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

Pentakon Prakticar M42?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Apr 09, 2009 12:49 pm    Post subject: Pentakon Prakticar M42? Reply with quote
Pentacon Prakticar 2,8/50. With Q1 quality. Domiplan??

See

http://www.wholesaledigital.co.za/pntcnpr50f2.8.htm

Shocked Shocked


PostPosted: Thu Apr 09, 2009 1:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Very strange , looks fake lens from cheap Meyer lens, perhaps made in factory but I am not sure. Donor lens is one of the cheapest Meyer lens. Domi.. something.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 09, 2009 1:56 pm    Post subject: Meyer Domiplan Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
Very strange , looks fake lens from cheap Meyer lens, perhaps made in factory but I am not sure. Donor lens is one of the cheapest Meyer lens. Domi.. something.


No, I don't think it's a fake - I recall these selling on re-named Praktica Nova models (in the 1970s I think) here in UK. Some Prakticas were rebadged as "Pentaflex" and sold by multiple photo chain stores.

It's a Meyer Domiplan, a three element triplet which although by no means really crisp at wide apertures managed to produce superficially good-looking results - lots of contrast which helped mask the lack of real definition. That was fine when most users either had 6"x4" colour enprints or looked at colour slides with a projector using an indifferent lens. If you made your own black and white prints or saw the slides shown by a Colorplan or similar high grade lens, then the reality became apparent. But, it was a VERY inexpensive lens and for what you paid you really got value for money.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 09, 2009 4:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I never heard the late Stewart Bell (sp?) really REALLY slate many lenses in the British photo mag 'Amateur Photographer'. But the Domiplan he declared to be one of the worse lenses he ever tested. I think the previous one he hated so much was an early Rokkor, but I can't remember which one.

I think Fleabay has gone crazy over the Zeiss name in recent years, and many lenses have obtained an artificially good reputation and stupid high prices for absolutely no good reason that I can think of.

While my photography is pretty crap compared to many people here, the ubiquitous Domiplan even lets my photography down Laughing


PostPosted: Thu Apr 09, 2009 7:19 pm    Post subject: Domiplan lens Reply with quote
GrahamNR17 wrote:
I never heard the late Stewart Bell (sp?) really REALLY slate many lenses in the British photo mag 'Amateur Photographer'. But the Domiplan he declared to be one of the worse lenses he ever tested. I think the previous one he hated so much was an early Rokkor, but I can't remember which one.

I think Fleabay has gone crazy over the Zeiss name in recent years, and many lenses have obtained an artificially good reputation and stupid high prices for absolutely no good reason that I can think of.

While my photography is pretty crap compared to many people here, the ubiquitous Domiplan even lets my photography down Laughing


I confess to having had one of these in the early 1960s - it came on an Exa which I bought to use on my first foreign holiday. I still have 22 Ektachrome-X slides which I took with it before the front end came adrift and disappeared for ever into the snow on an Austrian mountain- ! Honestly, they are actually sharp, but I suppose at f8 and f11 they ought to be. When I got home my local dealer did me a straight swop of the remains of the Domiplan for a Tessar which was vastly better. In the trade they were known as "Donkeyplans" - something had to be pretty poor to get a derogatory nickname. But, they were VERY cheap.

I think Graham is quite right - Ebay buyers are convincing themsleves that DDR Zeiss lenses have qualities that often simply don't exist and are often handing over silly prices. The mechanical quality of many is simply poor - anyone who sold this stuff in the 70s and early 80s can tell you endless stories of the high failure rate we had to contend with - the Zeiss-badged standard lenses were then just as patchy as anything labelled Pentacon. And often the 135s and 35s were just as bad. A good one was very nice, a bad one was dreadful (and far too common). Things were better in earlier years, but still not brilliant.

Right, I expect those who worship at the altar of Zeiss will be after my blood now, so maybe I should change my name and go into hiding-!


PostPosted: Fri Apr 10, 2009 12:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
You don't get away that easily Stephen. The Zeiss fans will find you Laughing

My Domiplan was on an Exa too - Exa 500 to be precise. I was never lucky enough for it to commit suicide Laughing


PostPosted: Fri Apr 10, 2009 3:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
In the forum, I saw lot of very goods pics taken with triplets lens. It surprise me

The triplets lens have bad IQ at the borders, with a good one at center from F/8.

The tessar schame benefit with a better borders than the triplets. More correction image in the center too.

In the 50 mm case, the xenar is better than the radionar, the skopar is better than the vaskar, the tessar than the pantar.

I can't understand the good reputation of the normals triplets.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 10, 2009 4:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
600 rand = 50euros. What a nerve, and those so-called 'full size' 'huge' files are a mere 500 and 750k, not original at all. Even a Domiplan might look ok at that size.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 10, 2009 4:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes Dave.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 10, 2009 11:20 pm    Post subject: Triplets Reply with quote
estudleon wrote:
In the forum, I saw lot of very goods pics taken with triplets lens. It surprise me

The triplets lens have bad IQ at the borders, with a good one at center from F/8.

