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

Zeiss Jena 50mm
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 7:25 pm    Post subject: Zeiss Jena 50mm Reply with quote
I saw one of these in a local shop today for $100:



PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 7:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
100 dollars is an average-high price for this.
The lens is really good, probably my best 50, but I own nothing expensive.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 7:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Aanything wrote:
100 dollars is an average-high price for this.
The lens is really good, probably my best 50, but I own nothing expensive.


I think the dealer said it's M39. Is that correct?


PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 7:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I only know this in m42


PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 11:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oreste wrote:
Aanything wrote:
100 dollars is an average-high price for this.
The lens is really good, probably my best 50, but I own nothing expensive.


I think the dealer said it's M39. Is that correct?


M42 and Exakta exists , common item on Ebay.

http://www.mflenses.com/gallery/v/german/zeiss/pancolar/pnacolar_50mm_f1_8_zebra/?
http://www.mflenses.com/gallery/v/german/zeiss/pancolar/aus-jena-pancolar-50mm-f1_8_zebra_exakta/?


PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 2:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Aanything wrote:
100 dollars is an average-high price for this.
The lens is really good, probably my best 50, but I own nothing expensive.


LOL

Get one of these!

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/50mm_f/2_Summicron-R_I


PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 2:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
haha


PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 2:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oreste wrote:
Aanything wrote:
100 dollars is an average-high price for this.
The lens is really good, probably my best 50, but I own nothing expensive.


LOL

Get one of these!

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/50mm_f/2_Summicron-R_I


It's Leica and not ZEISS, so it can't be good.... :biggrin:


PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 2:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kds315* wrote:
Oreste wrote:
Aanything wrote:
100 dollars is an average-high price for this.
The lens is really good, probably my best 50, but I own nothing expensive.


LOL

Get one of these!

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/50mm_f/2_Summicron-R_I


It's Leica and not ZEISS, so it can't be good.... :biggrin:


How good is that Jena lens? (I don't have any doubts about the quality of the Summicron: I used to own one.) I know it's not the equal of the Summicron, but how good is it?


PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 3:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Pancolar is a very sharp lens, but with imo ugly bokeh. It is actually probably sharper than a Summicron at large apertures though.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 4:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Mos6502 wrote:
Pancolar is a very sharp lens, but with imo ugly bokeh. It is actually probably sharper than a Summicron at large apertures though.


Well there are few lenses equal to that first Summicron-R, which I actually prefer to the second, having owned both.


Here's what Erwin Puts had to say about them:

6.3.10 2/50,Summicron-R, 1964
"The first Summicron for the Leicaflex, introduced in 1964 was a Canadian design, as was the Elmarit-R 1:2.8/90. (the 35mm, the 135mm and he 180mm were of Wetzlar origin). This Summicron could be focused till 50cm, a must for a reflex lens and can be compared to the 1 meter limit with the rangefinder version. This additional focusing range asked for a different type of correction. Curvature of field had to be small at full aperture and focus shift should be contained as well. The higher contrast of this lens, when compared to other lenses, including the competition, was quite noticeable. Research had indicated that film-emulsions could deliver a higher sharpness impression and a higher level of recording of fine detail if the acutance (or micro-contrast) was enhanced. Lenses that could use this characteristic with success had to be of higher contrast than was customary in those days. The introduction of the Summicron-R with enhanced contrast was the result of reflection and study of these imaging characteristics.

With its lower level of astigmatism, spherical aberration and field curvature, this lens has a medium to high overall contrast at full aperture, more so than the RF-version at that time (the then current Summicron (II) for the M-system). Stopped down however the M-version gave better results. This comparative evaluation indicates that any lens is a compromise between several competing demands. It is true that today, designers with a different approach, expanded theoretical understanding and sophisticated tools are able to balance these conflicting characteristics to a higher degree. The reader will become convinced (I do hope at least) that any lens (at least in the Leica world) has its own unique personality. A global merit Figure for the evaluation of a Leica lens does not suffice to get to the finer points that characterizes and differentiates the Leica lenses. Some of the lens elements for this lens have been produced by the Leitz factory in Rastatt, where spectacle glasses were also made.

The Summicron-R (I) has better overall performance than the Summicron (II) for the rangefinder system: generally we note a higher contrast in the field and a much better reduced level of flare. At full aperture we note a medium to high overall contrast, and a crisp definition of fine detail over a large part of the image area.

Stopping down improves the performance somewhat. From 1:4 the Summicron (II) for the M improves more than the Summicron-R (I) and might be the better performer as this lens had a more favourable optical response to the aperture becoming smaller. The improved image quality at the wider apertures, however, gives the R-version a wider usefulness. Here again we note as so often, that it is not so easy to give one overall performance measure to appraise a lens. Too many variables have to be balanced and the compromise will be different from lens type to lens type. The bad guys with high speed lenses are flare, low contrast, coma and spherical aberration and the design history of the high speed lens is a battle on many fronts.

