 18's 1/1000th top speed...though clean 6 bladed systems can do the same.
It could be that the blades were designed to increase lens sharpness. I've read some things about that lately. I honestly don't understand the optical properties behind it though.

Edit: Oh, here's the translation of the note at the bottom of the ME-1 page at zenitcamera.com:
"1) - the square shape of the diaphragm serves two purposes: to simplify and reduce the cost structure by reducing the number of parts as well as the need to strengthen at the close of the diaphragm, which in turn improves the time-critical closure of the diaphragm, an optical point of view, this solution improves the resolution the ability of the lens, changing the pattern of diffraction spots and the distribution of light energy within it. However, this formal approach to assessing the quality of the images do not take into account is considered aesthetically unacceptable figure in the zone of confusion, given by the lens (the so-called "bokeh"). Because of this circumstance, the square (or rectangular) aperture in the consumer photographic practically applied, in contrast to optical systems that require the high resolution, for example: aerofotoobektivov, astronomical instruments and lenses for other special applications such as photolithography."


PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 10:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
I actually don't share your complaints about its build quality. I found it and Helios-44M are build like a tank. You should remember that some of these old Soviet lenses were subject to unqualified repair. So they could be not in their best shape.


+1

Quote:
Well the Pancolar have some special skills Smile curved bokeh like helios 44 but much more sharper and contrasty and ...better in every way than a helios 44.


Has anyone else found this? I've owned a few copies of the early zebra Pancolar and none of them swirled like the biotar designs. I know you have your samples simbon4o. They are beautiful no doubt. I just have never seen that severe a radial bokeh from my pancolar. It's there to some degree but nothing like your picture shows.


PostPosted: Sat Mar 24, 2012 8:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
themoleman342 wrote:
Has anyone else found this? I've owned a few copies of the early zebra Pancolar and none of them swirled like the biotar designs. I know you have your samples simbon4o. They are beautiful no doubt. I just have never seen that severe a radial bokeh from my pancolar. It's there to some degree but nothing like your picture shows.

The Zebra is 6/4 design and the render is different. The MC(the one I'm using now is my second copy of those so I suppose they all are like this) is 6/5 design and the bokeh is just like Biotar's I'm lovin it!

PS I thought that takumar 55 1.8 was other zeiss design, with 3 elements front and 3 elements mirrored in the back (planar type).
It looks like it just more modern with a few changes:
55 1.8 K/M42 Takumar


PS2 Here I have made a test in bokeh terms with my lenses:
https://plus.google.com/113407955698284387516/posts/D1netcR2qCi


PostPosted: Sat Mar 24, 2012 2:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Out of curiosity, do you use a deep hood with the pancolar?


PostPosted: Sat Mar 24, 2012 2:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Pancolar was stated to have greater correction of spherical abberations than the biotar, that's why it has a lot less glow wide open and lacks the swirly bokeh.


PostPosted: Sat Mar 24, 2012 3:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Swirly oof is likely a combination of astigmatism and optical vignetting (which creates the oval shaped highlights along the edges of the images). And yes, it was also my thought that the pancolar design corrected more for these issues.

The question with the hood was directed at this. I was wondering if he was perhaps adding a source of mechanical vignetting, that would create the cat's eye shaped highlights without darkening the edges significantly. Because it's also a crop cam, I was surprised to see the effect to that great a degree.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2