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

Comparing Vintage Zooms: CZJ Vario-Prakticar vs Minolta MD
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Apr 24, 2021 6:13 pm    Post subject: Comparing Vintage Zooms: CZJ Vario-Prakticar vs Minolta MD Reply with quote
Hi:

I made some side by side comparisons of a house situated on the mountain across the river from where I live to test the sharpness of two vintage zoom lenses: The CZJ Vario-Prakticar 35-70mm f2.7-3.5 versus the Minolta MD Zoom f3.5. Admittedly this was hand-held, but I use the highest magnification on my Sony A7ii to focus, and took the best shot of a series of 5. I shot only at f8, and looked at 35mm, 50mm and 70mm. All images are shown at 100%. This test is by no means definitive although the Minolta won hands down at all focal lengths. I wonder if I bought a CZJ dud? The Vario-Prakticar seems to be the same design as the 35-70mm Vario-Sonnar MM, so I was expecting much more. Any thoughts?

-Charles


#1


PostPosted: Sat Apr 24, 2021 7:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Vario-Prakticar 35-70mm f2.7-3.5 is a quite rare lens, only about 4000 were produced (https://zeissikonveb.de/start/objektive/wechselobjektive%201980er/carl%20zeiss%20jena.html). It was extremely expensive back in the 1980s. Congratulations to have found one!

Are your crops taken from the image center? If so, would you care to repeat the same test, maybe wide open AND at f8, with crops from the corner? That might be more menaingful since most lenses perform quite similar at f8 and in the image center.

S


PostPosted: Sat Apr 24, 2021 10:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The minolta is one of the best zooms made, from my limited experience. I ended up up with the Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 35-135mm f/3.3-4.5, as my walkaround due to having a little more reach at the long end, not quite as good over the same ranges as the minolta, I shot about 10 different zooms in this range to reach this conclusion, including the well regarded Pentax stack of primes.

I never shot the contax 35-70 but they say thats the only thing better than the minolta.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2021 8:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Was it the Minolta MD III macro lens or one of the earlier versions?


PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2021 9:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
The Vario-Prakticar 35-70mm f2.7-3.5 is a quite rare lens, only about 4000 were produced (https://zeissikonveb.de/start/objektive/wechselobjektive%201980er/carl%20zeiss%20jena.html). It was extremely expensive back in the 1980s. Congratulations to have found one!

Are your crops taken from the image center? If so, would you care to repeat the same test, maybe wide open AND at f8, with crops from the corner? That might be more menaingful since most lenses perform quite similar at f8 and in the image center.

S


Thanks Steve. I actually find the difference between these two lenses quite pronounced at center, and while I appreciate what you are saying, I actually have made up my mind on the basis of these tests. I am doing it for practical reasons and I figure if a lens is that soft at center and at f8 then it is time to move on. I would test the corners if I find a couple of other manual zooms I am about to acquire are comparable to the Minolta.

-Charles


PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2021 9:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gatorengineer64 wrote:
The minolta is one of the best zooms made, from my limited experience. I ended up up with the Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 35-135mm f/3.3-4.5, as my walkaround due to having a little more reach at the long end, not quite as good over the same ranges as the minolta, I shot about 10 different zooms in this range to reach this conclusion, including the well regarded Pentax stack of primes.

I never shot the contax 35-70 but they say thats the only thing better than the minolta.



Exactly, and I plan to get the Contax for that reason. It will be an interesting comparison between the two. Great to know that the Minolta has a good reputation. The fact that you have shot 10 zooms in this range, and have come to that conclusion, is very gratifying for me.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2021 9:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Antoine wrote:
Was it the Minolta MD III macro lens or one of the earlier versions?


It is the macro version. I heard that the non-macro version was slightly better. Is that correct?

Thanks,

-Charles


PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2021 10:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The 50mm CZJ shot seems just not to be in focus. A bit more contrast in the Minolta. Otherwise the difference is negligible


PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2021 12:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
D1N0 wrote:
The 50mm CZJ shot seems just not to be in focus.

I had the same suspicion, too. The image crop taken at f=50mm with the Zeiss seems slighhtly "unsharp" (=misfocused), as opposed to a "soft" (=low contrast, but enough detail).

I would suggest

1) to use a tripod, electronic first shutter and 10 s self timer
2) to focus wide open, using the magnifier (not the focus peaking)
3) to take an image wide open (to check correct focusing)
4) carefully stop down to f8 and take the final image

I would be surprised to see any difference between the Minolta and the Zeiss, at least at 50mm f8 and in the center of the image.

In my experience at f8 and in the center of a 24mm full frame lens nearly any lens is tack sharp. Correct and careful testing provided, of course ...

S


PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2021 1:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
charley5 wrote:
Antoine wrote:
Was it the Minolta MD III macro lens or one of the earlier versions?


