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 =pancolar?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 5:35 am    Post subject: Pentacon 50 1.8 =pancolar? Reply with quote
I have read that the pentacon 50mm 1.8 is the same optical design as the czj pancolar. Anybody know for sure? I love the pancolar! I have the 50 f2 in zebra, 50 1.8 zebra, and the 80 1.8 electric. If true it seems the pentacon attached to certain low end cameras may be a bargain?


PostPosted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 7:15 am    Post subject: Re: Pentacon 50 1.8 =pancolar? Reply with quote
jamaeolus wrote:
I have read that the pentacon 50mm 1.8 is the same optical design as the czj pancolar. Anybody know for sure? I love the pancolar! I have the 50 f2 in zebra, 50 1.8 zebra, and the 80 1.8 electric. If true it seems the pentacon attached to certain low end cameras may be a bargain?


The same optical design is principally true as both lenses are basically "double gauss" designs as many other 50mm lenses too.

The Pentacon 50/1.8 is basically a rebranded Meyer Oreston lens from VEB Pentacon (GDR):


The Pancolar comes from VEB Carl Zeiss Jena (GDR):


So actually they are totally different lenses. The Pancolar is superior to the Pentacon.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 8:37 am    Post subject: Re: Pentacon 50 1.8 =pancolar? Reply with quote
jamaeolus wrote:
I have read that the pentacon 50mm 1.8 is the same optical design as the czj pancolar. Anybody know for sure? I love the pancolar! I have the 50 f2 in zebra, 50 1.8 zebra, and the 80 1.8 electric. If true it seems the pentacon attached to certain low end cameras may be a bargain?


As Thomas has shown they are similar but not the same.
The Pentacon may still be a bargain though if you have one in good working condition.
There appears to be a consistent and often reported problem with the aperture blades in the Pentacon. It was certainly the case with my copy, but once fixed, the lens performed very well indeed - with some pleasing results.
OH


PostPosted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 10:04 am    Post subject: Re: Pentacon 50 1.8 =pancolar? Reply with quote
Oldhand wrote:

There appears to be a consistent and often reported problem with the aperture blades in the Pentacon. It was certainly the case with my copy, but once fixed, the lens performed very well indeed - with some pleasing results.


That's really funny. Actually the Pentacon is my only GDR lens which did NOT show this special sticking blades syndrome (at least not up to now). Wink

However, one additional note: If sharpness is the target, the Pancolar is the better choice; otherwise for colorful and painted like bokeh certainly the Pentacon is the lens to take.
BUT don't expect really sharp pictures form edge to edge from the Pentacon. My copy isn't able to produce that, although it was a 100% unused lens when I bought it (maybe that's the reason for the still operating aperture).


PostPosted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 11:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Pentacon CAN produce sharp results across the entire frame, you must have had a lemon.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 1:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Pentacon vs. Pentax on FF (Pentacon like new and Pentax rather used) and the Pentax is certainly not considered to be the sharpest lens on earth.

First 100% crop at F5.6 and second one fully open, i.e. Pentacon at F1.8 and Pentax at F1.4:

Pentacon auto 50mm/F1.8 "multi coating" (M42):





Asahi Super-Takumar 50mm/F1.4 (M42):





Actually the Pentax lens performs at F1.4 better than the Pentacon at F5.6.
Nothing more to say.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 2:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Clearly you had a bad copy. Maybe you bought it on a flea market? Rolling Eyes


PostPosted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 2:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Any deductions based on single DDR lens specimen makes little sense today. Many tests were conducted showing either Pentacon or Pancolar 1.8/50mm can
match top brands lenses. Such data is known already from the time first CANON 5D full frame DSLR cameras came into use and gave satisfying digital test results.

Lemons tend to stay on the market while one is reluctant to sell good or even awesome copy of DDR lens Smile.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 2:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
The Pentacon CAN produce sharp results across the entire frame, you must have had a lemon.


Ian - anybody who worked in the photo-retail trade selling DDR gear will tell you there were indeed many lemons. Probably enough to support a fruit juice industry . . . and they all came nicely wrapped in Pentacon (or Zeiss/aus Jena) boxes. We didn't need to wander round fleamarkets, we got them wholesale (whether we wanted them or not Wink )


PostPosted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 4:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I agree with what Jure says - basing an assessment on one copy is invalid.

I realise there were QC issues with GDR goods, but I have had 7 or 8 Pentacon 1.8/50s, still have 2 or 3, and none were lose to as bad as the copy Thomas has; therefore I feel it is safe to say he has a bad copy. That should have been obvious to him as no lens would be less sharp at f5.6 than another at f1.4 unless something was wrong.

I'm always suspicious of mint condition GDR lenses, it probably means they were never used because they were bad copies.

The flea market was a joke related to some nonsense about Eastern lenses from Jena being the sort of junk found on flea markets for a few euros.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 5:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
The Pentacon CAN produce sharp results across the entire frame, you must have had a lemon.

+1 Pentacon can be same excellent than Pancolar or even better depend what you look for actually. In general all Pentacon branded lens has lesser built quality and QC than earlier Meyer or Carl Zeiss Jena lenses.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 7:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks all. Amazing, you can't trust information found on the internet! (except for knowledgeable sources on this site!). I was aware that quality went downhill after the pentacon merger but it seems some of the earlier ones had quality materials and of course workmanship was always variable. I have a nice pentacon 200mm f4 and a 100mm orestor 2.8. I also have a Domiplan that was pathetic plastic crap. Thanks again everybody. I read on somebody add (E-bay) that the both the prakticar and pentacon 50mm 1.8 were the same as pancolar. I was skeptical... So thanks again everyone.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 9:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
There is a variant of the Pancolar that was labelled Prakticar 1.8/50-, it was in the Pentacon Bayonet mount. I have three copies, as it's such a superb lens and I wanted a spare. For the price (22, 24 and 25ukp respectively) they are amazing value - every bit as good as a Planar from the West at 20% of the price.

