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

Carl Zeiss Contax Planar T* VS. Carl Zeiss Flextogon
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 12:23 pm    Post subject: Carl Zeiss Contax Planar T* VS. Carl Zeiss Flextogon Reply with quote
Hi everybody,

Could you please review the lens as follows:

1. Carl Zeiss Contax Planar T* 18mm f4 (Contax mount)

VS

2. Carl Zeiss flextogon asus 20mm f4 (Exakta mount)


Now I have exakta adaptor. I'd like to sell one but I can't decide which is better. I've tested both of lens and I love both too but now I need money for a new lens in other focal length. Please advise me.

Thanks for all reply.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 1:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hi KhanX,
I am sure you mean Distagon 18mm f/4
There is no Planar 18mm

The Distagon is sharper, more vignetting wide open, and has a slight "s" shaped distortion. Also it may not clear the 5D mirror (in many cases it does not work).
The Flektogon 4/20 is not so sharp, but highly useable at f/5.6, has zero distortion (even better than the mythical Distagon 21mm)
Given the price difference (the Distagon 18mm can cost three times as much) the Flektogon 4/20 is clearly the better choice in my opinion.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 4:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you Orio

Your information is good for me.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 4:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have tried two Distagons 18mm., one had a scratch on the lens (that the sicilian seller did not tell me about), the other was not performing very well, whatever the reason. I gave back both, and now I am staying only with my Fleks 4/20mm., and I am happy

Only chance I try again is if I can find an Olympus Zuiko 18mm that does not cost a arm and a leg. Today at the fair there was the 21mm Zuiko, but I don't need a 21mm lens.
I hope next fair I can find a Zuiko 18mm.

-


PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 5:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
@ KhanX:

I second Orio about the Flek - I have both the 2.8/20 and 4/20 and won't part with either. IMO you'll not beat the 4/20 for any subject with straight lines near the frame edges like architecture or horizons etc. The 2.8 is sharper than the 4/20, although still not in Distagon league, but is better in the corners than the 4/20 at least as far as FF is concerned.

The mighty Distagon 21 may be sharper but it can't touch the old Flek for lack of distortion.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 5:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Even if I CZJ lens collector I like my Olympus OM 21mm f3.5 better.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 5:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Khan, when I look at the great gear in your signature, I come to the conclusion that money is not really a restricting issue for you, right? Wink
If this is true, you should keep your eyes open for a Distagon 2/21. I think this is one of the best lenses ever!

If you do not want to spend a fortune then I also would say that a Flek 4/20 is the best bet you can have, esp. as far as value is concerned! I do not have one (yet) but all I have read about it were enthusiastic reports. Smile
One of the cheapest 20mm lenses you can find, is a Cosina 3.8/20. But it plays several leagues below the Flektogon.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 6:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you bob955i, Attila, Orio

LUCISPictor - Indeed the cost is the big issue for me(ha ha). So I want to see the one.

As the opinion of Orio, bob955i, Attila and you, I decide to sell Distagon 18mm f4. I'll list in Ebay soon.

I love this room!!!!!!!


PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 6:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
This will sound like an echo. Being a very loyal Contax fan the 18 f4 was a real conflict. Maybe the copy I had was not good. I sold the lens after only shooting a couple rolls. Disapointment with "lazy" sharpness before f8 was an issue for me. Mostly I use wides for landscapes. This being the case I can not speak about distortion. It was a good overall ( build and such) lens just too expensive for nearly average performance. I replaced mine with a super tak 17 f4. Yes this not a rectilinear lens. But for $100 and how compact it is it was a very good alternative. The zuiko 21 f2 is maybe the best 20-21 value.I hope to post samples soon. This could also be a lens to look for. It is one third the cost of the distagon 21. All reviews I have read so far are outstanding in regards to Color, Distortion, and of course sharpness. It is also available in a f3.5 which is also highly regarded and , much less expensive. One of the thing we (speaking for myself) don't often consider is. Cosina offers some very interesting wide lenses in a rangefinder arangement. The price is such that you can purchase for example a Body, 15mm, and viewfinder for under $500. That is less than half of most of the good reflex SW and UW lenses that are offered. Here is a listing if you are interested.
Click here to see on Ebay


PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 7:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
F16SUNSHINE wrote:
This will sound like an echo. Being a very loyal Contax fan the 18 f4 was a real conflict. Maybe the copy I had was not good. I sold the lens after only shooting a couple rolls. Disapointment with "lazy" sharpness before f8 was an issue for me. Mostly I use wides for landscapes. This being the case I can not speak about distortion. It was a good overall ( build and such) lens just too expensive for nearly average performance.


