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

Buy a prewar Biotar 2/100mm converted to M42?
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 5:45 pm    Post subject: Buy a prewar Biotar 2/100mm converted to M42? Reply with quote

I located a Biotar 2/100mm (10cm actually) and wondered if I should buy it. Looks like the larger brother of the slim 1.5/7.5cm Biotar I bought a while ago. It won't come cheap though...

Would you?


PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 6:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Like I said in the other message I think the focal difference came from destructive mount conversion.

This also means that the collecting value has dropped considerebly. Ok, maybe it could be more practical to use in m42 mount than in exa mount, but still I wouldn't buy for that sum a lens so much butchered.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 7:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No, it is labeled by Zeiss jena as f2 10cm, and from what I know it was made for an Exakta 6x6 camera. Someone added an extention tube to make the backfocus match M42

Last edited by kds315* on Wed Apr 08, 2009 9:22 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 8:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pics help sometimes I guess...





and just to understand what others want for that one,
have a look here Click here to see on Ebay


Last edited by kds315* on Wed Apr 08, 2009 8:28 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 8:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If it is Gokevins lens, it looks like it is a custom-made detachable converter, so there is no damage to the lens.

Or maybe there is a missing locking lug, I'm not sure.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 8:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Would be interesting a head to head comparison of this lens with the Contax Planar 2/100.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 8:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That would be a bit unfair I would guess, it is from around 1930.. Wink But if it is as spectacular as the 1.5/7.5cm I would be tempted to get it...

And no, it is not from Kevin, but from a private collector.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 9:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rare opportunity finish looks exactly same than pre-war Biotar 7,5 cm. I don't expect same quality, but good enough to use.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 9:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why should the quality be different? Zeiss Jena at that time worked with the same high quality standards on all their lenses.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 9:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There is a common (mis?)belief that medium format lenses are not designed to deliver as high resolvance as the 135 format lenses... but I don't know to what extent this is true.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 9:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I discussed that in legth with the (ex-) Zeiss marketing manager and we both agreed that this is a pure myth. I have a few Hasselblad lenses (Zeiss - of course) and the perfoma excellently also on DSLRs using adaptors. Just bulky...


PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 10:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kds315* wrote:
Why should the quality be different? Zeiss Jena at that time worked with the same high quality standards on all their lenses.


No, they had budget lens, pro lens etc. A triotar not same with biotar 75 etc.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 10:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Attila wrote:
kds315* wrote:
Why should the quality be different? Zeiss Jena at that time worked with the same high quality standards on all their lenses.


No, they had budget lens, pro lens etc. A triotar not same with biotar 75 etc.


we talk about a BIOTAR here, nothing else Question


PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 10:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Biotar 58mm not same quality than 75mm at all. Within Biotar you can see also difference as well.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 11:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I disagree with Attila this time, a 100/2 for medium format is something very hard to achieve also in modern times: Hassy Planar 100 is 3.5.

So I think that quality was the top for the period.

Problem is that from a collector point of view modifications mean a huge drop in price.

I'd let it pass for that reason.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 11:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In my experience none of medium format lenses from Carl Zeiss Jena reach Biotar 75mm level.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 09, 2009 6:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, I guess it needs someone to make some tests... Wink Wink


PostPosted: Thu Apr 09, 2009 8:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Laughing Do it ..


PostPosted: Thu Apr 09, 2009 10:15 am    Post subject: Quality in lenses Reply with quote

Attila wrote:
Biotar 58mm not same quality than 75mm at all. Within Biotar you can see also difference as well.


Perhaps we need to think carefully about the understanding of "quality" - I regret I have no personal experience of these pre-war "light giants" but the designers' aims were to produce an optimal performance at an extremely wide aperture, in an era when film speeds were relatively low. In this case, "Biotar" refers to a family of lenses following a broadly similar optical design and it is indeed likely that members of that family would have produced images that differed from each other. But it would be inappropriate to label any of them as inferior quality.

I believe the fairest way to evaluate such lenses is to use them under the conditions in which they were designed to excel, namely poor light - either natural or artificial. We can, of course, have hours of pleasure shooting daffodils in the sunshine and comparing the sharpness and defocussed image effects (and I do !) but if we want to make really informative comparisons to show technological progress over time, I think we need to wait until the light fails ...

And again, a Triotar cannot properly be thought inferior in quality to a Sonnar or other more sophisticated design - Zeiss (and all other good lens makers) produced simpler lenses to meet more modest photographer requirements or more modest buying budgets. Can we really see any difference at f8 ?

I appreciate that not everyone will want to adopt my philosophy here, but I offer the notion for consideration.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 09, 2009 10:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think that Attila did not want to make an absolute statement, he only wanted to say that while the Biotar 75 is, like, a world leader in it's focal range, with very few (if at all) other lenses that can be said to deliver the same image quality, the Biotar 58 is not - meaning it's a good lens but not the best in the bunch.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 09, 2009 10:57 am    Post subject: Quality Reply with quote

Orio wrote:
I think that Attila did not want to make an absolute statement, he only wanted to say that while the Biotar 75 is, like, a world leader in it's focal range, with very few (if at all) other lenses that can be said to deliver the same image quality, the Biotar 58 is not - meaning it's a good lens but not the best in the bunch.


I'm sure Attila was indeed making the point you highlight, and I wouldn't want for one moment to suggest he was being overly-simplistic ... my wish was really to get us thinking more broadly about how many ways "quality" in a lens can be understood.

This forum gives a wonderful chance for photographers of all ages to understand how much, or how little, lens performance has altered over the years. Those owners who submit their images are to be congratulated for their willingness to share their results and expand our knowledge, irrespective of whether they have the rare and exotic or the "commonplace and ordinary".


PostPosted: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orio wrote:
I think that Attila did not want to make an absolute statement, he only wanted to say that while the Biotar 75 is, like, a world leader in it's focal range, with very few (if at all) other lenses that can be said to deliver the same image quality, the Biotar 58 is not - meaning it's a good lens but not the best in the bunch.


Yes, I would say this.