MC Pentacon 50/2.4

[pavko]

Is there anybody with this lens and some mirrorless camera and could post some samples and 1:1 crops? I find it crap and I'm wondering whether my copy is lemon (although it looked mint) or it's just "character" of that lens. I will not post anything now as I doubt it would be objective. What is puzzling me more is that I have not seen any samples on the net - either no interest in so "slow" lens or big disappointment.

[Nordentro]

[skida]

I did a search in Flickr and there were only two users with example shots. They weren't great but it may have been down to the users rather than the lens.

[Attila]

This lens possible comes from different makers, if you see Made in DDR label on it , that is fine lens, if no label , means made in Japan and probably crap

[iangreenhalgh1]

I have this lens, it is a good one.

I don't think the ones without the label are Japanese, they are probably made by IOR in Romania, I would expect those ones are not as good.

I will take mine out and make some samples on NEX, I shot film with it and it is a good lens, not sure if I have samples on the NEX but I will make some.

[iangreenhalgh1]

Just checked my copy and it doesn't say made in Germany unlike my other Pentacon PB lenses.

Tomorrow we'l see what it is like on NEX.

[Minolfan]

I remember me rumors that this lens, if not made in GDR, might be produced in Romania, not in Japan?
I have one, no inscription GDR.
No samples digital available, sorry, don't have a Nex.

Have a look for the pictures of the real specialist: http://www.pbase.com/kkawakami/prakticar_50mm_f24_pancake

I presume member Koji can tell you more!

[iangreenhalgh1]

[Orio]

The maker per se does not make any difference, especially in a 50mm lens
My Rollei Planar 1.8/50 (Glatzel designed) made in Singhapour performs the same as my Zeiss made and labeled German copy.
(the barrel is better quality in the Zeiss copy but that does not influence the image)
The fact is that the 50mm lenses of average speed do not require special glass like for instance super wide lenses
The optical scheme is simple, the average speed does not ask for stellar performance and special correction
as long as the coating is of similar quality (such as Zeiss T* and Rollei's HFT), there is really nothing that can
make a difference in the performance of a 50mm lens.
In fact I have seen countless 50mm comparison tests where to spot differences between lenses was nearly impossible
Often I am asked by people something like "I own a Takumar 50mm lens, should I buy a Nikkor (Planar, Olympus) also?"
I always reply that if you have spare money that you don't need, why not - otherwise, the money is better spent in something
that can make a real difference, because between 50mm lenses of comparable speed, differences are very small if any.

[Nordentro]

So a Domiplan and a Planar would have pretty much the same outcome on f/2.8?!?

[Orio]

[iangreenhalgh1]

I agree with Orio, the differences between different models of 50mm of the modern double-gauss/Planar design are small indeed.

I chose my 50mm lenses based on the character of their rendering, pretty impossible to chose them based on technical aspects as they are all good.

I don't know what formula the Pentacon 2.4/50 is, perhaps it is a double anastigmat like the old Meyer Primotar 3.5/50, or maybe it is a Tessar type?

I do have a couple of 1.8/50 PB Pentacons, those are very good lenses indeed, better than the Meyer Oreston/Pentacon 1.8/50 that came before it, optical formula is surely revised as the bokeh is different.

Tomorrow I will shoot my 2.4/50 on NEX, I am intrigued now to see what it is like, it did well on film last year when I shot it.

[Nordentro]

[iangreenhalgh1]

[Minolfan]

[Pancolart]

I confirm fine results for Prakticar 2.4/50mm on 5DmkII. Unmodified sample could slightly touch mirror (or something) at infinity.

Regarding the difference between 50mm lenses: for someone that can notice that slight difference it means whole a great deal. I mean one can find his "photographic" pleasure exploring that tiny difference .

[pavko]

Mine is like the one on the left:
http://i.pbase.com/o3/62/611962/1/133193540.BDAyIpXo.D700_MP50ZF_YYZ7815.jpg

I wonder whether thy share totally the same optical design (as changes in barrel construction are clearly visible). Problem with mine is total lack of sharpness - even when stopped down. I did test twice focusing mostly on infinity shots as they show a lot about lens performance. Koji examples show totally different story - sharp subjects with smooth background, however they are in portrait to close-up range. I have to check that also.

[iangreenhalgh1]

Mine is the 1st version too and a quick test this morning shows it's not lacking in sharpness wide open. These shots are in bad light and heavy rain so not ideal, but even so, it's definitely a sharp lens.










Personally, I think that's a good performance in the conditions and wide open, definitely sharper then the EBC X-Fujinon 1.6/50 DM I shot a couple of days ago.

BTW, I tend to think that anyone who gets their pleasure from exploring minute differences in lenses isn't really a photographer, photography is about making pleasing images and as long as a lens is good enough then it's good enough and we should worry more about other aspects than the minutiae of lenses. Pixel peeping can be taken too far imho and one can lose sight of the bigger picture.

[pavko]

Thank you for your effort and your pictures.

[fuzzywuzzy]

There isn't much online about this lens, so a couple more samples won't hurt. Exposure adjustment and slight sharpening, I didn't touch colors or contrast.

It's not a Tessar formula, but I think of it as having a similar role to a Tessar i.e. the bokeh can be ugly, but it's sharp with great colors.

Wide open, focus on the tip of the central flowers towards the bottom. I don't find the OOF areas appealing at all.


f/8 or so.


100% crop from above


It's such a cute, tiny little thing, if it could reach infinity on my Canon body I'd probably use it a fair bit. I was a bit bummed out that the film body it came with was unreliable, would have been a great lightweight and relatively compact walkabout set.

[pavko]

[iangreenhalgh1]

Hope you can fix it Pavko, if not, it's a common lens on ebay and cheap. The later version of the 1.8/50 in PB is not that much bigger BTW and a better lens imho.

[fuzzywuzzy]

[pavko]

Piece of cake You will need small flat screwdriver plus rubber tool or your fingers (in my case later).

1) Lens in question:

2) Remove name plate:

3) Pull out filter ring:

4) Set lens to infinity. Loose 3 screws (You see them on last pic). Set ring to 6 m (assuming that PB adapter is 0.7 thick you need 0.3 mm to reach infinity). Tighten screws. Put lens on body (or it may be there for whole procedure). Adjust focus on object at least 250 m away (two times hyperfocal on quite dense sensor). Loose screws. Set ring to inf. Tighten screws.
5) You are done!

And now some warning for anyone cleaning this lens and source of my problems.This lens was designed to be cheap standard lens. One of the goals of it designer was to reduce number of parts in the lens to minimum. Second was to make production possible with high tolerances on components.
a) If you look closer you will spot that something is wrong in here (first glass element removed):

b) Two middle elements pulled out (as they are secured by first one and positioned by three screws you see here):

And those 3 screws are cause of disaster. It is practically impossible (at home) to position middle elements correctly... Especially that:
c) inner ring of middle element and outer ring of securing element not fit tightly:


I see solution but I'm still thinking whether turning adjusting ring is worth the effort...