Zeiss Jena lenses, how to buy them.

[rdenney]

I have received several requests by private message for specific information on how to buy and use the Zeiss Jena lenses, and so I think I'll answer them all at once here.

First, a very short history:

After World War II, the Zeiss lens factory in Jena found itself in the Russian sector. (Germany was divided amongst the four victorious powers, with the Russian sector becoming East Germany, and the French, British, and American sectors merging into West Germany.) Many of the key scientists escaped, with American help, into the western sector. They setup up a new factory in Oberkochen, and that factory now produces Zeiss optics for high-end cameras, among many other things. Some of the tooling and the designs went to the Ukraine, and were used to develop a line of Soviet lenses following the classic Zeiss designs. Those who remained continued to operate the Jena factory in East Germany.

In the Communist world, Zeiss Jena optics were called "Carl Zeiss Jena" and used their traditional lens designations, including Sonnar, Biometar and Flektogon. In the west, it depended on the country. In the U.S., Zeiss Jena was not allowed to call themselves "Zeiss", and the products exported to the U.S. were labeled Jenoptik (in the case of binoculars) and "aus Jena" in the case of camera lenses. Zeiss Oberkochen had also been given rights to the lens family names, so the Zeiss Jena lenses were marked "s" for Sonnar, "Bm" for Biometar, and "f" for Flektogon (I'm going on fuzzy memory in the case of the Flek). In England and parts of Europe, they were allowed to use "Carl Zeiss Jena", but still used the abbreviated family names. In still other places, they labeled them just like they did in the Communist world. (Where Zeiss Oberkochen was not allowed to use "Zeiss", which was everywhere at first, they used "Opton". Thus, you'll see late 40's Rolleiflexes with Opton lenses on them.)

So, a Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar might be called a "Carl Zeiss Jena s" or an "aus Jena s" and be exactly the same lens. There is no quality difference in the different labels and it should not enter the buying decision.

The Zeiss Jena Sonnar is the same formula as the Zeiss Oberkochen Sonnar and exhibits the same qualities. The Flektogon is similar to the Distagon, and the Biometar is a modified Planar formula just like nearly every double-gauss normal lens made since the demise of the Tessar.

Carl Zeiss Jena was absorbed into VEB Pentacon at some point in the 60's, as I recall. Pentacon also owned the Ihagee (pre-war Exakta) factory and also the Pentacon factory that made Praktica cameras. Thus, Zeiss Jena made lenses primarily for the Praktica camera lines. All the Jena lenses use Schott glass just like their Oberkochen counterparts.

The Zeiss Jena lenses were made in four basic finishes. The first has all shiny aluminum, often with a leather band grip on the focus ring. These were made from about 1956 to 1963, and were all single coated. The second was black with a hard plastic focus ring that has raised ovals on it, made from '61 to '63, and single coated. The third type is called the "zebra" and was made from 1963 to 1967 in large quantities. They are black with alternating bands of bright aluminum on the control rings. They are also single-coated.

The fourth type is all black, either painted or anodized (I have both). They were made from 1967 to 1978 with single coatings, and from 1978 to about 1990 with multicoating. The multicoated Zeiss Jena lenses are marked "MC" with very, very few exceptions. The black MC lenses have a mechanical slide switch to change the lens from auto diaphragm to manual diaphram. That makes a handy preset switch--set the aperture to what you want, focus, switch to manual, set the exposure (or let the camera do it for you) and shoot. The lastest versions had electrical contacts for the Praktica EE, but these are not needed by us and should not be part of the buying decision.

So, the best lenses to buy are those with an all-black body marked "MC", with or without the EE contacts, and without regard to "aus Jena" versus "Carl Zeiss Jena" or "Sonnar" versus "s", etc.

Zeiss Jena built lenses primarily in two mounts (there were some old ones in the Contax rangefinder mounts, but I'll ignore those): M42 and Pentacon Six. These were the mounts used by VEB Pentacon, which owned Zeiss Jena. The Pentacon Six camera was a medium format camera that was the forerunner of the Exakta 66 (which remained in production until about 1999 after being sold off to Schneider in 1992 or so), and the lenses made for them include Flektogons in 50 and 65mm, Biometars in 80 and 120mm, and Sonnars in 180 and 300mm. All were f/2.8 lenses except the Flek 50 and the Sonnar 300, which were f/4 lenses. The 65 was never made in the black, MC version.

Zeiss Jena also made lenses for 35mm Pentacon cameras, most of which were marketed as "Praktica". They include the 35mm Flektogon and the 135mm Sonnar. Longer Sonnars were the medium-format lenses with M42 mounts on them. The 180 is frequently available as the "Olympia Sonnar", but usually that label is applied to an old lens. There were probably others that I have not explored--my focus as been in the medium format area.

It is quite easy to get adaptors for both mounts to go on Canon EF-mount cameras. These adaptors can be bought from DVDTechnik, at

http://www.dvdtechnik.com/other/adapters/adapters.htm

The M42/EOS adaptor is $18 and the Pentacon Six/EOS adaptor is $35. I bought all my adaptors from them and they are reputable. (They also sell other interesting adaptors, such as an adaptor for Nikon lenses--with manual controls, of course--on EOS cameras). All these adaptors are non-electronic. You'll need to focus manually, set the aperture manually, and stop it down when you meter and shoot. Av works fine, and will set the shutter speed automatically.

By the way, the M42 mount originated with Pentacon and was used from the early 50's. Pentax, desiring to tap into the large number of lenses made for this mount, used it also and made it so famous that most folks call it the "Pentax screw mount" or "Universal screw mount". It's the same mount.

So, in summary, get the adaptors from DVDTechnik, and the Zeiss Jena lenses from ebay, searching for "Jena" to sweep up both aus Jena and Carl Zeiss Jena labels, and all the various lens families. You'll get lots of hits for binoculars and microscopes, so filter it down to camera lenses. But the search is part of the fun.

Several East German companies made lenses for the Praktica, and all were eventually consumed by VEB Pentacon. A useful one from our perspective was Meyer Gorlitz, though they were eventually labeled Pentacon and those are the newer lenses we would be interested in. They made preset telephoto lenses in 300 and 500mm with interchangeable mounts. The only one worth getting is the 500/5.6 Pentacon Prakticar MC, which is multicoated, pretty fast, very big, and VERY heavy. With a stout monopod, though, you can go shooting sports, and if anyone laughs at you, you can kill them with it, heh, heh. They come in both mounts, and I see them as often on ebay with the M42 mount as with the Pentacon Six mount.

So, here's the list of potentially interesting lenses:

35mm/2.4 MC Flektogon (or "f")
135mm/3.5 MC Sonnar (or "s")
180mm/2.8 MC Sonnar (or "s")
300mm/4 MC Sonnar (or "s")
500mm/5.6 Pentacon Prakticar MC

The first four are labeled Carl Zeiss Jena or aus Jena.

Rick "go forth and ebay wisely" Denney

[fetching]

thanks for the info! i couldn't get that link for the adapters to work, though.

[rdenney]

thanks for the info! i couldn't get that link for the adapters to work, though.

It's the right link, but it's subject to the vagaries of Ukrainian ISP's. Sometimes it's slow. Keep trying.

Rick "who just tested it" Denney

[Andy_T]

Rick,

a most informative and usable compendium :D

Allow me to add a link to Praktica-users.com (http://www.praktica-users.com/lens.html) where a lot of useful information and descriptions of all the available lenses can be found.

Best regards,
Andy

[rdenney]

Allow me to add a link to Praktica-users.com (http://www.praktica-users.com/lens.html) where a lot of useful information and descriptions of all the available lenses can be found.


Yes, that list is much longer than what I knew about for use on the 35mm Pentacon cameras. The only additional entries that intrique me are the Pancolars from Zeiss Jena. The 50/1.4 and 80/1.8 are the most interesting of these. They appear to be double-gauss designs similar to the Biometar used for medium format. The example image from the 80/1.8 shows what I would call accurate bokeh. I don't see much bright edge, but not much softening either. I'll bet it's a good lens to have, but they don't seem to be that common or cheap--there's only one that sold on ebay recently and for $384. The 50/1.8 lenses abound, but they are often more expensive than the nifty fifty.

Many of the labeled "Prakticar" and "Pentacon" lenses were made by a range of providers, including such as Samyang. The only Prakticar that interests me is the MC 500/5.6.

Rick "who has the 500, and is in a weight-lifting program to train up enough to be able to use it" Denney

[Tom W]

I'm not sure that this information is going to help my wallet in the long run. First, I read posts on FM and find myself craving the unobtainable CZ Distagon 21 mm. Now I find even more somewhat exotic glass that needs my acquaintance.

Suddenly, I feel very, very poor...

[rdenney]

I'm not sure that this information is going to help my wallet in the long run. First, I read posts on FM and find myself craving the unobtainable CZ Distagon 21 mm. Now I find even more somewhat exotic glass that needs my acquaintance.

Suddenly, I feel very, very poor...

Hmmm. I paid $400 for the 500/5.6, $320 for the Sonnar 300/4, $250 for the incomparable Sonnar 180/2.8, and $80 for the Sonnar 135/3.5. All that adds up to several hundred less than the 100-400L, and three of them also work on about 8 of my medium-format cameras.

Word of advice: Remove the word "Distagon" from your lexicon. That is a very expensive, West German word. You'll never be able to afford Chivas again if you act on that word. But I see several Flektogon 20mm/4 lenses on ebay for under $300, which is at least cheaper than the Canon even if a bit more than I would want to pay.

Rick "who thinks more highly of cheap Sonnars than expensive Flektogons" Denney

[DocFrankenstein]

What about the 50mm primes?

Tessar? Pentacon?

[rdenney]

What about the 50mm primes?

Tessar? Pentacon?

The Tessar really is a Tessar, which makes it a little uninteresting for me. Bokeh will be "clumpy", like all Tessars. The 50/2.8 Tessar was intended to be the cheapie normal lens for the Prakticas, except for the Pentacon lenses. Most of those were made by the Meyer factory, which was the in-house lens maker for Pentacon. But if it's cheap enough, it's an easy experiment to conduct, and I expect it would be sharp stopped down.

The only 50's that are mildly interesting are the Zeiss Jena Pancolors, which go down to f/1.4. They are double-gauss lenses that may or may not have acceptable bokeh, but I'll bet they are not as sharp as the Canon 50's, which are much more modern. The 1.8's in good shape and multicoated seem to fetch in the $100 range.

If I ever see a really cheap one at a camera fair, I'll probably grab it just for fun.

Rick "already swimming in 50's" Denney

[KevC]

Hmmm. I paid $400 for the 500/5.6, $320 for the Sonnar 300/4, $250 for the incomparable Sonnar 180/2.8, and $80 for the Sonnar 135/3.5. All that adds up to several hundred less than the 100-400L, and three of them also work on about 8 of my medium-format cameras.


