Carl Zeiss 135 f3.5 Jena DDR

[schmoelzel]

Well, having traded my 135 F2 for a 1D and having another deal for a 2nd 135 fall through, I decided to see what all the hoopla about the Carl Zeiss lenses was all about. Happened upon one of these Jena DDR models for $170 and thought that I would take a chance. Well, I can tell you that this was a GREAT deal. When I first unpacked the lens, I immediately noticed how well built this thing is. Feels very solid and substantial. Focus ring is large and very accurate. I guess it had better be since this lens is 100% manual focus. I don't think the viewfinder on my old DRebel would have been appropriate for this lens but the 1D has a HUGE bright viewfinder and focusing was not a problem. Here are a couple of pics of the lens (I believe they were manufactured sometime in the 1970's)

http://theteahaus.netfirms.com/Canon/nfpicturepro/albums/userpics/10001/CZ135-E.jpg

http://theteahaus.netfirms.com/Canon/nfpicturepro/albums/userpics/10001/CZ135-D.jpg

Yesterday we had a real summer day here in London Ontario (28 Centigrade) and I was able to take my favourite model (Julia) to the park and try this MF lens out. I am very impressed with the sharpness and contrast of this lens. Colour does not seem as accurate as my Canon lenses since I have to do a little more work in PSCS than I normally would. Bokeh is smooth with very even highlights. Not quite 135 F2 caliber but close and for $170.............here are a couple of Julia in the fading sunlight.

http://theteahaus.netfirms.com/Canon/nfpicturepro/albums/userpics/10001/CZ135-B.jpg

Camera: Canon EOS 1D
Shutter speed: 1/3000 sec
Aperture: 3.5
Exposure mode: Manual
Flash: Off
Metering mode: Evaluative
Drive mode: Single frame shooting
ISO: 250



http://theteahaus.netfirms.com/Canon/nfpicturepro/albums/userpics/10001/CZ135-A.jpg

Camera: Canon EOS 1D
Shutter speed: 1/6000 sec
Aperture: 3.5
Exposure mode: Manual
Flash: Off
Metering mode: Evaluative
Drive mode: Single frame shooting
ISO: 250

Today I tried it out at my teashop and took this picture of my daily cup of Chai Latte (spiced tea).

http://theteahaus.netfirms.com/Canon/nfpicturepro/albums/userpics/10001/CZ135-C.jpg

Camera: Canon EOS 1D
Shutter speed: 1/125 sec
Aperture: 3.5
Exposure mode: Manual
Flash: Off
Metering mode: Evaluative
Drive mode: Single frame shooting
ISO: 400

Verdict: Great lens for the money and it really makes you learn how to manually focus (since the AF doesn't exist). Also, the infamous canon green focus dot is disabled when you have this lens on the camera so you better have a big and bright viewfinder! Not bad for a 35 year old piece of glass............

[CyberDyneSystems]

Zeis fever hasn't hit our forum yet,. but I'm watching the things catch on elsewhere..

What do use for an adapter?

The pics look amazing :)

[rdenney]

Verdict: Great lens for the money and it really makes you learn how to manually focus (since the AF doesn't exist). Also, the infamous canon green focus dot is disabled when you have this lens on the camera so you better have a big and bright viewfinder! Not bad for a 35 year old piece of glass............

There is nothing to match the bokeh of a Sonnar. I have two lenses of very similar design in medium format, a 180mm/2.8 Zeiss Jena MC-Sonnar, and a 300/4 Zeiss Jena MC-Sonnar. The 180, in particular, is quite a famous lens, and has had all sorts of custom mountings made for it for use on cameras like the Hasselblad 200-series cameras. The 2.8 aperture is too big for a leaf shutter, so they only work on cameras that have focal-plane shutters, which the Hassy 501 does not. Mine has a Pentacon Six lens mount, which works on Ukrainian cameras as well. The Pentacon Six was replaced by the Exakta 66 which was sold in the U.S. for a while after unification.

Zeiss Jena was formed from the original Zeiss factory. All the tooling had been stolen by the Russians and moved to Kiev (so that the Kiev Contax copy could be made), and many of the scientists escaped to the west to create the more familiar Zeiss Oberkochen. This lens is based on the original Sonnar Olympia, made for the 1936 Olympics. It uses very thick solid elements that would be far too expensive to produce today, not to mention the weight problems with autofocus systems.

