Sorting out the German's. Zeiss and Pentacons

Lloydy · Expire: 2022-01-01

I've accumulated a bunch of German lenses, five 50's and a couple of 30's, all from old Practika cameras except for one classic Rollei.

I like them all, but they have their differences. I haven't studied the history or the design of these lenses enough to talk with any accuracy about which was made where, when, and by who, or indeed which lens is the best, and which should become a doorstop?
That's what I'm hoping will happen with this topic, I want to see the differences discussed and explained, let's argue over sharpness and bokeh. And please add the other lenses in this obviously huge inventory of common 'kit lenses' to the discussion. Let's sort out these Germans.

1
Carl Zeiss Jena P MC 2.8 / 29
Apparently not that common and was made at the end of the run and re-badged as a CZJ instead of a Pentacon. It has a reputation for being very sharp in the center but poor at the edges. I agree with that, but I still like it, because of that.

This is one of the few lenses that state the country of origin, the GDR.
[url=http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20131/big_1849_Carl_Zeiss_Jena_P_MC_28_29_side_GDR_1.jpg]

[/url]

2
I haven't had this lens for very long, but it is becoming a firm favourite, it's sharp and contrasty.

3
This is very new to me, I've shot maybe 20 pictures with it in horrible weather conditions. I think it might be good and sharp?

4
A firm favourite, the colours are wonderful from this lens, and it's as sharp as you need it to be. A very cheap and cheerful addition to your lens collection, everyone should have one.

5
I rarely use this lens, and I don't have anything against it, it's a decent lens. But I reach for other 50's before this one. Perhaps I'm spoiled by the other German 50's and the Helios?

6
I think this lens, the 'Electric' Pentacon is the same lens as the one above except for the electrical contacts to transmit aperture information to the Praktica camera. The results from each lens certainly look no different to me.

7
This is my absolute favourite, the only lens I have for my Rollei SL35 camera. The basic kit lens for a camera that was very good, but very late, the opposition were way ahead and the Rollei SLR never sold well. But it's a superb lens, and an excellent camera. This is a Rollei QBM mount so I haven't used it on the Sony NEX5 or the Pentax K10. I will get an adapter, this is a lens that deserves to be used.

Many of these lenses, and the cameras, were made in Singapore, but this is a German lens probably from the Voightlander factory that was absorbed into the Zeiss business.

I know there are lenses mentioned here that are considered to be poor when stacked up against the best lenses, but....these lenses shown here are the basic lenses that were sold on cheap Praktica's, and as such should be judged for what they are. All of these lenses cost me next to nothing, and they came with a Praktica camera except for the Rollei. Sadly, with 6 lenses I only have 2 working Praktica cameras. The lenses outlast them.
I think there's some remarkable lenses in this class, and the German's were ahead of the game. And with them being so common, on cheap, unreliable and dead cameras, they are a huge bargain and a very good entry to the world of manual focus lenses.

I would rally like to hear your views on these lenses, good or bad, and lets see what else was offered by Zeiss and Pentacon.

skida · Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 12:27 am Post subject:

I have two of the above lenses, the Tessar and the Pentacon MC Electric. I love them both for sharpness and rendition. They are excellent for my type of photography (outdoors on film).

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

Everyone should have a Tessar, great lens. All those Pentacon 1.8/50s should be the same design, I've had a few and they vary a bit in colour rendition but otherwise are pretty much the same. I agree about the 29mm, it's sharp stopped down but at wider apertures the edges are soft. I liked the 30mm but sold it after I got the Hexanon 3.5/28 which I liked much more. Not surprised you like the Planar best, it's not really a Planar, it's the final iteration of the Voigtlander Ultron design, but is a very sharp lens with excellent CA control. I sold my later Singapore made one because I preferred the Hexanon 1.7/50 and I could make a tidy profit on the Planar.

TrueLoveOne · Expire: 2013-12-24

I used to have a Tessar, never got used to it... i prefered the Pentacon over it. Maybe it was just a bad copy...? And the Pentacon 29mm: i never managed to get one decent picture out of it.... and the thing looked like it was brandnew!
An early version in Exa mount came with a bunch of lenses a while ago... maybe i'll give it a go again, but i need an Exakta adapter then...

There's one more lens that was sold often with old Praktica cams: the Domiplan 2.8/50.
Also a lens with fans, and people that hate it. It didn't work for me either....

My favorite lens that came with a Praktica EE3 is my Pancolar 1.8/50 Electric. I use that a lot since i have it ! This might also be one of the reasons the standard f/2.8 lenses Domiplan and Tessar are not doing it for me... Wink

Never had a 3.5/30.... hmmm....

spoilerhead · Joined: 25 Jan 2012 Posts: 68 Location: Austria

The 29 is imho a very good lens when you got a proper copy. but lots (most?) of them suffer from misalignment and decentration. Not sure if this lens if very sensitive to it, if it was a quality control problem, or just wear out.

(Not owning a planar/ultron) my favorite from the list would be the pentacon 50 1.8. It's pretty sharp and it got a pleasing bokeh. And it's barely larger than the tessar.

NewStuff · Joined: 31 Mar 2011 Posts: 847 Location: Wales, UK

I have the Tessar, 30/3.5 and Non-electric 50/1.8.

I love the 50, but reach for a Pentax-M these days. The 35/3.5 is my regular underground lens (I have it both Meyer Lydith and Pentacon versions, the Meyer flares far easier).