Amazing. Just amazing. I'm removing the 100-400L from my "wish list" and am wanting to hunt these lenses down. My friend's father very often goes to Moscow on business trips so I hope *crosses fingers* he can pick up some for me. However, I'm wondering how long these will remain at such low prices. We're all subject to supply and demand...

[Andy_T]

KevC,

there's a lot of supply. It takes most likely more than 5 years of Canon digital cameras to soak up the supply of 40 years of production for these mounts :D

All-Knowing RDenney, what is your take on the Planar design?
I have spotted some Zeiss (Oberkochen) 85/1.4 Planar lenses for Contax mount that definitely might be interesting ... and available at a little more than the price of a new Canon 85/1.8 ... interesting?

Best regards,
Andy

[Tom W]

Hmmm. I paid $400 for the 500/5.6, $320 for the Sonnar 300/4, $250 for the incomparable Sonnar 180/2.8, and $80 for the Sonnar 135/3.5. All that adds up to several hundred less than the 100-400L, and three of them also work on about 8 of my medium-format cameras.

Word of advice: Remove the word "Distagon" from your lexicon. That is a very expensive, West German word. You'll never be able to afford Chivas again if you act on that word. But I see several Flektogon 20mm/4 lenses on ebay for under $300, which is at least cheaper than the Canon even if a bit more than I would want to pay.

Rick "who thinks more highly of cheap Sonnars than expensive Flektogons" Denney

The 500/5.6 is intriguing. I'm not ready to give up the 100-400L though - speed, IS, and AF do have their place.

That 20 mm Flektogon might be worth some study as well. These kind of lenses definately would be a great deal of fun to shoot with. I'm blessed with an adequate viewfinder that allows me to actually focus manually.

I know of at least one person that uses that expensive (very, very) 21 mm Distagon professionally on a 1Ds Mk II - he shoots primarily advertising & commercial work, and his images are outstanding. I'd love to have that lens, but I'm not about to pay what the street price is for it. On the other hand, if one showed up in the local pawn shop for several hundred dollars, I'd lay the cash down immediately.

[KevC]

Mr. Rick Denney, do you know anything about this

Pentacon 4,0/200 for Pentax(M42)

for only $45? I don't think it's Zeiss... but for $45, it seems like a steal even for an f/4....

(prices taken from your DVDTechnik site..)

[rdenney]

All-Knowing RDenney, what is your take on the Planar design?
I have spotted some Zeiss (Oberkochen) 85/1.4 Planar lenses for Contax mount that definitely might be interesting ... and available at a little more than the price of a new Canon 85/1.8 ... interesting?

Um, beats me. I don't swim at that end of the pool, heh, heh.

I don't know if you can adapt the Contax SLR lenses for Canon, and I'm sure you can't adapt the old Contax rangefinder lenses.

The Planar is an old design--the original double gauss design. I don't know if it's an example of double-gauss or double-gauss is an example of Planar. Some seem to be better than others. My Biometar lenses are quite similar to the first coated Planars, and the bokeh on them is, well, so-so. I'll have a 120mm Biometar in my test.

Rick "whose knowledge thins out in a hurry when prices rise" Denney

[rdenney]

Mr. Rick Denney, do you know anything about this

Pentacon 4,0/200 for Pentax(M42)

for only $45? I don't think it's Zeiss... but for $45, it seems like a steal even for an f/4....

(prices taken from your DVDTechnik site..)

It's a five-element simple telephoto by Meyer Gorlitz. I would not expect glow-in-the-dark performance. Keep saving for that 70-200/4L.

Rick "who thinks the Meyer 500/5.6 is worth having only because it's a 500/5.6" Denney

[Tom W]

The one to ask about the Contax lenses would be a guy by the name of "photocinematic" over on FM. There's some big expense in the Contax Zeiss lenses. A little out of my league, though there are exceptions.

[KevC]

There seems to be quite a few 35mm.

There's a f/2.4 and a f/2.5, there's also Flektogon and Prakticar. I was just about ready to jump the gun on a 35/2.4 until I realised it was a Prakticar. I'm gonna hold off for now, even though the price is pretty nice.

Did I do the right thing..?

[fetching]

well i took a leap of faith and bought one tonight, the 135mm/3.5 MC Sonnar. All I need now is an adapter and I'll be set to go. Thanks for your help rdenny!

[condyk]

A masterly guide indeed Rdenney. The world is a better place for your contribution.

Dave 'I found it interesting and I'm not even interested' Conroy :lol:

[DocFrankenstein]

Does someone know why most of ebay Jena glass comes from england?

A few guys reselling it from europe or something?

[foxbat]

I'm convinced! I just picked up a Zeiss 135mm/3.5 and a 50mm/2.8 for £15 each. At that price if I don't like them I can always remove the front element and use them as beer jugs! If anyone's interested there's a Zeiss 35mm f/2.8 Distagon in Yashica mount for £160 on www.waltersphotovideo.co.uk (http://www.waltersphotovideo.co.uk).

[fetching]

Does someone know why most of ebay Jena glass comes from england?

A few guys reselling it from europe or something?


well i am assuming that it originated in europe, so likely they would have more there, no?

[fetching]

it would be great to see more image samples taken with these. i love what i have seen so far. :)

[rdenney]

it would be great to see more image samples taken with these. i love what i have seen so far. :)

I just posted a big bokeh comparison in another thread. It has some examples from the 135 Sonnar (and a bunch of other lenses, too).

Rick "noting some surprising results, but not surprised by the generally good performance of the Sonnar" Denney

[fetching]

I just posted a big bokeh comparison in another thread. It has some examples from the 135 Sonnar (and a bunch of other lenses, too).




thanks..i can hardly wait to get my lens.

ps: is bokeh pronounced like bouquet? or is it like bow- kuh?

[KevC]

thanks..i can hardly wait to get my lens.

ps: is bokeh pronounced like bouquet? or is it like bow- kuh?

It's derived from Japanese, the word "boke" which is pronouced "boh-keh". I guess sounds just like it's spelt.... boe-keh... boe like a bow tie and keh with an Canadian "eh" sound... hehe.

[Yan]

I am interested in.. Flektogon 20mm f2.8

any reputation or experiences??

It's derived from Japanese, the word "boke" which is pronouced "boh-keh". I guess sounds just like it's spelt.... boe-keh... boe like a bow tie and keh with an Canadian "eh" sound... hehe.

REALLY?? I did not know... is cool... another Japanese originated word in English =)

[rg-tom]

Received my 135 non-sonnar jena (which is damn good and about 1/10th the price of a sonnar) and am waiting to receive my pentacon 29mm F2.8 and a 35mm F2.4 flektogon :) combined price £50

[fetching]

i have a question about the adapters....are they all created equal? how would i know a good adapter from a bad one?


rdenney, i sent an email a few days ago to the adapter supplier you listed, but no response, so i am looking around for an another supplier.

these guys make and sell them for about 25.00.

http://www.srbfilm.co.uk/index1.html

but i have also found them on ebay for about 13. up. every ad says "don't be fooled by other adapters made of such and such, this one is the best". some ads say a black adapter will prevent flaring. it's pretty confuing. so i don't know if there's a huge difference i need to be aware of.

[rg-tom]

Received my 135 non-sonnar jena (which is damn good and about 1/10th the price of a sonnar) and am waiting to receive my pentacon 29mm F2.8 and a 35mm F2.4 flektogon :) combined price £50

I'll scratch that, just noticed it has the S which means sonnar yea?

http://www.neo-fusion.co.uk/gallery/gallery/Camera_Stuff/Lens_Samples/Zeiss_135_3-5_Jena/jena-sonar.jpg

cheers

tom

[Carzee]

I am watching for CZJ on ebay - there's a few around alright. Should really fit the bill as a cheap stopgap until I can afford USM glass. Also ordered an adaptor marked 'Kood Canon AF/M42 Made In Japan'.

I went with quality given the quality of the machining ensures proper plane and focus.

updated May 9

The adaptor arrived. The packing bag is labelled 'Hama' brand (LP: 461). The ring is heavy -no way its aluminium. It looks like stainless steel but a magnet doesn't grip so it must be chromed brass. It has the orange guide dot too. The key-chuck is just stamped metal, not chromed.

[rg-tom]

also is there any significance in a silver ring on the top of the focus ring? this older (5904 serial) has it where as the newer (13531) doesnt have it:

http://www.neo-fusion.co.uk/gallery/gallery/Camera_Stuff/Lens_Samples/Zeiss_135_3-5_Jena/2xjena.jpg

Cheers,

Tom

[KevC]

Darn Tom, you really scored an awesome deal. I paid the same just for the 135/3.5 :( The shipping really killed the deal though, 48euros to Canada! :(

[oloughlinc]

Newbie here, but I too was convinced to purchase the Sonnar Jena MC 135mm/3.5 based on what I've read in these forums the last few days. The comparison thread that rdenny posted was the final nudge I needed - thanks Rick for all of the knowledge about these fine lenses that you have posted here.
I also have the adapter on order from dvdtechnik.com. Now I sit and wait for the delivery truck...

[DocFrankenstein]

lol - ebay prices are going up on these!

[oloughlinc]

lol - ebay prices are going up on these!
I noticed that too, but they can still be had for a good price, you just have to time it right.
Gotta love ebay.

[DocFrankenstein]

I noticed that too, but they can still be had for a good price, you just have to time it right.
Gotta love ebay.
No way, there's only a few sonnars left out there...

Must get them while we still can. :( No matter the price.

[KevC]

Who has purchased from DVDTechnik? I need to know how they ship... I hope it's not Fedex because I got destroyed with duties and brokerage fees last time I got something shipped via Fedex.

Maybe it's some Ukrainian Post... that shouldn't be so bad..

[Andy_T]

Do a search on eBay for 'Canon M42' ... it'll list a lot of similar converters.

Best regards,
Andy

[oloughlinc]

Spoken like someone with a sonnar to sell...
Buy low sell high, LOL

[rg-tom]

No way, there's only a few sonnars left out there...

Must get them while we still can. :( No matter the price.


Mate they are almost all Sonnars as i've found out, they just don't say sonnar on them, just an S :) like in my image up above

[Carzee]

This idea of using 'stop-gap' M42 glass has opened up all sorts of possibilities. I mean ALL! The first stop (for anyone finding this thread later) that will save you some time is www.cameraquest.com (http://www.cameraquest.com) to look over just which mount "dino glass" can fitted up to digi-EOS bodies. Quote:
"Canon EOS Body is the most adaptable modern SLR body, capable of using SIX different lens systems via adapters. Generally you will have the same cameras functions as if you mounted that particular body on a bellows -- check your instruction booklet."