Zeiss Jena is now owned by VEB Pentacon, which is owned by Josef Schneider. I believe you can still get service on these lenses from Pentacon, but they went out of production in the early 90's.

By the way, your lens is not 30 years old. The all-black design was the fourth generation of this lens, and multicoating was not introduced until the early 80's. The previous versions had alternating black and chrome bands on the focus ring and was single coated (the "zebra sonnar"). The lenses with the five-digit serial numbers are the most recent. I think your lens was made in the period 1986-1989.

The 85/2 Jupiter lens made in Russia is a similar design, taken from the tooling brought back to Kiev after the war. But the execution is not on the same planet.

I've been rather unhappy with the look of the Canon 135/2.8 Soft-Focus. The soft focus isn't the style that I prefer (and I usually don't prefer it at all), and the bokeh is only so-so. It'll be fun to compare it to this Sonnar. Your post compelled me to run over to ebay and snag one.

Rick "who just loves having an M42 adaptor" Denney

[cactusclay]

Nice shots. I think I read past something, but what is the adapter you use?

[schmoelzel]

Thanks for the comments!! I knew I would learn more in this forum!!

rdenny.....WOW!! You do know your stuff!! Thanks for all the info concerning Zeiss.......I was in Jena Germany last year touring the glass factory where they produce teapots (I own a tea shop) and they did mention the Zeiss-Schott optic beginnings. One of the reasons I bought this lens was that it had the word Jena on it!! Thanks for letting me know that the lens is not as old as I thought........still, 20 year old glass and going strong.!! Maybe you can tell me why Zeiss uses a 6-sided iris in this lens? When I look down the barrel, I can clearly see a metal iris with 6 sides. Does Canon use this sort of opening?

As far as the mount goes.........sorry, but the person I bought this from included the mount. As far as I can tell, it seems to be attached to the lens and I cannot move it or remove it. Maybe someone here can impart a little more info...........

As I mentioned, I really like this lens and I seem to really relate well to this focal length. The manual focus thing takes some getting used to but it actually makes you take your time when composing the picture. Definitely not for fast-action shooting. I will post a pic later of the mount and the iris (shutter??) when I am back home........

[rdenney]

...Maybe you can tell me why Zeiss uses a 6-sided iris in this lens? When I look down the barrel, I can clearly see a metal iris with 6 sides. Does Canon use this sort of opening?

As far as the mount goes.........sorry, but the person I bought this from included the mount. As far as I can tell, it seems to be attached to the lens and I cannot move it or remove it. Maybe someone here can impart a little more info...........


A six-bladed diaphragm is pretty standard stuff for lenses with an automatic diaphragm. The iris has to be able to snap closed, and too many blades make that difficult. That's why the old rangefinder versions (and this same basic lens also came in a Contax mount from pre-War times) had more blades--they never had to "snap".

But frankly it's a bit of a myth that the number of aperture blades is the major factor in bokeh. Two points: 1.) if you use it wide open, the aperture is round in any case. 2.) the Sonnar's bokeh has much more to do with the design of the optics than the aperture. The aperture on my 180/2.8 may have more than six blades, but not a lot more (I haven't counted them). It's certainly not like the 12-bladed rangefinder lenses. Yet that lens has better bokeh than any portrait-length telephoto medium-format lens I've ever seen, even including the Zeiss Oberkochen Sonnars.

It's quite likely that the lens design includes a bit of uncorrected spherical aberration, which is what renders out-of-focus details in the background so smoothly. Lenses of newer design go for maximum MTF performance. The old Sonnar was not designed for maximum MTF performance, but to provide a particular look (and to take dynamic pictures of German athletes proving their superiority at the 1936 Olympics in Berlin). These days, this look is a hallmark of the German lenses that all emerged from those old Zeiss designs.

The Sonnar is not actually a telephoto lens. It's really more of a symmetrical design, but it does limit coverage. That's why my 180 takes an 86mm filter--it's a big sucker to cover medium format.

But even if it has uncorrected SA, it's still an incredibly sharp lens even wide open. Here's a landscape shot I took with an old 180 Zebra Sonnar (that I have since replaced with a multicoated version about the same vintage as yours).

http://www.rickdenney.com/images/aquarius_rainbow_lores.jpg

This was poorly scanned before I had my current scanner for medium-format film, and take my word for it--it is critically sharp in an 11x11 print even from this scan.

