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 135 2.8 or Carls Zeiss jenna 135 3.5 on digital?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital SLR Cameras
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 2:00 pm    Post subject: Pentacon 135 2.8 or Carls Zeiss jenna 135 3.5 on digital? Reply with quote
I like to use this focal lens for potrait or candid phothography and like to hear their potentials on DSLR.
Any one who use this lens will be apprecaited to give comments, especially who has chanced to try both of them.

Regards,
RTOGOG


PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 3:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have both lenses, and I'd choose the Sonnar every time. It's a lot smaller and lighter, focuses considerably closer, better colours and contrast (although on digital these are adjustable), and the bokeh is very good despite the Pentacon getting more reputation in that department due to some versions having a lot of aperture blades. But the Pentacon is also a nice lens, as are many other 135mm's, so look for a good deal rather than one specific lens…


PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 6:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have both and couldn't choose which I prefer more. They are completely different.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 8:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
martinsmith99 wrote:
I have both and couldn't choose which I prefer more. They are completely different.


This is my opinion too, I love both and use them if I can.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 3:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
martinsmith99 wrote:
I have both and couldn't choose which I prefer more. They are completely different.


This is my opinion too, I love both and use them if I can.


So, On what aplications do you use sparingly? I already have the Pentacon version (Non Preset) & like very much for itssize, sharpness & colour rendition. I repalce my Pentax M version which have max wide open @ 3.5 (too dark on viewfinder & so soft ). I just not sure whether the Carl Zeiss Jenna version give better result.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 11:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
RTOGOG wrote:
I already have the Pentacon version (Non Preset) & like very much for itssize, sharpness & colour rendition. I repalce my Pentax M version which have max wide open @ 3.5 (too dark on viewfinder & so soft ). I just not sure whether the Carl Zeiss Jenna version give better result.


Well, two f/3.5 lenses will be pretty much the same brightness, so if it's too dark then the CZJ won't help. It is a sharp and contrasty lens, however, so it would be better in that regard. And if you enjoy the size of the Pentacon, then you'd love the size of the CZJ; the Pentacon is large and heavy compared to many other 135mm's (even other f/2.8's).


PostPosted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 8:51 am    Post subject: Re: Pentacon 135 2.8 or Carls Zeiss jenna 135 3.5 on digital Reply with quote
RTOGOG wrote:
I like to use this focal lens for potrait or candid phothography and like to hear their potentials on DSLR.
Any one who use this lens will be apprecaited to give comments, especially who has chanced to try both of them.

Regards,
RTOGOG


135mm is a great portrait and candid length on a FF sensor digital, but not so much on a crop digital. If you have a crop sensor camera, I might consider 75-100mm instead. I bought my 135mm for the same thing, and found it never got used as it was always too long (215mm equivalent on canon 1.6x)


PostPosted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 11:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have the CZJ 135/3.5 Sonnar and even though I haven't used it much yet, it seems really pleasing, with good colors, contrast and sharpness, however I do prefer the Nikkor 135/3.5 AI much more. I'll post some pictures once I get them sorted.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 4:29 am    Post subject: Re: Pentacon 135 2.8 or Carls Zeiss jenna 135 3.5 on digital Reply with quote
tkbslc wrote:
RTOGOG wrote:
I like to use this focal lens for potrait or candid phothography and like to hear their potentials on DSLR.
Any one who use this lens will be apprecaited to give comments, especially who has chanced to try both of them.

Regards,
RTOGOG


135mm is a great portrait and candid length on a FF sensor digital, but not so much on a crop digital. If you have a crop sensor camera, I might consider 75-100mm instead. I bought my 135mm for the same thing, and found it never got used as it was always too long (215mm equivalent on canon 1.6x)


That's right, but on my Nikon it's 202.5 f/2.8 which i like very much. It helps for candid photos and street photo. So small(The pentacon),fast and "long". Great. Well, i also have CZJ Sonnar 180 2.8 P6, but it's too heavy and too big to carry it all the time in the bag.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 6:44 am    Post subject: Re: Pentacon 135 2.8 or Carls Zeiss jenna 135 3.5 on digital Reply with quote
seuret wrote:
tkbslc wrote:
I bought my 135mm for the same thing, and found it never got used as it was always too long (215mm equivalent on canon 1.6x)


That's right, but on my Nikon it's 202.5 f/2.8 which i like very much.


How do you use the M42 135mm on a Nikon like that? Is a 135mm long enough to use for portraits with a glassless adapter? (The adapters with glass in them act as mild teleconverters so the 135mm f/2.8 would be more like 162mm f/3.36 + then the crop factor would make the field of view equivalent to approx. 243mm on full frame, so in general the APS-C Nikon M42 users end up with smaller FoV than Canon, despite less crop factor, and lose some maximum aperture on top of that.)