Top row: Zeiss/Rollei Planar 1.8/50, Pentacon Prakticar 1.8/50 (Oreston)
Bottom row: pair of Zeiss Prakticar 1.8/50s (Pancolar)



PostPosted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 9:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
On the subject of the Pentacon 1.8/50, to balance Thomas and his over negative assessment, here's a picture I took with the rather less than mint example top right in my last post.



PostPosted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
jamaeolus wrote:
Thanks all. Amazing, you can't trust information found on the internet! (except for knowledgeable sources on this site!). I was aware that quality went downhill after the pentacon merger but it seems some of the earlier ones had quality materials and of course workmanship was always variable. I have a nice pentacon 200mm f4 and a 100mm orestor 2.8. I also have a Domiplan that was pathetic plastic crap. Thanks again everybody. I read on somebody add (E-bay) that the both the prakticar and pentacon 50mm 1.8 were the same as pancolar. I was skeptical... So thanks again everyone.


Common sense Domiplan is plastic crap but not true really, it was cheapest lens I think , assembled by students as summer work Smile Smile but several copies are just good than any other 50mm lenses. I had excellent copy what I did test and Indonesian friend of mine use it as macro lens ! with great success.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 10:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
+1, the Domiplan can be decent
http://manuellfokus.no/meyer-optik-gorlitz-domiplan-50mm-f2-8/


PostPosted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 11:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nordentro wrote:
+1, the Domiplan can be decent
http://manuellfokus.no/meyer-optik-gorlitz-domiplan-50mm-f2-8/


Absolutely! And my early one is actually all metal (and glass).


PostPosted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 11:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
There is a variant of the Pancolar that was labelled Prakticar 1.8/50-, it was in the Pentacon Bayonet mount. I have three copies, as it's such a superb lens and I wanted a spare. For the price (22, 24 and 25ukp respectively) they are amazing value - every bit as good as a Planar from the West at 20% of the price.

Top row: Zeiss/Rollei Planar 1.8/50, Pentacon Prakticar 1.8/50 (Oreston)
Bottom row: pair of Zeiss Prakticar 1.8/50s (Pancolar)



Praktica bayonet mount ?


PostPosted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 11:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I was not indicting ALL domiplan. Just pointing out that as time went by, pentacon ( and eventually most of the camera industry) went with cheaper materials Sad. I have an isco 50mm that is pretty sharp but it weighs 1/4 of amount of a similar size pancolar, all plastic and it just feels cheap, but it takes pretty good photos. The domiplan I have.... not so much. There seems to me to be a "golden era"when materials were still good, workmanship up to par and coating and optics were at a very high level for prime lenses.

Last edited by jamaeolus on Fri Sep 04, 2015 12:18 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 11:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lloydy wrote:
Praktica bayonet mount ?


Yup. One may get converted to Sony A mount for my a850, although I have a late MC Pancolar 1.8/50 in M42 for that.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 04, 2015 1:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ian you said a " variant of the Pancolar" Could you explain what you mean? As the there are two lens diagrams at the top of this post,for both lenses mentioned,is there a diagram available for the variant? I am curious, as I love the 2/50 Pancolar (I have 7 of these lenses) so I read a bit about it when I find info about all things Pancolar. I also find the whole "who built what and when" discussion about GDR and DDR lenses fascinating.

I also find the whole variation (in quality) discussion between the same model lenses even more interesting.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 04, 2015 3:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Zeiss Prakticar 1.8/50 is the same lens as the Pancolar 1.8/50, same as the Prakticar 3.5/135 is a Sonnar and the Prakticar 2.4/35 is a Flektogon.

For some unknown reason, Zeiss dropped the traditional names when they produced the bayonet mount lenses.

Whether there are any differences between the late MC Zeiss lenses in M42 and the bayonet mount Prakticas I simply do not know, the designs are probably the same, but I think the coatings are different as my late MC M42 Pancolar 1.8/50 has different looking coatings to my Prakticar 1.8/50s.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 04, 2015 3:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:

For some unknown reason, Zeiss dropped the traditional names when they produced the bayonet mount lenses.


The reason is not unknown. Zeiss Oberkochen and VEB Zeiss Jena came to an agreement that the products are only allowed to carry the "Zeiss" name when sold in their "home markets". Otherwise any other branding must be used. That's the only reason why those GDR lenses have been marked like "aus Jena" or "Praktikar" or whatever to enable the sale in the "western world". Same is true the other way round, but more or less without practical effect as I don't think that Zeiss/Oberkochen sold many lenses to the soviet controlled world.
This contract was signed between Zeiss Oberkochen and VEB Zeiss Jena 1971 in London. The agreement was in force until the reunion of the two different Zeiss trusts after 1991.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 04, 2015 6:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Again you are wrong. Pancolar and Flektogon are names never used by Oberkochen.

Look at these two lenses, they show the two different text forms found on the Zeiss Prakticar bayonet lenses, dependent on market sold 'Carl Zeiss Jena' or simply 'Aus Jena'.



What I was wondering was why they didn't call these Pancolars and instead used 'Prakticar'.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Again you are wrong. Pancolar and Flektogon are names never used by Oberkochen.


I am not wrong at all. You can read this even at the official Zeiss page.

Obviously we are talking about different issues here. I was referring to the "Zeiss" name on the lens and you are talking about "Pancolar" type name.

So I would call that as a classical misunderstanding. That is a major difference.

Sorry, the reason why Zeiss GDR changed the name of the type is also unknown to me. Obviously somebody had the great idea to associate the lens name at least with the camera name.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2