My wife is an intuitive people photographer. She can spot the look of the Sonnar in a stack of proofs, and she's utterly untechnical. Her response to the Canon 135's images was the same as mine, "why did you use that lens?" They are sharp, but they just don't have the classic Sonnar look. It spoils you.

(There is another thread where a fellow is showing us his new 85/1.2L. The backgrounds are buttery mostly because of the incredibly wide aperture. But I think that lens is too good to match the Sonnar look. An f/2 Sonnar made to Zeiss standards in 85mm would send him to a new form of bokeh heaven, heh, heh. Too bad the Russian Jupiter is so variably constructed--it's a similar Sonnar design.)

As to the mount, I think this lens was available only in M42 in its later incarnations. It was made to be used with a Praktica, which was the first to use the M42 mount that Pentax later made so famous. I suspect yours has an M42 adaptor cemented in place for convenience. Does it have an automatic aperture (by which I mean it stops down to your set value automatically when you release the shutter)?

Rick "who is glad the East Germans didn't update and 'improve' the Sonnar design like their western counterparts" Denney

[schmoelzel]

Does it have an automatic aperture (by which I mean it stops down to your set value automatically when you release the shutter)?

Rick "who is glad the East Germans didn't update and 'improve' the Sonnar design like their western counterparts" Denney[/QUOTE]

Thanks again for all the info rdenny!! You are a wealth of knowledge concerning these Zeiss optics. I don't believe that my CZ has automatic aperture. There is a dial at the base of the lens which allows me to choose the aperture but on the camera it always reads 00.

[Andy_T]

Does it have an automatic aperture (by which I mean it stops down to your set value automatically when you release the shutter)?


The reading always reads 00, because the lens can't transfer any information lacking the proper electronics. However, metering works properly with the AV setting.

I assume Rick is asking whether you can user the lens wide open to focus and then stop it down with a single finger press to take the actual picture. Definitely won't happen when you push the shutter (would have to be electronic then), but maybe it has a button that you can use.

... that is, if you ever stop it down :wink:

Best regards,
Andy

PS: I have the old 'Zebra' (non-MC) version of the lens. That version is nowhere near yours as far as build quality is concerned. Gives you the reliable feel of a coke can :confused:

Unfortunately, it is broken and can not be stopped down, but it still is a great and usable lens wide open. Plus, I got it for $20 from eBay :wink:

[rdenney]

I assume Rick is asking whether you can user the lens wide open to focus and then stop it down with a single finger press to take the actual picture. Definitely won't happen when you push the shutter (would have to be electronic then), but maybe it has a button that you can use.


It has a manual switch between automatic and manual that the old Zebra models did not have. That switch works perfectly as a preset aperture switch. The Zebra models (in 180mm at least) had a momentary lever, which is not as useful.

I knew that it was unlikely that there would be an automatic aperture, but I wondered if someone had done something unusual. The 135's in the latest versions were equipped with minimal electronics for use on the Pentacon Praktica EE. I don't know what those electronics entail, and technicians in the old Second World have lots of time on their hands. They've created some pretty amazing conversions of the classic Zeiss glass, including making mounts for 180/2.8 lenses to go on a variety of high-end cameras with aperture control. These are one-off lenses that sometimes turn up on ebay and elsewhere.

Both zebra and black-barrel lenses use a cable-in-a-cable link from the aperture pin to the aperture itself, and this may have come unhooked on your lens, keeping the aperture from functioning. The Zebra models (in medium format, at least) also adjusted the aperture slightly with changes in focus. That's elegant, but too subtle to be worth the machinery that it takes, and the MC models didn't have it.

The focus rings are the same on both, right down the helicals, near as I can tell from my two 180's. I would not say that the MC version is better made than the Zebra version, but it sure would be newer. Sonnars use thick, heavy hunks of Schott glass and are hard on the focus helicals. I buy the most recent models possible just to get minimum wear.

Rick "whose 135 is on the way" Denney

[fetching]

those are gorgeous...pardon my ignorance, but you can put that lens on canon dslrs with an adapter?

[rdenney]

those are gorgeous...pardon my ignorance, but you can put that lens on canon dslrs with an adapter?

Yup. You need an M42/EOS adaptor that costs about $30. See Ron Chappel's thread from today on the subject.