It is the macro version. I heard that the non-macro version was slightly better. Is that correct?

Thanks,

-Charles


Here you are:
http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic,p,1550635.html#1550635

S


PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2021 2:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Aus Jena tried marketing 3rd party styled zooms here in the late 70's.
There was a launch promotion that used Japan Camera centers as the marketing point.
I examined a couple, and they were pretty dark, even for the time period.
For the price point, I could and did do better with Vivitar.
The Jena zooms were priced awfully close to o.e.m. glass...

The promotion was quite short lived here, and nothing more was heard or seen.
I did notice that the Jena name was dropped from the rifle scope line in the mid 80's.
They went back to plain old Carl Zeiss, and became a high end success in that endeavor.

-D.S.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2021 4:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Doc Sharptail wrote:
Aus Jena tried marketing 3rd party styled zooms here in the late 70's.

Correct. Sigma was producing a series of primes and zooms for the Praktica SLRs. Those lenses were pretty decent.

However, the Carl Zeiss Jena Vario-Pancolar 2.7-3.5/35-70mm is a different story. It is a genuine Carl Zeiss Jena lens, developped and manufactured in (eastern) Germany. It was patented in the German Democratic Republic (eastern Germany) in 1983 (patent nr 235122, by Utz Schneider, Volker Tautz and Karin Holota, see https://zeissikonveb.de/start/objektive/wechselobjektive%201980er/carl%20zeiss%20jena.html). Marekting did not start before 1987, and only about 4000 lenses were produced.

Later on, after the collapse od the German Democratic Republic, starting around 1992, the productioin of the Praktica SLR was resumed. Since lens production in the former GDR had stopped around 1990, the Praktica SLR was sold mainly with early Samyang lenses (labelled Pancolar as well). These lenses were really crappy.


Doc Sharptail wrote:
The promotion was quite short lived here, and nothing more was heard or seen.
I did notice that the Jena name was dropped from the rifle scope line in the mid 80's.

The Samyang "Pancolar" time frame was about 1992-2000, as far as I know. However, this had nothing to do with Zeiss Jena or Zeiss Oberkochen (in spite of the Pancolar name and the Praktica SLR). It was an endeavor of thze late Heinrich Manderman who had been controlling large parts of the German (west) photo discounter market prior to the re-unification of Germany (e. g. Beroflex, Exakta, Miranda Germany, Schneider, and Rollei, to name a few). After the collapse of the GDR he additionaly invested in Pentacon, Orwo and others.

Doc Sharptail wrote:

They went back to plain old Carl Zeiss, and became a high end success in that endeavor.
-D.S.

I think you may confuse the above story (Zeiss Jena, eastern Germany) with the Zeiss Oberkochen (western Germany) launch of SLR lenses after Kyocera stopped manufacturing "Contax" SLRs. These are completely different stories, and completely different companies.

S


PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2021 5:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
D1N0 wrote:
The 50mm CZJ shot seems just not to be in focus.

I had the same suspicion, too. The image crop taken at f=50mm with the Zeiss seems slighhtly "unsharp" (=misfocused), as opposed to a "soft" (=low contrast, but enough detail).

I would suggest

1) to use a tripod, electronic first shutter and 10 s self timer
2) to focus wide open, using the magnifier (not the focus peaking)
3) to take an image wide open (to check correct focusing)
4) carefully stop down to f8 and take the final image

I would be surprised to see any difference between the Minolta and the Zeiss, at least at 50mm f8 and in the center of the image.

In my experience at f8 and in the center of a 24mm full frame lens nearly any lens is tack sharp. Correct and careful testing provided, of course ...

S


I would even suggest to stop down first and focus after since these lenses might be subject to focus shift


PostPosted: Mon Apr 26, 2021 3:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:




However, this had nothing to do with Zeiss Jena or Zeiss Oberkochen (in spite of the Pancolar name and the Praktica SLR). It was an endeavor of thze late Heinrich Manderman who
I think you may confuse the above story (Zeiss Jena, eastern Germany) with the Zeiss Oberkochen (western Germany) launch of SLR lenses after Kyocera stopped manufacturing "Contax" SLRs. These are completely different stories, and completely different companies.

S


I have to dig around a bit to find out more. I was aware of the contax name situation at the time. The Aus Jena rep I spoke to at the promotion had very badly broken english. I was unable to determine from him which company was manufacturing the lenses.

-D.S.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 26, 2021 4:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
D1N0 wrote:
The 50mm CZJ shot seems just not to be in focus. A bit more contrast in the Minolta. Otherwise the difference is negligible


I don't think so. There seems to be less resolution for the CZJ particularly in the longer focal lengths, and the difference is not negligible.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 26, 2021 4:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
D1N0 wrote:
The 50mm CZJ shot seems just not to be in focus.