6.3.12 2/50, Summicron-R (II), f, 1976 & 2/50,
Summicron-M (IV, 1979 Both lenses are identical in design and (almost) in performance. The small differences can be attributed to the mount that is dedicated to the use of an automatic diaphragm in the R-version and a rangefinder coupling in the M-version. Both are Canadian designs as were the predecessors. Both versions share the same glass types and design. The lens diagrams do show some differences in shapes of the rims of the lens elements, but these are necessitated by the different mounts and have no significance for the image quality. Many modern lenses after 1950 are based on the six-element double-Gauss design, and without any doubt, this lens-type is the best studied type in the world. It has excellent potential for high quality imagery, but as with every design it has its limits, due to a fair amount of oblique spherical aberration (a fifth-order aberration). This error is very difficult to balance with third order aberrations, let alone to correct completely. The wider the aperture , the more disturbing this error becomes. Around 1980, this design type reached its current zenith and I may add, that significant improvements are unlikely, unless the designer departs from the basic layout.

Five surfaces are flat, a measure, that reduces the ability for aberration correction and at the same time simplifies the production and assembly of the lens. Both lenses have improved imagery and this is an outstanding tribute to design optimization, that would have been impossible in the pre-computer period. The improved performance has been made possible through a higher correction of coma, and field curvature. At full aperture the M-version has the same overall contrast as the previous one, but the most visible improvement is the crisp and clear rendition of the extremely fine details on axis, which give the definition of the image a sparkling clarity. At 1:2.8 the contrast of the fine details improve, as do the outer zones and at 1: 4 we have an outstanding image quality, with only the outer zones a trace behind the centre. The Summicron (III) at the same aperture exhibits a softer image in the field. At 1:5.6 the overall contrast is slightly reduced, and the definition of the fine textural details in the field has improved a bit. Here we note that the user of these lenses should study his subjects and demands very carefully: for best overall contrast the optimum aperture is 4, but for best definition of very subtle textural shades of grey or colour, 5.6 might be more appropriate. Scientific tests can indicate these differences as measured values, but the user may or may not be able to see or appreciate them.

Photographic technique is the limiting factor here. I will note this aspect often in the course of these reviews. Vignetting is at the same level as the Summicron (III). Close up performance is much improved as is flare reduction (the lower amount of came helps here a lot). Drawing (distortion) is non-existent. Most of the above remarks apply to the R-version too. The R version at full aperture has somewhat lower contrast over the whole image field than its M-version. One should however not overestimate these differences. I made careful comparisons with both lenses and saw a fractional difference when shooting in normal day light situations. When taking pictures in twilight and similar low contrast environments the difference may be of more importance. At 1:5.6 the situation is reversed. Now the R-version has the higher contrast and gives a truly outstanding performance on axis (up to an image height of 9mm). The outer zonal areas have a somewhat lower performance as one looks at the very fine textural details. The M-version has a somewhat more even performance over the whole image field, but with a lower overall contrast. Both lenses offer sparkling clarity of extremely fine details, but if one wishes to differentiate the R version has a slightly flatter definition in the field. Stopped down to 1:5.6 the R-version shows that typical dip in performance in the outer zones, that many Leitz lenses of these generations share. R- and M-version deliver outstanding performance at a close-up distance of 1 meter, when stopped down a bit. This phenomenon does show, as so often, that many classical legends, are no longer valid.

The old adagio , that a lens can only be corrected for infinity and therefore should drop in performance when closer distances are used, has of course a theoretical justification, but not always a practical relevance. Many current Leica lenses do prove that at closer distances, performance can be as good as at infinity, which by the way is not true mathematical infinity, but a value like 100 times the focal length. (See design chapters)."

Last edited by Oreste on Wed Oct 31, 2012 4:13 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 4:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well, give it a try: it's 2 coffes a day for less than 2 months. It Will surely last longer Than 2 months.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 4:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Aanything wrote:
Well, give it a try: it's 2 coffes a day for less than 2 months. It Will surely last longer Than 2 months.


LOL

I have nothing to put it on; it won't fit my Leicaflex. I was just curious how it might compare to Japanese lenses.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 4:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Erm, I thought this was about the Pancolar, somehow it's become about the Summicron.

[quote=oreste] I know it's not the equal of the Summicron[/img]

No you don't, you clearly don't know anything about the Pancolar, you're just making an assumption.

So what is the point in this thread?

Just more Leica posturing for the sake of it methinks.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 4:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Erm, I thought this was about the Pancolar, somehow it's become about the Summicron.

[quote=oreste] I know it's not the equal of the Summicron[/img]

No you don't, you clearly don't know anything about the Pancolar, you're just making an assumption.

So what is the point in this thread?

Just more Leica posturing for the sake of it methinks.


