Carl Zeiss vs Prakticar

[Fl00der]

Hi everybody,

I've had a Praktica BX20 camera with a Prakticar 50/1.8 with me for quite some time now, and I recently decided to extend my lens arsenal, more specifically with a wide and a telephoto lens, but I don't know which way to go. As of the PB mounts, there are 'two' big competitors in this area:

Pentacon Prakticar 28/2.8 vs Carl Zeiss Jena 28/2.8
and also
Pentacon Prakticar 135/2.8 vs Carl zeiss Jena 135/3.5

I've been scouting the internet for a while now, but I haven't found any good topics discussing these lenses side by side, and maybe you guys could help me out with this.

Also, I was thinking about purchasing an M42/PB converter and buying an M42 lens. Would that be a better choice than staying with the PB mounts?

Thanks in advance.

[Max78]

Hi,

these are the same lenses made by Pentacon, just for different markets:

[kypfer]

I have no experience with Praktica cameras, but I have adapted one of the 50mm f/2.4 Prakticar lenses for use with my Pentax cameras and can report that the results can be "different" … an interesting "pancake-style" lens
East-German (DDR) made PB-fit lenses not marked Zeiss Jena (or similar) are mostly (if not all) older Meyer Optik designs, and although possibly not quite as sophisticated are certainly well-recommended!
Many of the Zeiss wide-angle lenses have a degree of collector status in their own right, especially those based on the Flektogon designs … this will skew the price!
Some later lenses, although marked Zeiss or similar, are of Japanese origin. German-made lenses have appropriate markings on the lens mount, in my experience.
Tamron made a PB adaptor for their highly-regarded Adaptall-2 range of lenses.
The Pentacon supplied M42-PB adaptor, giving access to an almost infinite range of older lenses, many of which can be found very economically … some of which can be eye-wateringly expensive, doesn't give all the level of automation of a "native" PB-mount lens. It's usefulness may depend on your level of experience with older lenses.
Enjoy

[Zamo]

I agree with Max 78 in this. First one is the same lens. As for Pentacon 135 2.8 and Jena 135 3.5, the first is a good lens, but not too special, while the CZJ is a very good one, fairly cheap, very sharp, beautiful colors. I really enjoy using it, much more than the Pentacon (had several, sold all of them). I once compared the 135mm 3.5 in its m42 and PB mounts (not only the mount changes, also the barrel is different) and the results were indeed identical. Which was expected, but I "had it tested"

[kiddo]

There's a 35mm 2.4 PB version, is it same lens as flektogon?

[calvin83]

[D1N0]

[iangreenhalgh1]

A good copy of the 2.4/35 is a serious rival to a Distagon or Super-Angulon, I have all three and they have different qualities but I couldn't chose a 'best' from them.

[Zamo]

The 35mm 2.4 Flektogon has a lot of chromatic aberrations wide open. Much more than I expected when I first used it. And this is very seldom mentioned in the many online reviews there are around. I feel like, since it is expensive and something of a cult lens, noone dares to go against it. Nice lens, but with that problem.

[kiddo]

In fact, I want to know if PB mount's 2.4 version elements would fit in the flex lens, to swap some of the elements,az the PB mount I can find it cheaper and I've got a flek with issues on its elements

[iangreenhalgh1]

[papasito]

15 or 20 years ago I used to have the 35/2,4 and 50/1,8 MC (white MC and red MC ones) Jena lenses in M42 mount.
I couldn't decide which to use as normal lens.
Mine copies had LCA in green side.
The Flektogon had strong contrast and sharper center at f/2,4 to f/5,6.
The bokeh of the Pancolar was less distractive to me.
If the f/2,4 isn't so low for the user, this lens is my option.