The Tessar? Meh... not overly impressed (the 45/2.8 is far better, even from limited testing). I almost always took the Pentacon over the Tessar.

philslizzy · Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 4745 Location: Cheshire, England

I got a Tessar 50 f2.8 on Friday for £7 including an olympus fit 2x tc in cases. I was so excited!! The Tessar has no rear element. to say I was gutted would be an understatement.

anscochrome · Joined: 23 Dec 2010 Posts: 115 Location: Omaha, NE

As a Canon user (both full frame and crop), I have called off the search for Tessar type lenses (I do have a 5cm F 2.8 Yashinon and an Industar 50-2 that work fine on both). I have decided the 40mm F 2.8 pancake lens fills the role of a Tessar-type lens without the hassles (like the 45mm F 2.8 Zeiss Contax Tessar that interferes with the mirror box when adapted for example). Plus the 40mm F 2.8 pancake is crisp wide open, as opposed to the typical Tessar-type lens.

Rollei QBM lenses are a bit problematic on Canon FF bodies as well. I'd use a 50mm F 1.7 Zeiss Contax lens to fill the role of the Rollei lens you have illustrated.

You NEX guys get all the breaks-now you have a reducer to make the FOV match what you would see on a FF camera (The Speed Booster) Smile

Excalibur · Expire: 2014-04-21

Well I have accumulated some German lenses and can judge them compared to my other lenses for sharpness, and as a reference point would give a Pentax M42 55mm f1.8 and M42 135mm f3.5 as sharp. The best lenses would be "very sharp".

Meyer 50mm sharp
Meyer 135mm sharp
Meyer 200mm sharp minus
CZJ Tessar 50mm sharp plus
CZJ flek 35mm very sharp
CZJ Sonnar 135mm very sharp
CZJ 28mm sharp
Praktica 35-70mm nothing special, but not a bad lens
Praktica 70-210mm sharp minus

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

philslizzy · Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 4745 Location: Cheshire, England

philslizzy · Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 4745 Location: Cheshire, England

Pancolart · Expire: 2013-11-18

Seems there is a lot of grease on rear element too.

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

It's the later one I have, but the glass should be interchangeable I think.

Lloydy · Expire: 2022-01-01

NewStuff · Joined: 31 Mar 2011 Posts: 847 Location: Wales, UK

Mos6502 · Joined: 20 Jun 2011 Posts: 960 Location: Austin

I like the pentacon/oreston 1.8/50

Very sharp, nice rendering, nice colors. Really have to use it on slide film to appreciate it fully. Only fault is the soft corners wide open IMO.

ForenSeil · Joined: 15 Apr 2011 Posts: 2726 Location: Kiel, Germany.

Bye the way... all (Carl Zeiss-) Jena, Meyer, VEB Ihagee, Pentacon,... lenses were made in East Germany (G.D.R., state-directed economy under sovjet occupation)
Rollei, Carl Zeiss (-without Jena), Steinheil, Leitz, Astro Berlin, Schneider Kreuznach, Rodenstock, Ihagee Kamerawerk AG, A.Schacht, Voigtländer,... were made in West Germany
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Germany
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Germany
It was similiar to the differene between North- and South Korea
[/url]

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

There was also Ludwig (maker of many triplets like Meritar, Victar, Bonotar) and Rathenower Optische Werke (formerly Laack) in the East.

Lloydy · Expire: 2022-01-01

It's interesting that these lenses, the cheaper of the Zeiss and Pentacons, are still well respected and used quite a lot. I think that they are reliable in the way they they record the image - you know what you're going to get from them in much the same way as the more expensive lenses form Canon, Pentax, Nikon, Minolta and Olympus. It might not be the same level of 'quality' in the final image ( but that's subjective ) it's being able to pick the lens up, fix it to the camera and know what it will deliver. I find that some of the similar level budget Japanese lenses don't seem to deliver that consistency, which I know is impossible to quantify, but I go out some days with a Fujinon, Miranda, Chinon, Hoya and even Vivitar and Soligor and look at the results and wonder what went wrong. I've had some great shots from these lenses, but a lot of poor ones as well. My hit rate increases with the German lenses! Why? I haven't a clue, there's no logical reason and almost certainly no technical one either. Confused

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

I understand where you're coming from with that, I used to rely on my Pentacons - 1.8/50, 3.5/50, 2.8/135 mostly, and they were reliable. I sold them after I bought Konica Hexanons and preferred them.

The CZJ lenses are all excellent, I kept Pancolar 1.8/50, Flektogon 2.8/35, Tessar 2.8/50, but sold my Sonnar 3.5/135 because I had a Jupiter-11 that was better.

My favourite East German lenses are the older silver aluminium ones. With the Meyers, they are better than the later Meyer/Pentacons and higher quality in materials and build, I particularly like the Primotar 3.5/50 and Primagon 4.5/35, not tried a Primoplan 1.8/58 as it's expensive and I already have a very nice silver Biotar 2/58.

fermy · Joined: 17 Feb 2012 Posts: 1974

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

You know, you're dead right there, good light makes all the difference. I rarely have good light to work with, hence I sold all the lesser lenses I had and only kept the really good stuff. Contrast is very important in bad light, a so-so lens can look good in good light but in bad light, it will look crap. Someone once quipped I must have had a world record number of bad lenses, nope, I just have almost non-stop bad light to work with so the lesser lenses just can't cut it at all. If you find a lens that performs in bad light, you know you have a good one.

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04