The tessar schame benefit with a better borders than the triplets. More correction image in the center too.

In the 50 mm case, the xenar is better than the radionar, the skopar is better than the vaskar, the tessar than the pantar.

I can't understand the good reputation of the normals triplets.


Hi estudleon ! "Simple" triplets can indeed be good and enjoy fine reputations - provided they are made to work at moderate apertures. A relatively small max aperture of f4 (often described as f3.5!) or f4.5 lets a good designer produce a lens that gives good enough image quality for moderate enlargements at F4 and f5.6, and still better quality at f8. Image quality does not have to be bad in the corners. BUT, if the designer opens the max aperture to f2.8, then the quality will nose-dive.

4-element triplets like the Tessar, Skopar, Xenar and similar are indeed better than 3-elements of equal max aperture, but not necessarily SIGNIFICANTLY better than 3-element designs made for more modest max speeds. An f2.8 West German Tessar will indeed be decidedly better than an f2.8 Pantar, but not necessarily a lot better than an f3.5 Novar. And, just to complicate things, there are different qualities of 3-glass designs, sometimes even frm the same maker ! Indeed, some 4-element designs have actually been poorer than 3-element ones.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 4:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I never had one but i do remember a number of Photo mag articles at the time slagging off a 50mm Domiplan as the worst lens ever made, don't know if this is the same one


PostPosted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 4:46 pm    Post subject: Re: Triplets Reply with quote
scsambrook wrote:
estudleon wrote:
In the forum, I saw lot of very goods pics taken with triplets lens. It surprise me

The triplets lens have bad IQ at the borders, with a good one at center from F/8.

The tessar schame benefit with a better borders than the triplets. More correction image in the center too.

In the 50 mm case, the xenar is better than the radionar, the skopar is better than the vaskar, the tessar than the pantar.

I can't understand the good reputation of the normals triplets.


Hi estudleon ! "Simple" triplets can indeed be good and enjoy fine reputations - provided they are made to work at moderate apertures. A relatively small max aperture of f4 (often described as f3.5!) or f4.5 lets a good designer produce a lens that gives good enough image quality for moderate enlargements at F4 and f5.6, and still better quality at f8. Image quality does not have to be bad in the corners. BUT, if the designer opens the max aperture to f2.8, then the quality will nose-dive.

4-element triplets like the Tessar, Skopar, Xenar and similar are indeed better than 3-elements of equal max aperture, but not necessarily SIGNIFICANTLY better than 3-element designs made for more modest max speeds. An f2.8 West German Tessar will indeed be decidedly better than an f2.8 Pantar, but not necessarily a lot better than an f3.5 Novar. And, just to complicate things, there are different qualities of 3-glass designs, sometimes even frm the same maker ! Indeed, some 4-element designs have actually been poorer than 3-element ones.


Yes, you are right, sure. Perhaps I was something theoric. Confused


PostPosted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
There are three official marking versions of the M42 Domiplan: First with the serial number at the front, then serial number on the barrel, then the last without the Meyer name.

However, there are variants: the private-label Pentaflex is well known, and I have one which says "Pentacon Orestor" which appears to be quite scarce (never seen another) and this seems to be another variant.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:29 am    Post subject: Triplets Reply with quote
Can anyone remember the actual source of the AP criticism of the Domiplan?
As in "Test of Praktica **** (& 50mm Domiplan), published DD/MM/YY".

There is a standard lens EVEN WORSE than the Domiplam. Is 'Meritar' a dirty word around here? I was intrigued by it's reputation as a stinker that I bought a dead Nova for the conical 'Zebra' Meritar 50/2.9.
Now then, there may be some variation in quality but the Meritar was soft as warm butter around the edges at f2.9, but even worse than that was a chronic lack of contrast. Things improved by f8 & it was tolerable. I never had big enlargements made of any Meritar negs, so I can't really say any more than that. I gave the lens away with my last M42 body.

My introduction to the Praktica system came in 1986 with a MTL5.
Interestingly there was a tag with the camera that gave the available standard lens options.
In descending order: Pancolar 50/1.8, Pentacon 50/1.8, , Tessar 50/2.8, Domiplan 50/2.8 and finally Meritar 50/2.9.
I am surprised that E. Ludwig, whether part of Pentacon or not was still supplying this lens.
I have not seen a recent example of this lens in black, , maybe as rare as a MTL5 issued with a Pancolar?
I wonder if the camera I received was a 'grey import' which was intended for the internal market of the GDR?

I moved on to a Nikon & a Leica lurks menacingly in the background, but the ghost of the MTL5 haunts me still so I have obtained another with a Domiplan AND a Meritar. The Meritar is possibly a fifties example, from the style of the barrel components. It is my understanding that the first conical 'zebra' Meritar was 1960's.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1