Thats where I found out the little quirk that makes Olympus (Zuiko OM) glass very attractive. Some portrait-length telephotos by Zuiko have great bokeh. And I could use my 24mm too. So I can mark up another good reason to keep my OM-1N as a backup camera. Just sad that I just sold that Kiron 105mm which is famous for bokeh (eg; my Koala pic gallery).

The little OM mount quirk:
"mounts Olympus OM lenses very conveniently on the EOS via the adapter because OM lenses have an external stop down switch, allowing you to focus wide open and then quickly stop down to shooting aperture for metering and taking the shot. The EOS digital bodies are an excellent digital options for your manual focus Olympus OM lenses".

The link - www.cameraquest.com/frames/4saleReos.htm

[rdenney]

i have a question about the adapters....are they all created equal? how would i know a good adapter from a bad one?


If they fit, they are all the same. Very little, if any, of the adaptor is open to the inside of the camera, so I would not expect much effect from any black surface. The black ones might be anodized aluminum, and the one I have is a harder metal (maybe steel, but probably nickel). But I have aluminum adaptors, too, and they should be fine.

DVDTechnik has an excellent reputation, but they are in the Ukraine. I didn't try to talk to them, I just bought from them. I have adaptors in Pentacon Six lens to EF body, Pentacon Six lens to Nikon body, Pentacon Six lens to Pentax 645 body, Nikon lens to EF body, M42 lens to Nikon body, and M42 lens to EF body. I bought them all from DVDTechnik at various times, and always had good success. Don't give up.

There are other adaptor makers, too. Jolos is a good one. The EF/M42 adaptor is quite easy to machine, so I would expect many trying to enter that market.

You'll know if it doesn't work when the adaptor won't mount to the body, or the lens won't hit bottom on the screw with the top of the lens pointed approximately upward.

Rick "thinking the Pentacon Six camera-mounted breech-lock rings complicates things" Denney

[rdenney]

also is there any significance in a silver ring on the top of the focus ring? this older (5904 serial) has it where as the newer (13531) doesnt have it:


Not really. The five-digit numbers are indeed newer than the four-digit numbers, but both are also newer than the previous 7 and 8-digit numbers.

The important thing is that it's all black (except for the trim ring) and multicoated.

Rick "who thinks the MC lenses are too cheap not to go ahead and get them, though the zebras are good optically, too" Denney

[KevC]

rdenney: I pm'ed you regarding the shipping time and method from DVDTechnik. I'm just wondering how it was shipped and how long it took. I ordered it last night, and am expecting 1-2weeks for delivery.

[Paul_O]

I've been following this thread with much interest and have my eye on a couple of lenses. Do you know anything about this model http://pics.ebaystatic.com/aw/pics/s.gifCarl Zeiss Jena Sonnar f2.8 180mm lens KievPentacon ?

It's also going very cheap and might be worth bidding on.

Paul

[Andy_T]

I've been following this thread with much interest and have my eye on a couple of lenses. Do you know anything about this model http://pics.ebaystatic.com/aw/pics/s.gifCarl Zeiss Jena Sonnar f2.8 180mm lens KievPentacon ?


Well, it's the 180/2.8 lens that RDenney raves about in the beginning of the thread :wink:
(Kiev) Pentacon 6 is the lens mount it is available in. It is a medium format lens mount used by the former eastern bloc camera manufacturers, and if you search on eBay with "Canon Pentacon" or similar you will find the corresponding adapters.

Best regards,
Andy

[rdenney]

I've been following this thread with much interest and have my eye on a couple of lenses. Do you know anything about this model http://pics.ebaystatic.com/aw/pics/s.gifCarl Zeiss Jena Sonnar f2.8 180mm lens KievPentacon ?

It's also going very cheap and might be worth bidding on.

Paul

This is a medium-format lens in the Pentacon Six lens mount. Adaptors are available for the EF mount. It was designed for the Pentacon Six camera (which was replaced by the internally similar Exakta 66, and which shares a mount--somewhat approximately--with the Kiev 60 and the Kiev 88CM cameras made in the Ukraine).

I believe it to be the best medium telephoto in the medium-format world, beating out Oberkochen Sonnars and especially Tele-Xenotars. The Oberkochen Sonnars are made for Hasselblad, Rollei, and Contax and were designed around the Hasselblad's requirement to include a shutter. Thus, they are f/4 lenses. This lens, at f/2.8, has the best bokeh of any lens I have ever seen in any format.

But it's a big, heavy sucker, requiring 86mm filters. Here's a picture of one next to the 135/3.5 Jena Sonnar:

http://www.rickdenney.com/images/CRW_2834.jpg

The cheaper ones are zebra vintage (see my first post in this thread for what that means). The MC versions typically sell for $250 or so. I have two, one zebra and one MC. The zebra has a sticky aperture, which suggests that getting a newer one is less likely to impose mechanical wear issues.

Rick "a big fan of the Jena 180/2.8" Denney

[Andy_T]

There is also a smaller 200/2.8 M42 electric version, that uses 77 mm filters. Most likely it was only made for the M42 lensmount, not for the medium format.

I gather it is very popular with astro-photographers here in Germany and has very good resolution, but I have not found any tests so far.

Best regards,
Andy

[rdenney]

There is also a smaller 200/2.8 M42 electric version, that uses 77 mm filters. Most likely it was only made for the M42 lensmount, not for the medium format.

I'm glad you mentioned it. I see one for sale here:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=11720&item=7511939823&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW

Interestingly, when I compared the 180 to the 70-200 zoom on my big bokeh test, I found I had to zoom the Canon lens all the way to 200 to match the field of view of the 180 Sonnar. That makes me wonder if the 180/2.8 and the 200/2.8 are really all that different. But I've never seen or handled one, so I can't say.

Rick "who would expect it to be an excellent lens" Denney

[Paul_O]

Thanks very much for the replies and sorry I didn't realise it was the same lens :o

I'm definitely keen on this and will let you know how I go.

thanks again

Paul

[fetching]

i should be getting my zeiss today and i just wanted to check on the best way to attach the lens and adapter to the camera.

do i screw the adapter to the lens, then put them on that camera, or???

[Andy_T]

Screw the adapter on the lens (but not too tightly :o ) and then attach it to the camera.

Best regards,
Andy

[fetching]

Screw the adapter on the lens (but not too tightly :o ) and then attach it to the camera.

Best regards,
Andy



haha, what happened, did you get one stuck to the lens permanently?

[Andy_T]

Well, I succumbed to the temptation of tightening my 300/4.5 lens on the camera to get it exactly straight in the mount ... now I can't get it off the adapter again because I am afraid I might damage my lensmount by exerting too much torque. :o

But my second M42 adapter arrived last friday :D

Best regards.
Andy

[DocFrankenstein]

Now, this relates to the lens/bokeh discussion, but now I am glad I got the sigma 70-200 instead of the canon's version.

It is slightly softer than the canon, but the bokeh is much more pleasant.

Cheers

[BottomBracket]

This is a very interesting thread! I have one question for the experienced here - does a Leica Screw Mount (LSM or LTM) to EOS adapter exist? Try as I might, I cannot find such an animal on the net. I have a couple of Leica screw mount lenses (I used them on my Leica III rangefinder), and I believe that their optics would do wonders for my 20d. Anyone? Bueler? Thanks!

[Andy_T]

Adapters for the Leica R mount are available (go to eBay and enter 'Leica EOS' in the search, a lot will show up).

An adapter for the Leica M mount is impossible without optical element (that would deteriorate image quality) if you want to focus to infinity. Reason is that the Leica M flange focal distance of 27.8 mm is shorter than the EOS flange focal distance of 44.0 mm (Leica R: 47.0).

Best regards,
Andy

[BottomBracket]

Adapters for the Leica R mount are available (go to eBay and enter 'Leica EOS' in the search, a lot will show up).

An adapter for the Leica M mount is impossible without optical element (that would deteriorate image quality) if you want to focus to infinity. Reason is that the Leica M flange focal distance of 27.8 mm is shorter than the EOS flange focal distance of 44.0 mm (Leica R: 47.0).

Best regards,
Andy

Thanks for the reply, Andy. Yes I see that there is a ton of Leica M or R mount to Eos adaptors on ebay and on the net, but not a single Leica screw mount (LSM or LTM) to Eos adapter. The LSM/LTM screw mount is a configuration that precedes the M mount (a bayonet style mount) which was introduced in 1955, I think. My google efforts have only turned up an LSM to Leica M mount adaptor. A Leica M to EOS adaptor exists, so conceivably I can use 2 adaptors in conjunction, an LSM to Leica M and Leica M to EOS so that I can use the LSM lenses. I'm not sure how that would work out optically, but I would imagine focussing to infinity is out of the question, and that the width of the adaptors would effectively make it a smallish extension tube.

Such a pity. I'm sure an LSM to EOS adaptor can be easily made - after all it will be similar to the M42 mount, the only difference is the throat size (Leica's 39mm vs M42's 42mm) and perhaps the thread pitch. I guess there's not much market for such an adaptor. I wonder if I can make one out of a body cap?

Thanks again Andy,

Pio

[Andy_T]

That's easy then, actually.

I confused it with the R or M mounts. There ARE M39-M42 adapters to mount M39 lenses to M42 cameras, and there are lots of M42-EOS adapters. Just go to eBay with "M39 M42", going price seems to be 99c - 10$. M42-EOS adapters go for 20$.
Great, learned something new :D
Any good Leica M39 lenses you can suggest?

Best regards,
Andy

[rdenney]

This is a very interesting thread! I have one question for the experienced here - does a Leica Screw Mount (LSM or LTM) to EOS adapter exist? Try as I might, I cannot find such an animal on the net. I have a couple of Leica screw mount lenses (I used them on my Leica III rangefinder), and I believe that their optics would do wonders for my 20d. Anyone? Bueler? Thanks!

One of the advantages of a rangefinder is that it can have quite a short back-focus distance which accommodates wide-angle lenses with less of a retrofocus design. This is allowed by the lack of a mirror box. That's why the old Leica rangefinders have such a short backfocus.

Back in the deeps of time, Canon made an adaptor that allowed you use an FL lens on a Leica screw-mount rangefinder. Canon made a copy of the Leica at the time, and they wanted to make it easy for those who were buying their new SLR's to use the new lenses on the old cameras. But it was scale focus only.

You could use the screw-mount lenses for macro work by drilling a 39mm hole in a Canon body cap and installing the lens in it with a lock ring of the appropriate thread. It will not focus to infinity.

Rick "who doesn't think the old Leica screw-mount lenses are worth the trouble" Denney

[fetching]

RE: adapter/lens/camera.