Then I am not the only Contaxian feeling disappointed with the Distagon 18... for me it was mostly the problem with the 5D mirror that could not justify keeping such a costly 18mm lens. But I wasn't impressed by the quality either. Good, but not enough to justify a big expense. Before giving up all 18mm lenses, I want to try with the Zuiko 18 (if I can find one at acceptable cost).


PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 7:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes the Zuiko 18 looks promising. Simon has shown us some really nice work with that lens. Although with his brilliant PP and pre-visualizing talent and could have been a coke bottle bottom. Cool


PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 8:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Probably we just have to accept that a retrofocus 18mm can only be that good, and not further more.

In fact if you read other users, they are rarely happy.
- Simon is not 100% happy with the Zuiko quality
- so are many Nikoneers about the Nikkor 18
- and we are not happy about the Distagon 18

I think we should just perhaps accept the fact that a 18mm retrofocus lens has inherent limitations and can not compete in sharpness and clarity with a Distagon 28mm or Nikkor 28mm etc.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 8:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Probably we just have to accept that a retrofocus 18mm can only be that good, and not further more.

In fact if you read other users, they are rarely happy.
- Simon is not 100% happy with the Zuiko quality
- so are many Nikoneers about the Nikkor 18
- and we are not happy about the Distagon 18

I think we should just perhaps accept the fact that a 18mm retrofocus lens has inherent limitations and can not compete in sharpness and clarity with a Distagon 28mm or Nikkor 28mm etc.
Very true - I think the wider one gets the more compromises you get. Even the best 24mm's are no match for the best 35mm's in my limited experience.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 8:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:

Probably we just have to accept that a retrofocus 18mm can only be that good, and not further more


I think You hit the nail on the head. There are limitations that technology has not overcome. So now the challenge is to find the best compromise. I really like the rangefinder option. The 35mm frame is so small for color. I feel happy with it for B+W. Using wides for landscapes, architecture, and other subjects prime for big enlargements, the 35mm frame is not really ideal. I suppose in reality that big enlargements are not that frequent. So maybe the 35 rangefinder option is an easier choice although, still far from perfect.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 8:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
F16SUNSHINE wrote:

I think You hit the nail on the head. There are limitations that technology has not overcome. So now the challenge is to find the best compromise. I really like the rangefinder option.


Me too, that is why I am keeping the G2 in spite of the cost. I can not give up the quality of the lenses. And I am desperately looking for a Biogon 21 that does not cost an arm and a leg. I was very close to one yesterday, missed it only for a couple of hours.

When I'm very rich I will buy a Leica M8 with some Zeiss ZM lenses.
The image quailty of the M8 is astonishing.
The problem is that it costs more than an average car.

-


PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 8:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
The image quailty of the M8 is astonishing.
The problem is that it costs more than an average car.




It should not but it does.
I love rangefinders in general. They are not great or really even good for long lens work. For me that is not important. there is probably little hope for other manufacturers to get on board for a digital RF system.The term"DSLR" has become a magic marketing machine for the big fellas. Maybe the Zeiss/Cosina partnership will come up with something in the future. Other than that leica is the only option and that is not realistic for most Photogs. Confused Sad


PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 2:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you for all reply.

It's a good knowledge for me.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
F16SUNSHINE wrote:
I really like the rangefinder option.

Me too, that is why I am keeping the G2 in spite of the cost. I can not give up the quality of the lenses.


Same for me. I have never found any wide angle approaching the quality of the Fujinon 50/5.6 lens on my Fujica G690 rangefinder camera -- 50mm on 6x9 is equivalent to 21mm on 24x36. Retrofocus lenses have inherent flaws that increase overwhelmingly below 20mm.

But the new Nikon 14-24/2.8 seems to be an astonishing lens (even if it's not quite as good as the Distagon 21/2.8 ). See this review: http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon_14_24mm_1/nikon14_24mm_a.html

Cheers!

Abbazz
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1