I had the same suspicion, too. The image crop taken at f=50mm with the Zeiss seems slighhtly "unsharp" (=misfocused), as opposed to a "soft" (=low contrast, but enough detail).

I would suggest

1) to use a tripod, electronic first shutter and 10 s self timer
2) to focus wide open, using the magnifier (not the focus peaking)
3) to take an image wide open (to check correct focusing)
4) carefully stop down to f8 and take the final image

I would be surprised to see any difference between the Minolta and the Zeiss, at least at 50mm f8 and in the center of the image.

In my experience at f8 and in the center of a 24mm full frame lens nearly any lens is tack sharp. Correct and careful testing provided, of course ...

S


Hmm. Well, I think you are right that a more rigorous test is needed. I might attempt that in the next few days.

-Charles


PostPosted: Mon Apr 26, 2021 4:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
charley5 wrote:
Antoine wrote:
Was it the Minolta MD III macro lens or one of the earlier versions?


It is the macro version. I heard that the non-macro version was slightly better. Is that correct?

Thanks,

-Charles


Here you are:
http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic,p,1550635.html#1550635

S


Well, from this article it seems I was dead wrong. The macro version, which I have, is quite more superior. Good news. Thank you for that!

-Charles


PostPosted: Mon Apr 26, 2021 4:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
Doc Sharptail wrote:
Aus Jena tried marketing 3rd party styled zooms here in the late 70's.

Correct. Sigma was producing a series of primes and zooms for the Praktica SLRs. Those lenses were pretty decent.

S


Thanks for the information.

Last edited by charley5 on Tue Apr 27, 2021 3:46 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon Apr 26, 2021 6:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
lumens pixel wrote:

I would even suggest to stop down first and focus after since these lenses might be subject to focus shift


Yep, that's another possibility I also briefly had considered - but that's usually only a problem with very fast lenses (spherical aberration causing focus shift when stopping down). A typical example is the Minolta AF 1.4/85mm. I would be surprised if we have this problem on the CZJ 35-70mm - but you never know. It's best to try and check!

S


PostPosted: Mon Apr 26, 2021 10:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
All my Minolta lenses suffer from focus shift. The more immune are 28 2,8 5/5 and 75 150 zoom. The last 35 2,8 is a serious offender. ...


PostPosted: Wed Apr 28, 2021 2:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gatorengineer64 wrote:

I never shot the contax 35-70 but they say thats the only thing better than the minolta.


I own the Zeiss Contax Vario Sonnar 35-70. I can't speak how it compares to the Minolta as I don't own the Minolta zoom.

The Contax, however, is a very good lens especially from f/5.6-f/11 for landscape work.
Wide open at f/3.4 it isn't the best. However, the next stop is at f/4 and I find the performance at f/4 more than good enough.
It can beat many modern expensive zooms stopped down especially in the corners and even many primes.
Unfortunately, it is pretty well known and the price reflects that.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 28, 2021 5:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
cbass wrote:
Gatorengineer64 wrote:

I never shot the contax 35-70 but they say thats the only thing better than the minolta.


I own the Zeiss Contax Vario Sonnar 35-70. I can't speak how it compares to the Minolta as I don't own the Minolta zoom.

The Contax, however, is a very good lens especially from f/5.6-f/11 for landscape work.
Wide open at f/3.4 it isn't the best. However, the next stop is at f/4 and I find the performance at f/4 more than good enough.
It can beat many modern expensive zooms stopped down especially in the corners and even many primes.
Unfortunately, it is pretty well known and the price reflects that.


Yes, I thought the Vario-Prakticar was based on the same design as the Vario-Sonnar. That is why I got it. It is supposed to be among the best (or the best) vintage zoom out there. I might still look for a bargain on eBay.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 28, 2021 5:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
charley5 wrote:

Yes, I thought the Vario-Prakticar was based on the same design as the Vario-Sonnar. That is why I got it. It is supposed to be among the best (or the best) vintage zoom out there. I might still look for a bargain on eBay.


The Contax is 10 elements in 10 groups while the Jena from a quick google search is 9 elements in 8 groups so a different design.

If others have better luck with it, then you may have gotten a bad copy. There is a lot that can go wrong with a zoom especially if you try to service it. Or this is the best that zoom can do.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 28, 2021 4:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cbass wrote:
charley5 wrote:

Yes, I thought the Vario-Prakticar was based on the same design as the Vario-Sonnar. That is why I got it. It is supposed to be among the best (or the best) vintage zoom out there. I might still look for a bargain on eBay.


The Contax is 10 elements in 10 groups while the Jena from a quick google search is 9 elements in 8 groups so a different design.

If others have better luck with it, then you may have gotten a bad copy. There is a lot that can go wrong with a zoom especially if you try to service it. Or this is the best that zoom can do.


Actually, my lens was serviced before I acquired it. Maybe that was the problem.

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