I went to take the lens off the camera and it unscrewed from the adapter and the adapter was left on the camera. I found it difficult to take off and spent 15 minutes nervously screwing around with it until i managed to get it off. any tips on how to manage all of this so the camera doesn't get damaged? i read that someone had the mount cemented to the lens, but it seems like that would ruin the lens.

[Andy_T]

Try pushing the lens release button next time :p

My adapter has 2 small holes and a matching key. I assume it's not easy to get the adapter off the camera if your adapter doesn't have anything similar, but it seems higly unlikely to me that you could damage the camera by doing so. Your fingers, maybe :wink:

Maybe you should tighten the adapter to the lens a bit more (but not too much :o )

Best regards,
Andy

[fetching]

Try pushing the lens release button next time :p




haha, i did! maybe the adapter and lens needed a tighter connection. :p

[BottomBracket]

Oh sorry for this late reply, this thread somehow slipped passed by me - I tend to forget about stickies :) Andy, thanks for the elegant solution! I didn't realize that all you need is sort of a step-up ring to adapt the 39mm LSM screw mount to the M42 mount, and onto a M42 to Eos mount. Yup, there are quite a few on Ebay and good prices too. By the way, I think you can't go wrong with Leica lenses - the Summarit 50mm f1.5 (or 5cm as they call it) and Emar 35 mm that I have are simply superb. They are in my other house in another country and I will be re-assigning them to active duty when I take a trip back there soon.

Rick, thanks for the heads up on the LSM lenses. It's too bad that these excellent lenses do not focus to infinity. Will it retain its sharpness in portrait-type shots though, or any other non-focused infinity shots? Or perhaps an excellent macro lens in conjunction with M42 tubes or bellows... Pity to let its wonderful bokeh go to waste.

I love this thread for it opens a lot of possibilities. I have a modest collection of old SLR's, and it would be great to be able to use those Zuikos, Nikkors, etc. Especially that 55mm Micro-Nikkor. Too bad I can't use my old FD lenses effectively - I have several of those.

Pio

[rdenney]

Will it retain its sharpness in portrait-type shots though, or any other non-focused infinity shots?

The tessar formula is quite good close up, but I'm not sure if any of the Leitz lenses use that Zeiss formula. The Summicrons are gaussian planars that are not design for macro.

I don't know how far away they will focus--I'd never experimented. My suspicion is you might get a full-face portrait of your cat.

The Russians also made a range of lenses for the original Zenit that used a 39mm screw mount with a longer backfocus than on a rangefinder. I don't know if it's long enough, and those lenses are also avalable in M42. But I thought I'd mention it.

By the way, I'll see your Litespeed and raise it a Trek 5500 OCLV, an Eddy Merckx MX-Leader, and an original factory Schwinn Homegrown.

Rick "who likes the Merckx the best" Denney

[Andy_T]

Andy, thanks for the elegant solution! I didn't realize that all you need is sort of a step-up ring to adapt the 39mm LSM screw mount to the M42 mount, and onto a M42 to Eos mount.

Rick,

as I didn't even know about LSM being M39 in the first place, I just assumed that M39 is M39. :rolleyes:

Judging from Rick's more educated reply that even though the thread might be the same, the flange focal length is different, I assume I have given you a simple - and totally incorrect - answer.

But at the prices for the adapters, you could give it a try. Worst of all, you end up with a new macro lens.

Best regards,
Andy

[KevC]

I just got a 35/2.4 flektogon from ebay, and I think something is wrong with my copy. It will not focus @ infinity. Basically anything farther away from 5ft is blurry. This is quite annoying, and I'm wondering if I can send it back. Oh, and my adapter wont even screw on... the one from dvdtech works well though.

Anyone have this problem with flektogons?

[rdenney]

I just got a 35/2.4 flektogon from ebay, and I think something is wrong with my copy. It will not focus @ infinity. Basically anything farther away from 5ft is blurry. This is quite annoying, and I'm wondering if I can send it back. Oh, and my adapter wont even screw on... the one from dvdtech works well though.

Anyone have this problem with flektogons?

When you buy old stuff, you have no idea who has fiddled with it in the past and you are taking a risk. Fortunately, it's a small risk.

It sounds to me as though someone took the lens apart and reassembled the focus helical on the wrong track. Does the focus ring scale turn to infinity?

I'm not understanding the issue with the adaptor. Which adaptor does not fit, and why? If the lens can't screw down all the way, it will not focus to infinity. Don't force anything, but study the mechnism to see why it won't screw down. Show us some pictures of it.

Rick "who depends a lot on his own repair abilities" Denney

[lost]

Check out this, found while searching the link given in the first post. Its a Sniper camera. LOL

http://www.dvdtechnik.com/cam/35slrc/265/265.htm

I would love a little history lesson on that thing.

[Andy_T]

I would love a little history lesson on that thing.

Look here (http://www.xs4all.nl/~tomtiger/photosniper.html)!

I bought one from eBay some time ago, but have not yet tackled the task of modifying it to fit my 20D (camera is too high to fit, some kind of distance pieces for the lens will be needed). Don't know if I will.

The lens is not bad, but it's not stellar either. It has a weird focusing mechanism to fit the shoulder stock.

Best regards,
Andy

[ecobo]

So, what's the difference between MC and single-coated Sonnars? I've got today a 300/4 Sonnar (for just $100) that does not have the MC mark. Is this bad? I have not tested it yet - I am waiting an adapter.

[KevC]

When you buy old stuff, you have no idea who has fiddled with it in the past and you are taking a risk. Fortunately, it's a small risk.

It sounds to me as though someone took the lens apart and reassembled the focus helical on the wrong track. Does the focus ring scale turn to infinity?

I'm not understanding the issue with the adaptor. Which adaptor does not fit, and why? If the lens can't screw down all the way, it will not focus to infinity. Don't force anything, but study the mechnism to see why it won't screw down. Show us some pictures of it.

Rick "who depends a lot on his own repair abilities" Denney

Sorry I was being unclear. I was very annoyed at the issue which was why my post was rushed.

The focus ring scale does turn to infinity. However, anything further than 5ft away is blurry. This shouldn't happen, correct? I can turn the focus ring scale all the way to the minimum focus, and it does focus very close. (I'm at school now, so I don't have the lens in front of me). So the direction of the focus is correct (focus towards infinity, focus further away. focus towards min. focus closer). However, even at infinity, I have to physically move closer than 5ft for the object to be in focus.

As for the adapter, I bought an M42 adapter from DVDtech and that one works fine. However, I bought a second adapter (with this flektogon) and this one does not screw in all the way to the lens. I am assuming this is a defective adapter. I tried both adapters (screwed in and not screwed in all the way) and in both situations I have this focus problem.

My friend's father has a M42 camera (Zenit-E i believe) so I will go check the flektogon there to see if it's just my camera/EOS mount's issue (highly unlikely).

Do you think it's possible for me to repair it myself? The ebay seller suggested I send it back for him to "check it out", I don't think he understands the problem as my email wasn't as detailed as it should have been.

The M42 to EOS adapter that I purchased from the ebay seller seems to be defective, so I would like a refund. However, shipping to the Czech republic would pretty much negate any return in money.

[rdenney]

So, what's the difference between MC and single-coated Sonnars? I've got today a 300/4 Sonnar (for just $100) that does not have the MC mark. Is this bad? I have not tested it yet - I am waiting an adapter.

Does it have a black body? Is the rear lens mount stepped or conical? Are there alternating bands of bright aluminum on the control rings? What is the serial number? What colors reflect from the elements?

Post a couple of pictures of it, and I can probably tell you the vintage.

Sonnars are quite good even if no multicoated, and the price you paid is good for a 300/4 that is not multicoated. Multicoated 300/4 Sonnars typically sell for more like $300.

Rick "noting that there are a few multicoated Jena lenses are not marked MC, but very few" Denney

[rdenney]

My friend's father has a M42 camera (Zenit-E i believe) so I will go check the flektogon there to see if it's just my camera/EOS mount's issue (highly unlikely).

You'll have to check it on an m42 camera to persuade the seller in any case.

Who's the seller? I couldn't find your transaction on ebay.

Rick "who trusts several sellers in the Czech Republic" Denney

[xryx]

Rick, you have inspired me to resurrect a couple of M42 Pentax lenses to hold me off until I can upgrade to a long prime. Thanks for the great post.

KevC, I'm awaiting a lens adapter (tried to contact dvdtechnik but received an error on the form) and was curious if you bought the adapter with the lens or was it a separate offering on ebay? I'm hoping to not receive a dud myself.

--
xryx

[KevC]

You'll have to check it on an m42 camera to persuade the seller in any case.

Who's the seller? I couldn't find your transaction on ebay.

Rick "who trusts several sellers in the Czech Republic" Denney

The seller is gold-camera. I will try to get in touch with my friend soon...

[rdenney]

The seller is gold-camera. I will try to get in touch with my friend soon...

Okay, I've seen their offerings but have never done business with them. Many of their prices seem on the high side, and I'm a picky buyer.

Rick "thinking they might have another they'll trade you" Denney

[fetching]

The seller is gold-camera. I will try to get in touch with my friend soon...


hmm...i bought my lens from them too, and it has a small flaw on the glass, when it was supposed to be a mint lens.

he seems like an okay guy, but i was disappointed that i could see the mark and it showed up somewhat on certain images. i am also having some focus issues...i don't think it's the diopter either.

[KevC]

Thanks, I'll email them again. I'm not patient enough to scour ebay to find the best price haha.

[fetching]

Thanks, I'll email them again. I'm not patient enough to scour ebay to find the best price haha.

i was the same way, i wanted someone with a buy it now feature so i could just get the lens and start using it.

[JamieWakeham]

KevC,

Silly question, but: are you sure that your Flektogon is in M42 mount? It's just that you say that it won't focus to infinity, and that the M42 adaptor doesn't seem to fit... sounds a bit like you may have another mount altogether! No idea of what it might be, though. My recently acquired Flek 35/2.4 focuses just fine on my (whisper) EOS600 - yes I am a silver halide lurker!

Anyway, two questions and two observations:

1) I note that the Pentacon-Six versions of the 180/2.8 Sonnar are a lot cheaper than the M42 ones. Bar having to buy another adaptor, are there any differences between the two, optically or weight-wise?

2) I'm still looking for a 135/3.5 Sonnar, but have found a couple of 135/2.8 that claim also to be Sonnars. Any thoughts on them? The extra speed would be nice, but not at the cost of optical performance; sharp is what I want from this lens as I have my 'soft-ish portrait lens' issues already dealt with (see below)!

I'd like to recommend that Macro-Takumar 50/4, if you're into that sort of thing. Sharp as hell once you stop down past about f8, and with a couple of manual extension rings or a bellows it'll easily go 4-to-1 for about £40!