PostPosted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 1:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I use the Pentacon preset for candid portraits and the Sonnar for flowers, simply because the Sonnar is a bit sharper wide open, but still has nice bokeh.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 2:39 pm    Post subject: Re: Pentacon 135 2.8 or Carls Zeiss jenna 135 3.5 on digital Reply with quote
Arkku wrote:
seuret wrote:
tkbslc wrote:
I bought my 135mm for the same thing, and found it never got used as it was always too long (215mm equivalent on canon 1.6x)


That's right, but on my Nikon it's 202.5 f/2.8 which i like very much.


How do you use the M42 135mm on a Nikon like that? Is a 135mm long enough to use for portraits with a glassless adapter? (The adapters with glass in them act as mild teleconverters so the 135mm f/2.8 would be more like 162mm f/3.36 + then the crop factor would make the field of view equivalent to approx. 243mm on full frame, so in general the APS-C Nikon M42 users end up with smaller FoV than Canon, despite less crop factor, and lose some maximum aperture on top of that.)



I made a small test for facal lenght and f numbers;)

The test was between Pentacon 135 2.8 and Nikkor 70-210 4-5.6.
The first part was about to prove or not your opinion that a pentacon 135 with glass adapter has a crop factor of 1.2(135x1.2=162 2.8x1.2=3.36)and it will be like 243mm on APS-C camera.
I made photos with the Pentacon at 135:))) and with the Nikkor at 135mm,155mm and 170mm.Obviously i can't take a picture with the Nikkor at 162.I can't setting it at this focal lenght. The Nikkor doesn't have any lens that should make an impact so it's "clean" crop factor 1.5
So, 135-202.5; 155-232.5;170-255;-The three are close to what you say 243mm. All the photos were made at f5.6 1/2000 iso400
The second part was to check the maximum aperture so i made a photo with the Pentacon at 135mm f5.6 1/2000 iso400 and then i open the lens at 2.8 (of course is not that sharp at this aperture) and i needed to shoot at 1/4000 and to decrease the iso to 250 to get the same amount of light. So, the f-numbers difference 5.6-2.8 -the shutter speed 1/2000-1/4000 and the iso 400-250. So, i think it's more like to be "real" f2.8 instead of 3.36

nikkor 135mm(202.5mm)f5.6 1/2000 iso 400

pentacon 135mm f5.6 1/2000 iso400

nikkor 155mm( 232.5) f5.6 1/2000 iso 400

nikkor 170mm (255 crop) f5.6 1/2000 iso400

second part-for f-number
pentacon 135mm f5.6 1/2000 iso400

pentacon 135mm f2.8 1/4000 iso 250


PostPosted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 2:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
There is a small magnifying effect between Nikkor at 135 and the Pentacon. The Pentacon's image is bigger, but it is smaller that the nikkor at 155mm.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 3:47 pm    Post subject: Re: Pentacon 135 2.8 or Carls Zeiss jenna 135 3.5 on digital Reply with quote
seuret wrote:

The first part was about to prove or not your opinion that a pentacon 135 with glass adapter has a crop factor of 1.2(135x1.2=162 2.8x1.2=3.36)and it will be like 243mm on APS-C camera.


Obviously it's not a matter of opinion; the 1.2 teleconversion (not crop) factor from adapters with extra glass has been mentioned by some users of such adapters, so it was just a speculative example I used to illustrate that the 1.5× vs 1.6× crop factors cannot be directly compared if an optical adapter is used. As your sample shots show, the true value of this adapter is different (but not exactly 1×).

seuret wrote:

The Nikkor doesn't have any lens that should make an impact so it's "clean" crop factor 1.5


The problem comparing to another lens is that the marked, advertised, or even electronically reported focal lengths are not very accurate. But, yes, it does give a rough idea, i.e. the glass in the adapter does act as a teleconverter, but not as strong as the figure 1.2 that is often mentioned (and which I used as an example); perhaps 1.1× is closer with this particular adapter.

In any case, the reason I brought this up was that I wasn't sure you were using an adapter with extra glass, because you specifically said that the field of view of this lens on Nikon 1.5× would be wider than on Canon 1.6×. But turns out that this is indeed not true; based on your examples above the fields of view on Canon and Nikon + adapter would be about the same.

(Never-the-less I personally agree that 135mm on APS-C is a good outdoor portrait lens; my aim was not to dispute this point. =)

seuret wrote:

So, i think it's more like to be "real" f2.8 instead of 3.36


Yes, but by necessity it is not f/2.8 since the focal length is altered by the glass (which is, after all, part of its function for obtaining infinity focus). The figure f/3.36 was based on the simple formula of "assumed focal length with adapter divided by assumed physical aperture", i.e. (135 × 1.2) / (135 / 2.8) = 3.36. Since the teleconversion effect is milder than 1.2, the result is obviously wrong. With the same simple formula applied for a 1.1× teleconverter, would give a maximum aperture of f/3.08; already so close to f/2.8 that differences in transmission, etc make comparison difficult, so it's probably not an issue with this adapter.