Rick "recalling all the laughing done by Nikon owners over Canon's use of short back-focus distances, and now able to mount a variety of lenses including Nikkors and doing the laughing" Denney

[Andy_T]

Rick,

thanks for the hint on the cable link for the aperture, maybe I try out my (limited) mechanical capabilities on the lens (once I have bought the MC version :wink: )

As to the build quality, the M42 Zebra model really conveys the feeling that it is made from the cheapest materials available (thin aluminum coated with plastic). I am not kidding you, it feels exactly like a coke can. My 50/1.8 MKI feels like a quality lens if I compare it.

This is how it looks:
http://i14.ebayimg.com/01/i/03/ed/1b/50_1_b.JPG

And this (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=57023) is the thread on the adapter required for using it on the Canon EOS system.

Update: Just scored a 135/3.5 MC on eBay :D
Hope this one is ok.

Best regards,
Andy

[rdenney]

This is how it looks:
http://i14.ebayimg.com/01/i/03/ed/1b/50_1_b.JPG


That doesn't look as good as the medium-format Zebra Sonnars. Some of the Jena lenses were built for low price points, and maybe this was one. It might have also lived a hard life. The helical threads are not terribly robust on these.

Rick "noting the MC 135 looks just like the MC 180" Denney

[cmM]

I think CDS might be right :)
Not yet a fever, but I'm deffinitely warming up

[rg-tom]

well ive just bought a Zeiss MC 135 F3.5 Jena DDR :) cost me £25 including postage, which is aprox 60 canadian dollars :) can't wait for it and my m42 adaptor to come. I'm spying a 35mm F2.5 Flektagon for the same price reckon I should grab it?

Cheers

Tom

[Andy_T]

Tom,

good catch :D
So the fever IS starting :lol:

Don't know about the wide angle lens. But I assume it will easily beat the kit lens. For the price you could surely give it a try :wink:

Take a look at this Praktica lenses website (http://www.praktica-users.com/lens/mlenses.html)

Best regards,
Andy

[schmoelzel]

Well, I didn't think this thread was still alive but it seems that Zeiss fever is hitting this forum too!! I have owned the Canon 135F2 and I still think that is has the sharpness thing in the bag over this Zeiss 135/3.5. That is if you go for sharpness......I must admit that I love SHARP pictures but realize that there are many factors that go into a shot being/seeming sharp. I have been using this Zeiss for 10 days now and I am still impressed. It is such a relatively small lens that it doesn't seem to intrude the way other large lenses sometimes do...........the build is top-notch (as I had initially stated). In fact, I think I like the focus ring on this lens the best.......it is accurate and gives you confidence when focusing. I am actually enjoying the manual focus thing.....I must admit though that I am so used to using AF lenses that my finger does always half-press the shutter!! I had mentioned that the colour didn't seem as true as my Canon lenses........not true afterall. I had my white setting wrong..........

rgtom - wow!! I thought my $170 was a good deal. $60 CAD is stupendous for a lens of this quality!!


Andythaler - thanks for the pictures of your 'Zebra' lens. Was wondering what one of those looked like. Sounds like the build quality is not too nice. (wanted to ask what you do in Stuttgart? My wife and I are Germans living in Canada. She works for Keiper GMBH - headquarters in Rockenhausen, which is in that area of Germany).

rdenney- again, I must tip my hat to you. You sure know your stuff concerning these lenses and their whole history. Make for interesting reading. Thanks again for all the info......invaluable.

Now I will wait and see as more of you join in on this Zeiss bandwagon!!

[Andy_T]

Schmoelzel,

don't feel too bad about the 170$ you paid.

The price Tom paid is definitely not the norm - I think he was lucky. eBay always includes some kind of risk - hopefully he gets a good one.
Still, many of the prices I heard paid for good MC lenses were >100$, especially if you buy from a reputable camera shop.
The Zebra version is cheaper (especially in Germany) and it also takes very good photos.

I remember that forum member Jyrgen was offering his MC lens in this thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=46498) for EUR 80 which seemed like a very decent price to me from the pictures of the lens he once posted..

He still has it in his signature line, so it might still be there for grabs :wink: But now the fever has started ...

Best regards,
Andy

[schmoelzel]

Hello Andy:

I still think that the $170 I spent was well-spent cash!! This glass is definitely worth the money!! I got is from the FM forums from a reputable seller and I had the lens in my hands in less than a week!! Considering that the Canon 135/F2 costs about $1300 here in Canada, I like the $170 figure better and better!!

I agree.......I think the Zeiss-mania may be just around the corner! Not a bad thing I must admit!