And finally, can I express suprise that no-one has yet mentioned my favourite M42 glass of all - the russian Helios-40 85mm f1.5? A wonderful portrait lens - nice and soft at full aperture with so little DoF. Maybe it lacks the sharpness you'd like when you stop it down, but that's not really its job. Bit heavy too... just make sure you get the H-40-2 (black metal) which is multicoated, as opposed to the uncoated H-40 (bare metal).

Best wishes,
Jamie

[KevC]

Hey Jamie,

I was just reading your post @ Photo.Net while looking for information on M42 lenses.

I am completely sure that my flektogon is in M42 mount (haha, I'm not *that* stupid!). I was saying, the adapter that gold-camera (the seller that sold me the flektogon) sold me would not screw in all the way. The adapter that I purchased from DVDTech went on fine. They are both M42 to EOS adapters.

I will try the M42 to EOS adapter from gold camera on my Sonnar, but I have doubts. I also will try to mount the Flektogon to my EOS650 and my friend's Zenit-E. I also have doubts.

Basically nothing is in focus 3ft away. Even at infinity focus....

[DocFrankenstein]

Uh oh... :D

I am completely sure that my flektogon is in M42 mount (haha, I'm not *that* stupid!). I was saying, the adapter that gold-camera (the seller that sold me the flektogon) sold me would not screw in all the way.
I don't know if this is the case... and by no means trying to imply that you're "that stupid" but there are two 42 mounts actually.

they look the same and have the same diameter, but different thread length. So by screwing a lens in the wrong adapter you're bound to damage something. That seems to be the case here, because it will only start to screw on and then it would lock. :)

Hope that's not the case though!

[KevC]

Uh oh... :D


I don't know if this is the case... and by no means trying to imply that you're "that stupid" but there are two 42 mounts actually.

they look the same and have the same diameter, but different thread length. So by screwing a lens in the wrong adapter you're bound to damage something. That seems to be the case here, because it will only start to screw on and then it would lock. :)

Hope that's not the case though!

Uh oh... is right. Now I'm *really* scared.

I hope I didn't damage anything, though. Because the M42-EOS adapter that gold-camera sold me, I didn't force in. I screwed it in, it went in partway, and it wouldn't budge. So I just screwed it back out.

Hm...

[ecobo]

Well, I've made some test photos with my new (in fact older than I am) Zeiss Sonnar 300/4. I have not an adapter, but a friend of mine has one and gave it to me for a couple of days.
Men, this lens is splendid! The results really supprised me - the Sonnar outperformed my 90-300USM even wide-open. The lens prodused very natural colors, nice bokeh and it is realy SHARP within the whole frame. The only lens I find better in terms of sharpness and contrast is my Canon 50/1.8II.

the lens:
http://www.e-cobo.com/random/sonnar.jpg

my first shot at f5.6:
http://www.e-cobo.com/random/sonnar1.jpg

a 100% crop from the red rectangle of the previous photo:
http://www.e-cobo.com/random/sonnar2.jpg

comparison 100% crops from the sonnar at f4 and f8 and my one-year-old Canon 90-300USM:
http://www.e-cobo.com/random/sonnar3.jpg

There is some noise as I've taken the photos at ISO400. All photos were shot hand-held, the speed was between 1/1600 and 1/4000 sec. to eliminate the negative effect from the shaking.
I think I've made a good deal with this lens for $100

[DocFrankenstein]

And finally, can I express suprise that no-one has yet mentioned my favourite M42 glass of all - the russian Helios-40 85mm f1.5?
Shhh!

The internet tells you drunken commies grind lenses from vodka bottles and can never mount the elements in the right order... :p

[KevC]

Shhh!

The internet tells you drunken commies grind lenses from vodka bottles and can never mount the elements in the right order... :p

Haha you're really obsessed about drunken commies aren't you? :)

The only Helios I can find are the ever so popular biotar copies (58/2). The 85/1.5s are all silver... hmm.

[JamieWakeham]

Apologies if I implied silliness, KevC :-) I suspect that you have both a badly machined (or possibly wrongly threaded) adaptor <i>and</i> a damaged Flek. Bad luck!

Yeah, that attempt to get info from photo.net wasn't as forthcoming as I'd hoped. I suspect that the Pentax guys are a bit sore about all these EOS users jacking up the price of their lenses on eBay! Perversely, I've got more useful info from RangefinderForum!

Finding the H-40-2 is a pain; they're much more highly valued than the H-40, and command about twice the price. You could certainly try the silvered ones; they're not multicoated and allegedly quite low on contrast, but that might be fun in itself. A cheaper and (again, allegedly - I've not got oneof these) less reliable option is the Jupiter-9 85/2. Again, go for the multicoated version; DVDtechnic have some in stock for not a lot of money!

Damn, I want a Sonnar 300/4 as well as a 180/2.8 now!

Jamie

[KevC]

What I am planning to buy are the following:

Helios 44-2 58/2 - Why not... it's $10 a *different* kinda look from my nifty fifty
Jupiter-9 85/2 - Looks cheap but I need an 85 anyway...

I still need to get back to my eBay seller... should I just return both and ask for a refund? I might just look around for a better flek....

[rdenney]

KevC,

Silly question, but: are you sure that your Flektogon is in M42 mount?

There is no other mount that uses a 42mm thread as far as I'm aware. I'm thinking there is something about the threads on the provided adaptor that is hanging up the lens as it is screwed into place, given that other possibilities have been eliminated.

There were screw mounts that use 39mm threads, and they covered two separate back-focus distances. It seems reasonable that some old Jena lenses might have been made for the version of the Zenit that used the so-called 39mm SLR mount, or M39. That mount can be adapted to M42, so it must have a longer back-focus than even M42. That would not lead to the loss of infinitiy focus.

1) I note that the Pentacon-Six versions of the 180/2.8 Sonnar are a lot cheaper than the M42 ones. Bar having to buy another adaptor, are there any differences between the two, optically or weight-wise?

They are the same. Only the rear mount is different. They are heavy suckers, too, and require an 86mm filter.

2) I'm still looking for a 135/3.5 Sonnar, but have found a couple of 135/2.8 that claim also to be Sonnars. Any thoughts on them? The extra speed would be nice, but not at the cost of optical performance; sharp is what I want from this lens as I have my 'soft-ish portrait lens' issues already dealt with (see below)!

The ones I've seen with a 2.8 maximum aperture are very old with single coatings. That half a stop isn't worth losing the later design, newer mechanics, and multicoatings.

And finally, can I express suprise that no-one has yet mentioned my favourite M42 glass of all - the russian Helios-40 85mm f1.5?
They are interesting lenses but all that I've seen are quite old. I also only seen them in rangefinder mounts and in the M39 SLR mount, though that can be adapted to M42 (which can then be adapted to EF). Thus, the risk is a bit higher with them. The Jupiter that I've mentioned before is available new, although new they may not be much better than old in mechanical terms.

Rick "who would rather have the Canon 85/1.8 than either the Helios or the Jupiter" Denney

[rdenney]

Well, I've made some test photos with my new (in fact older than I am) Zeiss Sonnar 300/4. I have not an adapter, but a friend of mine has one and gave it to me for a couple of days.
Men, this lens is splendid!

If you like your zebra version, those who get the MC version will have even a little more to like.

These lenses perform nearly at their best wide open, as your test (and my tests) show. But It would appear that your Canon lens suffered from a bit of camera shake, unless it's optical flaws are in the coma department and your crop was from the edge of the frame. The Sonnars are heavy, but in some ways that's good--it slows down the period of camera vibration and actually eliminates some shake issues. A monopod with these is a good thing.

I have both the 180 and the 300 MC-Sonnars in Pentacon Six mount, and if they are excellent with a small sensor they are simply stunning in medium format. Not a few of the 180's have had custom mounts made by hand to mount them on 6000-series Rolleiflexes and Hasselblad 200-series cameras (these lenses have no shutter and won't work on a 500-series Hassy). I'm happy to use mine on my Exakta 66 and various Ukrainian junque, plus adapting them to EF.

Rick "advising all to never hold one of these lenses by the camera--the lenses are too heavy and will stress the camera mount--hold it by the lens body" Denney

[rdenney]

I still need to get back to my eBay seller... should I just return both and ask for a refund? I might just look around for a better flek....

What I haven't seen you say yet is whether the lens worked okay on the screw-mount camera. Didn't you say that the lens was fine on the DVDTechnik adaptor but not on the supplied adaptor? If so, the adaptor threads are probably incorrect and the lens isn't screwing on all the way. That would screw up infinity focus. If it works on the DVDTechnik adaptor, then throw the other adaptor away and chalk it up to experience.

Rick "who thinks some pictures of the various bits and pieces would make it a lot easier to troubleshoot" Denney

[KevC]

What I haven't seen you say yet is whether the lens worked okay on the screw-mount camera. Didn't you say that the lens was fine on the DVDTechnik adaptor but not on the supplied adaptor? If so, the adaptor threads are probably incorrect and the lens isn't screwing on all the way. That would screw up infinity focus. If it works on the DVDTechnik adaptor, then throw the other adaptor away and chalk it up to experience.

Rick "who thinks some pictures of the various bits and pieces would make it a lot easier to troubleshoot" Denney

I'm sorry, I haven't had a chance to try it on the m42 camera yet. We both lead very busy lives.

The supplied adapter does *not* screw into the flektogon properly. I tried mounting the supplied adapter/flektogon (even without it screwed on properly) and, as I expected, it did not infinity focus.

The DVDTech adapter *does* screw into the flektogon properly. Just as it screwed into my Sonnar. However, after mounting this DVDTech adapter/flektogon onto my Digital Rebel *and* my EOS650, they both refused to focus past 3ft away.

This leads me to believe that both the flektogon *and* the supplied adapter are faulty.

I just realised gold-camera requires me to pay for the additional shipping charge even if they were at fault. Shipping from them is extremely expensive ~$20USD.

Once I find that the flektogon does not work on my friend's Zenit, I will attempt to ask for a refund. I do want to chance asking them to replace it because of the crazy shipping charges (in total will be $40 plus how much it costs for me to send it back to CZ) and the chance it may not work again.

//edit: When I get home, I will definitely post pictures of the said flektogon and how it screws into the cameras.

Another option: Should I attempt to repair it myself if they refuse a refund?

[Andy_T]

There is no other mount that uses a 42mm thread as far as I'm aware.

There is the T-mount that has a 42 mm thread but a different thread gradient ... won't screw in all the way.

As far as the price difference between Pentacon and M42 lens mount Sonnars is concerned ... I think CZJ made a Pentacon 6 - M42 adapter so that the Pentacon 6 lenses could also be used on the M42 35 mm SLRs out-of-the box ... I think this original adapter is rare and for that reason a bit pricey. Still there, are newer adapters available that do the same thing and are in the 30$ range. Check eBay.