LOL, no, I was curious about it. I am not at all worried about comparisons with the Summicron-R Mk 1. When somebody said 'it's sharper' I have to say I doubt that very much. That doesn't make it bad. I quoted the Erwin Puts stuff to show how complex lens design can be, and how saying something like 'lens x is sharper than lens y' is not a very adequately comprehensive way of talking about lenses.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 5:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
To be honest, I expect there will be very little difference in sharpness between the Pancolar, western Zeiss Planar 1.8/50 and the Summicron.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 6:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
"Like life, I guess. You're good, kid, but as long as I'm around you're second best. You might as well learn to live with it. "


PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 6:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
To be honest, I expect there will be very little difference in sharpness between the Pancolar, western Zeiss Planar 1.8/50 and the Summicron.


+1 and probably not Summicron will won Laughing especially if I do test Laughing

Which one is best, stupid anyway, one people can make superb shoot with any lens I know many here another can't even with all luxury items. In photography to me important final picture , nothing else interest really how much pp, what camera blah , blah and on final picture I have one measure I like it or not. Sharpness, distortion , CA etc also no matter if looking good to me.

Last edited by Attila on Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:01 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 6:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:

Which one is best stupid anyway one people can make superb shoot with any lens .
Ahem Embarassed Wink


Attila wrote:
In photography to me important final picture , nothing else interest really how much pp, what camera blah , blah and on final picture I have one measure I like it or not. Sharpness, distortion , CA etc also no matter if looking good to me.
Wise words and true and many examples of this philosophy exist, some even on this forum!

You can't teach a pig to sing , it wastes your time and irritates the pig.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
To be honest, I expect there will be very little difference in sharpness between the Pancolar, western Zeiss Planar 1.8/50 and the Summicron.


But 'sharpness' isn't all there is to it, as Puts explains. That's what I was trying to do by quoting that long passage.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
And as Attila says, these technical aspects Puts expounds on at such length mean bugger all in the grand scheme of things. If the lens is good enough, it's good enough and the Pancolar is definitely good enough, it's an excellent lens and makes beautiful pictures at all apertures, and again as Attila says, the Summicron is probably not better at all. Certainly Zeiss Jena during the DDR days were very capable of matching the Western makers (Zeiss, Schneider, Leica) in quality, there are many examples of this, for instance, the Pancolar 1.8/80 and the Flektogon 4/50 for medium format.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
And as Attila says, these technical aspects Puts expounds on at such length mean bugger all in the grand scheme of things. If the lens is good enough, it's good enough and the Pancolar is definitely good enough, it's an excellent lens and makes beautiful pictures at all apertures, and again as Attila says, the Summicron is probably not better at all. Certainly Zeiss Jena during the DDR days were very capable of matching the Western makers (Zeiss, Schneider, Leica) in quality, there are many examples of this, for instance, the Pancolar 1.8/80 and the Flektogon 4/50 for medium format.


Well, even if true, it does not matter for me personally. I was just curious about the lens and wanted to know if anyone here was looking for one. I can put you in touch with the dealer if so.

The technical aspects Puts delves into art what distinguishes one design from another, and they do matter to some degree.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have had a Pancolar of the same vintage and zebra finish as this one for about a year, so I know it well, hence why I have high praise for it, it's a very fine lens. Then again, so are many 50mms from many makers. My personal taste favours older Sonnar types over more modern Planar/Ultron double-gauss types though. I also have the Biotar that preceded the Pancolar and that is a different animal, less well corrected than the Pancolar, particularly in spherical abberation and coma, but this means it has a beautiful character at larger apertures with very smooth rendering, swirl in oof areas and a glow that makes images with a dreamy quality. The Pancolar is technically superior to both the Sonnar and Biotar, but it's my third favourite of the three, I chose lenses on character, when dealing with makers of the first level such as Zeiss, all the lenses are more than good enough, so selection is based on the character of their rendering and different lenses suit different subjects.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I have had a Pancolar of the same vintage and zebra finish as this one for about a year, so I know it well, hence why I have high praise for it, it's a very fine lens. Then again, so are many 50mms from many makers. My personal taste favours older Sonnar types over more modern Planar/Ultron double-gauss types though. I also have the Biotar that preceded the Pancolar and that is a different animal, less well corrected than the Pancolar, particularly in spherical abberation and coma, but this means it has a beautiful character at larger apertures with very smooth rendering, swirl in oof areas and a glow that makes images with a dreamy quality. The Pancolar is technically superior to both the Sonnar and Biotar, but it's my third favourite of the three, I chose lenses on character, when dealing with makers of the first level such as Zeiss, all the lenses are more than good enough, so selection is based on the character of their rendering and different lenses suit different subjects.


Right, and Puts discusses these 'personalities' of lenses.

Are these lenses common?


PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 9:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Very common, they were produced in great numbers over lengthy production lives and were exported in great numbers as one of the prime hard currency earners for the East German economy.

The problem with Puts' writings is he doesn't relate the technical to the aesthetic, a picture says as thousand words, and I'd much rather see some pictures from a lens than read a thousands words about it's correction of lateral chromatic abberation or how even it's illumination is at a certain aperture.

Pancolar:




Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2