(By the way, testing the lenses at different exposure times, apertures, and ISO sensitivities is not very good for spotting the differences, as all of these may differ slightly from the marked value. The better comparison is both lenses at the same (marked) settings, i.e. your first two pics at f/5.6. In those the Pentacon appears slightly darker, but the difference is indeed quite minor and could also be due to changing light.)

Last edited by Arkku on Fri Dec 18, 2009 3:55 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 3:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
By the way, is it just me or does the Nikkor zoom seem sharper than the Pentacon with both at (marked) f/5.6?


PostPosted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 4:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arkku wrote:
By the way, is it just me or does the Nikkor zoom seem sharper than the Pentacon with both at (marked) f/5.6?


Yes, there such a thing and it's interesting because i've made the same test between the nikkor and CZJ Sonnar 180/f.2.8. Of course the nikkor was setted at 180mm and the Sonnar gave me more details. For example the persiennes with the nikkor looked like a whole plastic piece, but with the Sonnar i could the ropes, the very small details.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 4:37 pm    Post subject: Re: Pentacon 135 2.8 or Carls Zeiss jenna 135 3.5 on digital Reply with quote
Arkku wrote:
seuret wrote:

The first part was about to prove or not your opinion that a pentacon 135 with glass adapter has a crop factor of 1.2(135x1.2=162 2.8x1.2=3.36)and it will be like 243mm on APS-C camera.


Obviously it's not a matter of opinion; the 1.2 teleconversion (not crop) factor from adapters with extra glass has been mentioned by some users of such adapters, so it was just a speculative example I used to illustrate that the 1.5× vs 1.6× crop factors cannot be directly compared if an optical adapter is used. As your sample shots show, the true value of this adapter is different (but not exactly 1×).

seuret wrote:

The Nikkor doesn't have any lens that should make an impact so it's "clean" crop factor 1.5


The problem comparing to another lens is that the marked, advertised, or even electronically reported focal lengths are not very accurate. But, yes, it does give a rough idea, i.e. the glass in the adapter does act as a teleconverter, but not as strong as the figure 1.2 that is often mentioned (and which I used as an example); perhaps 1.1× is closer with this particular adapter.

In any case, the reason I brought this up was that I wasn't sure you were using an adapter with extra glass, because you specifically said that the field of view of this lens on Nikon 1.5× would be wider than on Canon 1.6×. But turns out that this is indeed not true; based on your examples above the fields of view on Canon and Nikon + adapter would be about the same.

(Never-the-less I personally agree that 135mm on APS-C is a good outdoor portrait lens; my aim was not to dispute this point. =)

seuret wrote:

So, i think it's more like to be "real" f2.8 instead of 3.36


Yes, but by necessity it is not f/2.8 since the focal length is altered by the glass (which is, after all, part of its function for obtaining infinity focus). The figure f/3.36 was based on the simple formula of "assumed focal length with adapter divided by assumed physical aperture", i.e. (135 × 1.2) / (135 / 2.Cool = 3.36. Since the teleconversion effect is milder than 1.2, the result is obviously wrong. With the same simple formula applied for a 1.1× teleconverter, would give a maximum aperture of f/3.08; already so close to f/2.8 that differences in transmission, etc make comparison difficult, so it's probably not an issue with this adapter.

(By the way, testing the lenses at different exposure times, apertures, and ISO sensitivities is not very good for spotting the differences, as all of these may differ slightly from the marked value. The better comparison is both lenses at the same (marked) settings, i.e. your first two pics at f/5.6. In those the Pentacon appears slightly darker, but the difference is indeed quite minor and could also be due to changing light.)



I made the test because i've never thought about what you said, the teleconversion of the adapter glass . I always knew from my and some other people's photo that the glass decreases the clarity of the lens, but never thought of the teleconversion abd because it's so small(like 1.1 i should make a parallel shot with 145 Smile) i haven't notice it on my photos.
The problem with the slight darker Pentacon's photos might be because of his conditions. It's not bad, but this lens have been used from a friend of mine for 20 years and i mend it once. Well, not me, but a photo technician. The Nikkor is like a brand new lens Smile))


PostPosted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 9:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
seuret wrote:
Yes, there such a thing and it's interesting because i've made the same test between the nikkor and CZJ Sonnar 180/f.2.8. Of course the nikkor was setted at 180mm and the Sonnar gave me more details. For example the persiennes with the nikkor looked like a whole plastic piece, but with the Sonnar i could the ropes, the very small details.


Could the difference here be a slight difference in focusing or perhaps the adapter on the Pentacon? I think it's surprising if the Pentacon wouldn't be “perfectly sharp” at f/5.6 like the Sonnar 180mm is… But I haven't systematically tested mine. =)
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital SLR Cameras
Page 1 of 1