Best regards,
Andy

[rdenney]

Another option: Should I attempt to repair it myself if they refuse a refund?

Cross that bridge when you get to it.

Based on what you describe and Andy's comment, it sounds as though the adaptor is a T-mount adaptor and not an M42 adaptor. It might be useful if you ever end up with a T-mount lens, like some of the cheapie ultra-telephotos and telescope adaptors. The T-mount has a long backfocus to accommodate adaptation to any camera, and that would definitely prevent infinity focus.

And it's possible that someone already tried to fix the lens to work with the faulty adaptor. Inspect the lens to see if there is any evidence of the rear mount having been removed. Look for scratches on the screws and the holes they go into. It's also possible that someone tried to install a mount from another lens onto this lens.

If the focus helical is off, then the focus ring would not turn to infinity and stop, unless it was moved after the fact.

Rick "who thinks attempting a repair now will move the responsibility to yourself, instead of on the seller" Denney

[BottomBracket]

The tessar formula is quite good close up, but I'm not sure if any of the Leitz lenses use that Zeiss formula. The Summicrons are gaussian planars that are not design for macro.

I don't know how far away they will focus--I'd never experimented. My suspicion is you might get a full-face portrait of your cat.

The Russians also made a range of lenses for the original Zenit that used a 39mm screw mount with a longer backfocus than on a rangefinder. I don't know if it's long enough, and those lenses are also avalable in M42. But I thought I'd mention it.

By the way, I'll see your Litespeed and raise it a Trek 5500 OCLV, an Eddy Merckx MX-Leader, and an original factory Schwinn Homegrown.

Rick "who likes the Merckx the best" Denney

Rick, I have always admired your knowledge with these classic lenses. Now your status has climbed several nothces more with your choice of bikes. Now do you have the lugged version of that Merckx? I've had steel frames before, sold almost all of it (to friends back home) and kept the Bridgestone, a bike I will never sell (it has been converted to a singlespeed). Steel is indeed real - I miss my old Italian steeds. I should have known you were a bike nut too, for your sigs seem so Sheldon Brownesque :D

I read up on the whole lens registration thing and understand now why my LSM Leicas will not focus to infinity with the EOS system. Too bad, what a waste of beautiful lenses. I guess I'll be on the lookout for the lenses you recommend. I'll be scouring flea markets and estate sales for those.

A question about the Zenitar Fisheye. I have an M42 mount version, with the EOS adapter, and when I mount it on my 20d, the tiny lens hood is askew. I tried unscrewing it to align the hood properly, but the result is a loose adapter-lens connection. I noticed there are three screws on the hood that can be ( I think) loosened to reposition the hood, but they won't budge even if I use a tiny screwdriver, so I just let it be. Do other Russian Fishie owners have the same situation?

Also, I read somewhere that the clear screw on filter at the back is an essential lens element for the Fisheye's optical pathway. I screwed mine on, and noticed a slight sharpness improvement, though I'm not really sure as I haven't really done a side by side comparison. Do other Zenitar owners here feel the same about the added filter? I left mine on....

[rdenney]

Now do you have the lugged version of that Merckx?...your sigs seem so Sheldon Brownesque...

Yes, it is the MX-Leader, which uses Columbus MXL tubing to Merckx's specifications, in 1994 Deutsche Telekom team colors. Only the Serotta with Columbus MAX comes close to the same feel. Even when I did the Ironman I weighed over 200 pounds and a strong, stiff bike is more than a luxury for me.

But I'm a lightweight compared to Sheldon, who I have known off and on for at least 10 years. He and I share more interests than just the use of an internym (which I actually picked up from Madeleine Page, RIP, resident curmudgeon of the curmudgeonly alt.folklore.urban USENET newsgroup--a tough place to learn Internet manners.) He and I fought myth and lore together on rec.bikes.tech for a long time, and then again on the hardcore bicycle science mail list. I backed out of that when I completed my goal of doing an Ironman, got married (better late than never), and decided to trade in training time for more photography and music. Sheldon was also a great friend of SK Grimes, famous for machining custom shutter mounts and filter adaptors for large and old cameras, and we corresponded after Grimes's death.

A question about the Zenitar Fisheye. I have an M42 mount version, with the EOS adapter, and when I mount it on my 20d, the tiny lens hood is askew. I tried unscrewing it to align the hood properly, but the result is a loose adapter-lens connection. I noticed there are three screws on the hood that can be ( I think) loosened to reposition the hood, but they won't budge even if I use a tiny screwdriver, so I just let it be. Do other Russian Fishie owners have the same situation?

Also, I read somewhere that the clear screw on filter at the back is an essential lens element for the Fisheye's optical pathway.

Russian fisheye lenses have always been designed with a rear filter as part of the optical formula, which is why they come with at least one already in place. I have a 30mm Arsat fisheye in medium format that is the same.

Many of the adaptors for M42 don't get the threads cut so perfectly that the lens will line up just right when screwed in. The lens will often be clocked slight too far or not far enough. This has no effect on image quality, but a fixed rectangular shade will be a little out of aligment. In the case of the Zenitar on a 20D, it doesn't matter because the small sensor could tolerate a much deeper shade in any case. My Zenitar came with an EOS mount replacement for the original screw mount, so it lines up (but I had to tighten the screws).

Rick "who has on at least one occasion sat on a stool in the Harris Bike Shop in Newton, chatting with Sheldon and watching him build a wheel incredibly fast" Denney

[paoletto]

Has anyone tested the 200/2.8 Jena m42 againist something like 70-200 canon?
I got one but i can't figure how got is it.. :)

Paolo
ps : is someone interested, i have a Prakticar 500 to sell (becouse sincerely i don't use it so much.
it's big and heavy)

[Andy_T]

Paoletto,

welcome to the forum :D

Post some images taken with your CZJ 200/2.8 :D
As far as selling your Prakticar is concerned, that's what the 'Marketplace' forum is for. Some example images will certainly help.

Best regards,
Andy

[fetching]

I took this with my CZJ 135mm...it was a little dark out, and my dog came running...i tried to focus as she moved toward me, probably only one of these was really in focus, but a friend made the GIF for me and I love it. :)

http://www.fetching.net/dog1.gif

:D

[Andy_T]

Fetching ...

what a great idea :D

If you can focus on a running dog with the lens, then I guess you don't have many problems using MF.

Best regards,
Andy

[paoletto]

Paoletto,

welcome to the forum :D

Post some images taken with your CZJ 200/2.8 :D
As far as selling your Prakticar is concerned, that's what the 'Marketplace' forum is for. Some example images will certainly help.

Best regards,
Andy

thank you!

well, i got it today, and i was looking for tests becouse i'm not fully convinced about this lens quality.
As a try, i took this one (nothing artistic, please understand: was a test shot :D):
http://luchino.ath.cx/CZJ_200.jpg

if someone with a canon 70-200 could do a such try, i were happy :)
i shooted it @5.6, so this is the best the lens can do.

I shooted also to landscapes and it seems it isnt so much "pleasant" with trees and grass in general.. things very dense.

For the prakticar, excuse me. I'll have a look to the correct section

[paoletto]

do you want more pictures from this lens, to post an impression?

[rdenney]

I've finally taken the time to process some images that I've taken with the Zeiss Jena 135mm/3.5 MC-Sonnar.

This image is was made wide open at a shutter speed of 1/180 at ISO 200. I did adjust exposure, color balance, brightness, and contrast during raw conversion (using Adobe Raw) and then cropped it to about two-third of the original.

Small birds are tough, man.

The background is lovely on this image.

Rick "who'll post again with something more rigorous" Denney

[rdenney]

In this image with the 135/3.5 Sonnar, I processed the full image variously, but the 100% crop is shown with only the raw conversion for processing. That included adjustment of white balance, exposure, contrast, and brightness, but no sharpening.

The aperture was about f/5.6. This lens is sharp! But the background is not as creamy as I get with the Zeiss Jena 180mm/2.8 MC-Sonnar. It has a similar look to the 70-200/4, actually.

In this image and in the image in the previous post, I had set my metering to evaluative with a -1 compensation. That usually gives me what I want with electronic lenses, but in this case I added the exposure back in during raw conversion. With both images, I needed to warm up the color balance a bit over the auto setting.

Rick "who thinks this ain't bad for $80" Denney

[foxbat]

Using the adaptor from DVD technik I've been able to get some great results from my 20mm MC f/2.8 Flektogon.

Check this out (http://www.aprd31.dsl.pipex.com/nature/monte_baldo2.jpg)(warning 448K image). It's taken from about 1700 metres above the lake and a couple of miles from the town and the mountains at the end of the lake. The detail is just fantastic. This was at f/22 focussed on infinity, i.e. wound back against the stop.

[paoletto]

mh.. it is a resized image, and i can see a considerably amount of spheric aberrations.
can you post some 100% crops?

[foxbat]

The apparent aberrations on the right in the foreground are, I think, mostly due to refracted light from the black cloud that was blowing very quickly into the shot... I have other less dramatic shots that don't exhibit this effect.

[edit: for example this one (http://www.aprd31.dsl.pipex.com/nature/monte_baldo3.jpg)]

[paoletto]

can you put somewere an unresized image?

thank you :)

Paolo

[Mr. EMJAY]

anybody got any pics of there russian carl Zeiss lenses... just wanna se them

[Andy_T]

I assume you are referring to the Russian (or Ukrainian?) 'Jupiter-9' 85/2.0 lens, which is a copy of the Zeiss Sonnar lens design.

Here's an image!

Best regards,
Andy

[rdenney]

I assume you are referring to the Russian (or Ukrainian?) 'Jupiter-9' 85/2.0 lens, which is a copy of the Zeiss Sonnar lens design.


These are Russian, not Ukrainian. They are made by the KMZ factory, while the Ukrainian lenses are made by the Arsenal factory. All the Arsenal lenses are either medium format or have a Nikon mount, like the most recent Kiev 35mm SLR's. Production is very low at Arsenal, and I think the medium-format stuff has a better market than the small-format stuff. KMZ has done better at finding markets for their lenses.

All of them shared designs back when they were part of the Soviet Union.

Rick "who has a newish J-9 in M42 and an old all-chrome J-9 in Leica thread mount" Denney

[JamieWakeham]

I have to admit, now that it's arrived, my 135/3.5MC is without a doubt the sharpest glass I own; it beats all my canon gear hands down. And it was £29...

Another quick question; anyone out there got a sonnar 200/2.8 and a teleconverter (either 1.4x or 2x)? And if so, what do you think of them in combination?

