Carl Zeiss 2/28 Hollywood. Is it really an f2?

[conor12]

I was just wondering if anyone who has this lens could help me out? I got a second hand copy of this lens that is in used condition (glass perfect but body has signs of use) and at f2 it only appears to give me 1/3 stop of extra light than f2.8. Ive compared it to my smc takumar at f2 and it appears to be to be the case.

Does anybody else have any experience with this or know why it would happen? The aperture blades work perfectly and open fully.

Cheers...
Conor

[Mal1905]

Sell it to me and I'll enlighten you

[no-X]

I noticed, that many fast lenses aren't as fast as they should be. I think it's caused by drop of contrast, when they are wide-opened.

E.g. I found no difference on Tomioka 55/1.2 at f/1.2 and f/1.4

[Orio]

Marco Cavina writes that on-field tests made on production lenses demonstrated for the Hollywood an effective aperture of f/2.2

http://www.luciolepri.it/lc2/marcocavina/articoli_fotografici/Glatzel-2-28/00_pag.htm

Amongst the various Hollywood prototypes shown by Marco there are some who have an effective f/2.0 aperture, but for the production, the prototype #7, having an aperture of f/2.1, was chosen, probably - as Marco writes - because it was the best corrected one.

I would like to add that it's common marketing strategy for many makers to "adjust" a little the nominal speed of the lenses... f/1.2 that are really f/1.3... f/2 that are f/2.1... f/1.4 that are f/1.5... f/1.8 that are f/1.9...

I recommend reading the Marco Cavina article, even with a translator it's still an amazing reading for lens lovers.

Of course, I do not mind if the Hollywood is slower than the nominal value. I don't use it because of f/2, I use it, to quote Marco Cavina, because of

[rbelyell]

OT, but orio, i really enjoy reading your posts!

[Abbazz]