[rdenney]

well ive just bought a Zeiss MC 135 F3.5 Jena DDR :) cost me £25 including postage, which is aprox 60 canadian dollars :) can't wait for it and my m42 adaptor to come. I'm spying a 35mm F2.5 Flektagon for the same price reckon I should grab it?

Cheers

Tom

Personally, I have not had good luck with medium-format Flektogons. I have two 50mm/4 Fleks that are moderately wide angle on the 6x6 format. Zeiss Jena also made a 65mm Flek for medium format, and I suspect the 35 is the same design. Please understand that I have no experience with the 35mm Flek.

The Flektogon is a wide-angle design, but on an APS sensor will be slightly longer than normal. Thus, you'll be living with the weaknesses of a very old wide-angle design in a normal focal range.

Some in the medium-format groups really love the 50mm Flek, and we have seen considerable sample variation and lack of durability. They are apparently quite subject to getting out of adjustment, as mine seem to be (both of mine are MC Fleks).

In short, I'll walk a mile for a Sonnar, but I'd take a Takumar in 35mm focal length any day of the week if you want a cheapie in M42, and if that isn't cheap enough, I'd take a Russian or Ukrainine Mir1B (37/2.8) in M42, originally for the Zenit camera.

Rick "who want normals and wides to be optimized for sharpness, and portrait lenses for bokeh" Denney

[Andy_T]

I'm spying a 35mm F2.5 Flektagon for the same price reckon I should grab it?

Take a look here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=62616).

Ken has done (among a lot of others like the CZJ 135/3.5 and some nice Takumars) test shots with the 35/2.4 Flektogon (assume that's the one you're talking about) on his 300D.

Check out the samples, they don't look too bad to me even wide open!

Best regards,
Andy

[rg-tom]

well that was gone but i actually grabbed a 29mm Pentacon F2.8, for £10 inc postage. Even if its crap ive lost <$20 :)

[Andy_T]

Ah, the joy of accumulating cheap M42 lenses :lol:

Best regards,
Andy

[rdenney]

Take a look here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=62616).

Ken has done (among a lot of others like the CZJ 135/3.5 and some nice Takumars) test shots with the 35/2.4 Flektogon (assume that's the one you're talking about) on his 300D.


I'd seen this test but forgotten about it.

The 135 Sonnar has a peculiarly Sonnar-like behavior: It performs as well wide open as stopped down, give or take a bit of contrast.

I'm surprised by how good the Flek is and how poor the Takumar was. I hereby retract my earlier comment. I hope these are more consistent than the 50/4 medium-format wides that I've had trouble with.

Rick "wishing Ken had chosen a better bokeh-testing background" Denney

[jyrgen]

Andy, thanks for mentioning my lens! Yes, it has alternated between my sell list and signature list, now being in the latter, probably because it's one of the best lenses that I have owned, despite not using it too often. 135mm is just too long for me for most purposes.

The lens is so light and compact that when I go out with just a camera and one lens (say 50/1.4), this one still finds its way into my wife's handbag, here an example of such occasion:

http://www.hot.ee/jyrgen/040709_0553.jpg

I also like smoothly rendered OOF areas, both foreground and background:

http://www.hot.ee/jyrgen/040625_8824.jpg

And, another great thing with this lens, you never have to change aperture - it's sharp wide open, and f/3.5 has already pretty much DOF for most needs:

http://www.hot.ee/jyrgen/040602_5540.jpg

With tighter crops it renders the background to dream cream of course. The following scene contains large ugly wired fence, but one can't see it:

http://www.hot.ee/jyrgen/040625_8809.jpg

[Andy_T]

Jyrgen,

that last picture is just incredible!

Very well done :D

Best regards,
Andy

[rdenney]

With tighter crops it renders the background to dream cream of course.

That last image says "Sonnar" to me. You can get that effect with a fast enough lens and a cooperative background, but this is at f/3.5, not f/2.0.

It may be too long, but it's worth backing up to get images like that!

Rick "who may have a little time to play with 135's tonight" Denney

[rdenney]

it has alternated between my sell list and signature list...

Following Andy's link, I see that you had a 35/2.4 Flektogon also for sale. Do you have any comments on that lens? Did you end up selling it?

Rick "curious about the Flek on behalf of those who have asked" Denney

[mbze430]

I personally have been looking for a CZ Distagon 21mm. But this lens is further down on my list of "must have lens".

Umm, looks like someone is selling a CZ 135mm f/2 as well darn darn darn!!
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=3340&item=7511761337&rd=1