I rarely need to go longer than 200mm, and when I do I've usually had to walk for miles up a mountain to get there, so I don't find myself tempted by the not-small sonnar 300/4. I also have the EF 75-300 (non-IS) which I rarely use, as the sonnar 200/2.8 is so much faster and sharper. I'm wondering if I can get away with a TC on the sonnar for longer shots? My standards are fairly high; I'd need sell-able quality on Velvia.

Cheers,
Jamie

[paoletto]

Another quick question; anyone out there got a sonnar 200/2.8 and a teleconverter (either 1.4x or 2x)? And if so, what do you think of them in combination?

I rarely need to go longer than 200mm, and when I do I've usually had to walk for miles up a mountain to get there, so I don't find myself tempted by the not-small sonnar 300/4. I also have the EF 75-300 (non-IS) which I rarely use, as the sonnar 200/2.8 is so much faster and sharper. I'm wondering if I can get away with a TC on the sonnar for longer shots? My standards are fairly high; I'd need sell-able quality on Velvia.

Cheers,
Jamie

Do you have sonnar 200/2.8? do you think it is good againist for ex. the canon 70-200 F4? i got it, i posted a shot also, but it seems to have good resolving power but not so good contrast.

what do you think?

Thanks!

[JamieWakeham]

Paoletto,

Afraid I don't have the 70-200 lens you mention, but if you want a comparison, I think that my (late, multi-coated) 200/2.8 is almost as sharp and almost as contrasty as my EF 50/1.8, which I'm pretty sure is the best money per brand-new lens ratio ever to exist.

Vital question - is your 200/2.8 multicoated? If not, that'll undoubtedly contribute to a lack of contrast (and possibly even sharpness - not sure on that point) as compared to an L-series prime.

I'll post an image sometime soon; it's trickier for me as I'm actually a sliver halide skulker here, so I need to go scan my velvia...

Jamie

[paoletto]

yes, i have a 200/2.8 MC auto (not electric) 2173 serial

[Nikolas]

Seems like all there's a bit of greed pooling in ebay atm with the carl zeiss lenses.:evil:
Seems like most auctions are won by other ebayers who then resell the same lenses all over again.:evil:
What's the point?:confused:
Are they trying to drive up the prices?':rolleyes:
Is there another source where one can obtain a zeiss lens without all the mucking around and competing with ebay resellers?:confused::evil:

[Andy_T]

Nikolas ... which lenses are you referring to?
135/3.5?
200/2.8?
300/4.0?

The latter 2 have always been quite expensive (150-250$), as they present a good alternative as portrait lenses and light telephotos for medium some format cameras like Mamiya.

As far as the 135/3.5 is concerned, I have found 16 lenses at www.ebay.com, with the highest prices (buy-now option) ranging from $80 to $110. That is certainly not an outrageous price for such a lens.
Of course, if you want to get one for 35$, then it's tough. But then, you might be in a hard position yourself to complain about the greed in CZJ lenses :wink:

it helps a bit to also follow international eBay auctions.
For example, in Germany there is (naturally) a larger supply of these lenses, as they were primarily used here before the fall of the Iron Curtain.
You might identify sellers that do not offer 'worldwide' sale, but might be willing to to so if you ask them. Just do an advanced search for items that are available in 'any country'.

Also don't discourage the older (non-MC) version of the 135/3.5.
While it most certainly has a definitely 'crappy' feel, it is just as capable as the newer version of delivering tack sharp photos with great bokeh.

Best regards,
Andy

[buze]

I read this topic but I still have a question : is there a way to mount Pratika "B" lens on EOS ? The bayonet version...
I couldn't find an adaptor that said just that, but knowing the various names for the various mounts, it's not clear :D

[Andy_T]

I read this topic but I still have a question : is there a way to mount Pratika "B" lens on EOS ? The bayonet version...


I am afraid not.

Take a look at this article by Bob Atkins:
Using manual focus lenses on Canon EOS bodies (http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/manual_focus_EOS.html)

It features a list of lensmounts that can or can not be used with converters on the EOS systems.
My guess is that if the Practica mount could be used (depending on flange focal distance and diameter of bayonet) it would be figured there.

The alternative might be the Ron Chappel hacksaw (TM) approach :lol: (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=84366)

Best regards,
Andy

[Nikolas]

Well, I've made some test photos with my new (in fact older than I am) Zeiss Sonnar 300/4. I have not an adapter, but a friend of mine has one and gave it to me for a couple of days.
Men, this lens is splendid! The results really supprised me - the Sonnar outperformed my 90-300USM even wide-open. The lens prodused very natural colors, nice bokeh and it is realy SHARP within the whole frame. The only lens I find better in terms of sharpness and contrast is my Canon 50/1.8II.





I think I've made a good deal with this lens for $100

What sort of adapter is available for this particular lens?

[Nikolas]

apart from a link to some site can someone in the know please post a summary of the types of lenses and the mounts/adapters required for the particular lens that we can use for the canon?
Will make searching for what we may need easier.
Especially for a noob in these types of lenses.
Are there adapters for the medium format l;enses?
How do we identify medium format lenses etc?
Your help would be much appreciated.
Regards Nick.

[Andy_T]

apart from a link to some site can someone in the know please post a summary of the types of lenses and the mounts/adapters required for the particular lens that we can use for the canon?

Nope.

General questions as this are not allowed here. :wink:
Noobs are strictly encouraged to do their own research so they can make an educated decision and not just do what somebody else told them :p

But I think you would find this thread helpful, as its aim is to answer just the question you asked.

Using FD (and others) lenses on EOS bodies (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=57023)

Are there adapters for the medium format lenses?
The most used is the 'Pentacon-6' mount that was the medium format system of the former Eastern Bloc. The CZJ (Carl Zeiss Jena in Eastern Germany, as opposed to the 'original' copyright holders 'Carl Zeiss' that moved to Oberkochen in Western Germany after WWII) 200/2.8 and 300/4.0 lenses mentioned in this thread are for that system.

They can be used on EOS with either a Pentacon-Eos adapter (a bit more rare) or using both a Pentacon-M42 (that was originally used in the 70's to use these lenses on 35 mm cameras with M42 mount) and an M42-EOS adapter.

The second solution has the advantage that you can also use M42 lenses with the M42-EOS adapter alone.

How do we identify medium format lenses etc?
They are normally offered as 'Pentacon mount', 'P-6 mount' or 'Kiev mount' on EBay. If you are not sure, ask the seller.
If you do have any further specific questions after reading the thread, we will be more than happy to answer them :D

Hope that helps :wink:

Best regards,
Andy

[Darter]

I got mine!

My CZJ 3.5 135 MC S DDR arrived last night and it sure is a beauty. I haven't had a chance to test it since I'm in the middle of a remodel project on our house, but I'm anxious to try it out.

The big question is, I can't get it to stop down at all, in manual or otherwise. I noticed that my adapter doesn't keep the back pin pushed in at all. Is this needed? Or am I just going ot have to shoot only at 3.5?

on edit: oh, and to describe its current operation: when I switch to auto diaphragm, the pin pushes out and I can press it in with my finger. When in manual, the pin flops in and out based on how I tilt the lens. Is this correct operation of the pin? What should cause the aperture to stop down, besides the control ring?

Here's what mine looks like, if it helps any:

http://i7.ebayimg.com/04/i/04/69/71/97_1_b.JPG

[buze]

I snapped one of these 135mm f3.5 too. I'm still waiting for it (and the adapter) can't wait to prop it against the 135mm f2 L :D

[Nikolas]

Yep just did the same here, coming from england.

[Nikolas]

I got mine!

My CZJ 3.5 135 MC S DDR arrived last night and it sure is a beauty. I haven't had a chance to test it since I'm in the middle of a remodel project on our house, but I'm anxious to try it out.

The big question is, I can't get it to stop down at all, in manual or otherwise. I noticed that my adapter doesn't keep the back pin pushed in at all. Is this needed? Or am I just going ot have to shoot only at 3.5?

on edit: oh, and to describe its current operation: when I switch to auto diaphragm, the pin pushes out and I can press it in with my finger. When in manual, the pin flops in and out based on how I tilt the lens. Is this correct operation of the pin? What should cause the aperture to stop down, besides the control ring?




I don't know why it wont stop down but the pin does nothing on the canon .
You have to stop it down yourself its fully manual.

[foxbat]

The big question is, I can't get it to stop down at all, in manual or otherwise. I noticed that my adapter doesn't keep the back pin pushed in at all. Is this needed? Or am I just going ot have to shoot only at 3.5?

on edit: oh, and to describe its current operation: when I switch to auto diaphragm, the pin pushes out and I can press it in with my finger. When in manual, the pin flops in and out based on how I tilt the lens. Is this correct operation of the pin? What should cause the aperture to stop down, besides the control ring?
I hate to be the one to tell you this but it sounds like the aperture blades are stuck wide open. This is a common problem with these very old lenses and I know of no way to easily fix it.

In manual mode the aperture ring should stop it down without any input from the pin which does nothing in this mode. When you flip to automatic the blades are controlled by the pin which is controlled by the compatible camera. Pushing the pin will cause the blades to open/close.

[Beeclose]

In the 21 yrs. in retail photo shop, I always classed Zeiss Jena lenses as lower quality, hence their use on Praktice Cameras. I still have that opinion, lenses from East Germany were said to make good paper weights, not in the class of Canon lenses. EW.

[Nikolas]

In the 21 yrs. in retail photo shop, I always classed Zeiss Jena lenses as lower quality, hence their use on Praktice Cameras. I still have that opinion, lenses from East Germany were said to make good paper weights, not in the class of Canon lenses. EW.


That puts you in the minority, I have 2 professional photographers as good friends and they will set you straight.
Mybe your retail "slant" has something to do with your opinion:)

I prefer the advice of a professional photographer not a retailer but then that's me.:D


Anyone have experience with leica lenses and what they are like?

[Beeclose]

Sorry, but I also did exhabition photography for Years , infact that is how I got into my own shop, my friend had a plan printing service in the days when results depended on lens quality, We tested lots of optics but never found a decent East German one.as far as Leica lenses go, they are amongst the best, My Son has My 28mm W/A and uses an adaptor on His 20D with super results, no barrel distortion etc. He lives in Melbourne and would be happy to talk with You on these lenses.

[buze]

Snapped up a 35mm f2.4 Flektogon too. Next week is gonna be "time warp" week! At least that will put me off that Canon 135mm L Lemon :(

[zaq]

Does anyone can help me with the buying decision, rdenney would you advice me to get Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar 80/1.8? I was thinking about Canon 100/2.8 Macro, can those two be compared?

Thanks in advance
Zaq

[Nikolas]

Sorry, but I also did exhabition photography for Years , infact that is how I got into my own shop, my friend had a plan printing service in the days when results depended on lens quality, We tested lots of optics but never found a decent East German one.as far as Leica lenses go, they are amongst the best, My Son has My 28mm W/A and uses an adaptor on His 20D with super results, no barrel distortion etc. He lives in Melbourne and would be happy to talk with You on these lenses.

Cheers

[Darter]

I hate to be the one to tell you this but it sounds like the aperture blades are stuck wide open.

Grrrr. That's what I was afraid of. Thanks for the input, as sad as it is. The seller mentioned it worked fine, but it obviously isn't while in my hands. He has offered to ship another copy. Hopefully it's as clean as this one. This one looks virtually unused!

Any chance of getting the blades to move again? Repair? I only paid $60.00 for it (including shipping), so I don't have much invested in it.

[Beeclose]

Remember the saying, You only get what You paid For,EW.

[Andy_T]

Grrrr. That's what I was afraid of. Thanks for the input, as sad as it is. The seller mentioned it worked fine, but it obviously isn't while in my hands. He has offered to ship another copy. Hopefully it's as clean as this one. This one looks virtually unused!

Any chance of getting the blades to move again? Repair? I only paid $60.00 for it (including shipping), so I don't have much invested in it.

Same thing happened to me with my first one (non-MC Sonnar 135/3.5) When you switch the A-M switch to 'M' on the MC version, the lens should be stopped down immediately. The non-MC version doesn't have the switch, you have to depress the pin. Also in my case, the seller didn't know zit about photography and thought it was 'working fine' :rolleyes:

But I decided it was not much of a problem for me, as the lens is really very sharp wide open.

According to an earlier post of RDenney, there should (provided construction is similar to the 200/2.8 ) be a connecting line in the lens from the aperture lever to the aperture mechanism that gets unhung easily and can be fixed if you are capable of wielding a precision screwdriver. Haven't tested that hypothesis with mine so far :wink:

Best regards,
Andy

[foxbat]

I've had mine open once or twice to try to fix stuck blades. It's held together by three long screws that are fasted into the rear end. Remove these and it separates around the aperture ring exposing the inner barrel. It's not at all hard to disassemble/reassemble it this far and the problem may be obvious at this point. As Andy pointed out there is a fairly large rod that connects to the aperture ring. With the outer case removed you can just push this around to see if it operates the blades.

If it's any help I'll take the screws out of mine and photograph the inside for you.

[Darter]

Photographs of the inside would be great, foxbat! I'm pretty nervous about opening it up, but like I said, I don't have much invested anyway. Hopefully it just disconnected itself in transit and can easily be repaired.

The seller has been involved with photography for a long time, and he seems to know the market and history on these things. He may simply not be techically aware. He was kind enough to offer to ship a new lens free of charge and let me keep this one. Quite a nice guy, I'd say.

Anyway, for the someone (can't remember who) that asked why so may auctions are coming from the UK...my seller explained that some camera kit was very popular in the UK in the 70's that came with 3 lenses. The 135 was one of the three. Apparently these were so widely available that many are just starting to come out of people's attics and photography collections. He has made a hobby of buying the lenses right where he lives and selling them on ebay.

[Darter]

Remember the saying, You only get what You paid For,EW.

Thanks for the trolling advice. I'd still say I got a bargain. I will never be able to afford an L lens, so $60 to get nearly there is a steal for me. No one around here is claiming we're getting $2000 lenses for $20.

Ugh...why am I feeding the trolls??

[Darter]

A big props to Andy and foxbat!

I couldn't wait for the photos of the disassembly, so I bit the bullet and opened it up. It's quite easy, actually. The three long screws only took about 5 turns each, and they opened with a 1/8 flathead.

The arm you guys described wasn't the issue with my lens. I moved it back and forth, with no reaction from the blades. But just about near the level of the rear glass just inside of the outer barrel I spotted what appeared to be a tiny portion of one of the blades. I changed the aperture to a smaller setting (couldn't tell with the back off of the lens) and gave the back side of the blade an ever so light tap with my screwdriver tip. The diaphragm instantly stopped down!

After reassmebling the lens, the aperture opened up perfectly every time, but stopping down was erratic. If I rotated one click per second downward, it would generally get stuck around 8 and not continue. If I rotated quickly, it would close down all the way. After a number of rotations though, it seems to be moving nicely now.

I'm sure my seller will be happy to hear the news. Thanks again guys!!!

ON EDIT:

Here's a new thread I started with pics of the lens opened up...
http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=87274

[buze]

Not sure if you guys have seen this: http://m42.povlab.org/site_lenses.php it lists a massive amount of M42 lens, some of them with short reviews, and sample pictures.

Seems that 135 and 35/f2.4 are very well regarded as expected.

I still haven't received any of mine! I just have a M42-EF adaptor sitting on my desk all lonely :/

[xryx]

Great site. Thanks.

Although, I doubt it's going to help me trim down my m42 lens collection ;)

[buze]

Whats in your collection ? :D
I just bought a Super Takumar 50mm f1.4 for £42. A tad expensive, but I love my Canon so I want to have them have a go at each others :D

[Ballen Photo]

Not sure if you guys have seen this: http://m42.povlab.org/site_lenses.php it lists a massive amount of M42 lens, some of them with short reviews, and sample pictures.
Thanks for posting this. Information is always good. :D
-Bruce

[buze]

Ok received the Tessar this morning. They take forever to arrive really! At least I can practice a bit. I actualy like it, the auto/manual switch is handy to have a "memory" of the apperture. And since the metering is autonatic in Av it's pretty much like having the apperture on the lens instead of using the dial..

I find that the lens focuses *past* infinity. ie if you set it to Inf you get a blurry one. Otherwise the lens seems to be acting properly and I can now make tons of blurry test shots :D

[rdenney]

...The CZJ (Carl Zeiss Jena in Eastern Germany, as opposed to the 'original' copyright holders 'Carl Zeiss' that moved to Oberkochen in Western Germany after WWII) 200/2.8 and 300/4.0 lenses mentioned in this thread are for that system....

The 200/2.8 was always intended for 35mm Prakticas. It was the 180/2.8 that was made for the Pentacon Six, though it was also adapted for screw mount. I've never handled the 200, but on the face of it I probably would not want to guarantee that the glass is actually any different between the 180 and the 200.

By the way, the Jena factory was the original Carl Zeiss factory, where lenses were made for the pre-war Contax and Zeiss Ikon cameras. Some of the scientists and technicians escaped out of the Soviet sector, with U.S. help, after WWII, and they formed Zeiss Oberkochen. Many of the remaining technicians were sent to Kiev, along with much of the equipment, as spoils of war. They founded the lens and camera-making capability that now makes Kiev cameras. The early Kiev Contax copies are made on the same machines that made the real thing, though perhaps without the same care. The lens-making capability at Jena remained. Both Jena and Oberchoken had legitimate claims to the Zeiss brand, and generally the former used "Zeiss" in the second world and a variety of labels in the first world, while the latter was Zeiss in the west and Opton, etc., in the east. It took a while for this to shake out. There are early post-war Rolleiflexes with "Opton" lenses, for example, even though they were made and sold in the west.

They can be used on EOS with either a Pentacon-Eos adapter (a bit more rare) or using both a Pentacon-M42 (that was originally used in the 70's to use these lenses on 35 mm cameras with M42 mount) and an M42-EOS adapter.

The adaptors for EOS could not, I don't think, be characterized as rare, though they may not be as common as M42 adaptors. DVDTechnik, among others, make P-6 adaptors in quantity for both EOS and M42 (and Nikon, etc.) and they are available from them and also from the normal Soviet camera sources such as KievCamera in Atlanta. Some common ones available on ebay are labeled "Jolos", and they work as well as any of them.

They are normally offered as 'Pentacon mount', 'P-6 mount' or 'Kiev mount' on EBay. If you are not sure, ask the seller.

P-6 and Pentacon Six are the most common designators. Most don't use "Kiev mount" because that is too easily confused with the original Kiev 88 lens mount, which is similar to the original Hasselblad 1600f mount and not at all like the Pentacon Six breech-lock mount. The Kiev 60, on the other hand, also has the Pentacon Six mount, as well as the Kiev 88CM, so Arsenal (the maker of Kiev cameras) has now standardized on the P-6 mount.

Rick "...zzzzzzz...er...oops...er..okay! <very tired from 10 days of business travel>" Denney

[rdenney]

In the 21 yrs. in retail photo shop, I always classed Zeiss Jena lenses as lower quality, hence their use on Praktice Cameras. I still have that opinion, lenses from East Germany were said to make good paper weights, not in the class of Canon lenses. EW.

I would agree that the construction of the lenses is not always up to the standard of Zeiss Oberkochen, and I would agree that the lens designs are quite old, having first been formulated in the 30's. Non-zoom telephoto lenses haven't really improved much since those days except with coatings and so on (and Zeiss Jena tracked those improvements), but normal lenses and wide-angle lenses have improved markedly. That's why you won't find me bidding on a Flektogon--my modern wides are much better. And I would prefer the Canon 50/1.4 any day over the Pancolar, though the latter are quite good when stopped down. Jena lenses are perhaps not as consistent as brands like Canon. That said, the good ones will match the performance of anything out there, and in some cases exceed.

Other Jena optical products, such as binoculars and microscopes, are highly regarded and were the best the soviet system had to offer.

But it's been at least 15 years since any were made, and when you buy something old, it often needs to be repaired before it works perfectly. Having a lens cleaned so that the aperture works is not expensive, if there is an old-time camera repair shop in the vicinity. In some places, that's a big if.

It's true that Praktica cameras did not enjoy the same reputation as Japanese cameras in particular. The 35mm Praktica derived as much from Exakta as anything, and that is a pretty ancient design. The Pentacon Six was similar, and it has issues regarding the design of the film advance, for example. The Pentax really ushered in a new era in 35mm SLR design. That doesn't mean the Prakticas were intended to be junk--they were the best the soviet world had to offer and they were the high-end cameras owned by soviet professional photographers.

It should also be noted that the Zeiss Jena lenses were the high-end lenses for the Praktica cameras. The consumer-grade lenses were made by others, particularly Meyer-Gorlitz, and labeled "Pentacon" when Meyer was brought into VEB Pentacon. Zeiss Jena, even after coming into that consotium, always maintained its own brand. The Pentacon lenses could be decent (the 500/5.6 comes to mind) or dreadful, depending on which one.

But paperweights? If you have any cluttering up your desk holding down paper, let me know. I'll be glad to trade them for rocks from my garden.

Rick "who has made some very satisfying images with paperwieghts" Denney

[Darter]

Rick "

Did Rick forget something? ;)

bob "who's always looking for rick 'closing remarks' denny's closing remarks" pawlak :lol:


on edit: doh! now it's there...my browser just didn't show it for some reason... :oops: