Re: Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar 80/1.8 (was: Re: 85mm F:1.8 Auto Takumar)
Hi All, I used to have Flektogon 20/2.8, Flektogon 35/2.4, Pancolar 50/1.8 and Sonnar 135/3.5 All were quitenice but I used old Practika with them and light meter was not very good for slides. when I decided to change system for Pentax I sold everythink + exte, tubes and Practika VLC3 which had interchangeable top like LX!!! I have some problems with 20/2.8 since it was not justified. All in all I decided to buy into one system.Sometimes I think I could not sell it it is too late. Alek 310 g, takes a 58mm filter, and has 6 elements in 5 groups (like the Super Takumar and Pentax SMC 85/1.8s): Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 10:39:53 +0100 From: Frantisek Vlcek [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: favorite non-Pentax K mount lens? That's easy. It's the 1.8/80mm Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar. Superb lens. ( M42 only) ... The 1.8/80 CZJ Pancolar is a gaussian design, probably very similar or same as Planar design. I do have this lens, and while the Multicoating on my sample is not as good as modern SMC (needs a lens hood still g), in normal light it is about as sharp as my SMC F 1.4/50 or just slightly less (at relatively same apertures - 1.4=1.8; 5.6=5.6). It's good wide open, and excellent even moderately stopped down. It should be as sharp or even better g than all the portrait 80mm' Pentax made (xcept the new ones, A FA 1.4/85 of course). AFAIK it's same or very similar design to Pentax SMC-K 1.8/85 (most those 1.8/80 lenses are of same, planar-derived design). Only drawback my sample is prone to flare from strong light sources. From http://zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/archives/1999/msg01582.html: Hi Zuiko amateurs, This week I bought a new (used) lens, and while it's not a Zuiko, I just wanted to say what an amazing lens it seems to be. It's a Carl-Zeiss-Jena (east) Pancolar 80mm 1:1,8 with M42 mount. Because of a small dint at the front thread it costed only 200 DM (120 US dollar) instead 390 DM. First slides taken with an aperture of 1:5,6 were great. Because there are no OM - M42 adaptors, which goes to infinity without an auxiliary lens, this message is somewhat off topic, but I think there aren't any M42 or Carl-Zeiss-Jena (east) discussion lists around where I could share this experience. Regards, Matthias. Some of CZJ's lenses such as the Pancolar and Flektagon have their roots in pre-WWII designs (Biotar and Distagon) for which CZJ could use the designs, but not the original trademark names due to court rulings about intellectual property rights. -- John http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/us/spe2/hresol.htm: The Pancolor 80_1.8 lens has a pupil diameter of 44.4 mm, which implies that there is no risk of vignetting in any part of the spectrum. A user of 80_1.8 and other CZJ primes wrote: Superb. I know everyone says Pentax made the best M42 lenses but I disagree. From the Contax discussion list: By the way I have bayonet mount practica lenses, Flektogon 20/f2.8 which is a very good lens Mayer 28/F2.8 not a bad lens at all Flektogon 35/f2.4 very very nice lens Pancolor 50/f1.8 very nice Pancolor 80/f1.8 ditto! Sonnar 135/f3.5 extremly nice lens Sonnar 300/f4 I do not use much, though good one and mayer 50/f1.8 CZJ 55/f2.8 MACRO lens (good lens) I would say these lenses have almost the same colour redention, which is very pleasing, and very small distortion. So I like them a lot, but cameras (B200 and BX20) are different story all together. I wish Penatcon servived and produced a better camera body! [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***r-e-k-l-a-m-a** Chcesz oszczdzi na kosztach obsugi bankowej ? mBIZNES - konto dla firm http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbiznes
Re: 85mm F:1.8 Auto Takumar
It's not at all the same as the Super Tak or SMC Tak 1.9 or 1.8. Not in the same league. Avoid it. Do consider the Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolor 80/1.8, which is virtually the same as the Pentax, right down to the diaphragm design. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar 80/1.8 (was: Re: 85mm F:1.8 Auto Takumar)
I'm not at the same computer that contains the PDML Digest in which someone asked me to document my statement that the Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar 80/1.8 is similar to the Pentax Super Takumar 85/1.8. My source is a series of postings and private mailings in 2001 and 2002 by PDML's sadly missed CZJ expert, Frantisek Vlcek of the Czech Republic. Here's all I have on the Pancolar, which weighs 310 g, takes a 58mm filter, and has 6 elements in 5 groups (like the Super Takumar and Pentax SMC 85/1.8s): Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 10:39:53 +0100 From: Frantisek Vlcek [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: favorite non-Pentax K mount lens? That's easy. It's the 1.8/80mm Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar. Superb lens. ( M42 only) ... The 1.8/80 CZJ Pancolar is a gaussian design, probably very similar or same as Planar design. I do have this lens, and while the Multicoating on my sample is not as good as modern SMC (needs a lens hood still g), in normal light it is about as sharp as my SMC F 1.4/50 or just slightly less (at relatively same apertures - 1.4=1.8; 5.6=5.6). It's good wide open, and excellent even moderately stopped down. It should be as sharp or even better g than all the portrait 80mm' Pentax made (xcept the new ones, A FA 1.4/85 of course). AFAIK it's same or very similar design to Pentax SMC-K 1.8/85 (most those 1.8/80 lenses are of same, planar-derived design). Only drawback my sample is prone to flare from strong light sources. From http://zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/archives/1999/msg01582.html: Hi Zuiko amateurs, This week I bought a new (used) lens, and while it's not a Zuiko, I just wanted to say what an amazing lens it seems to be. It's a Carl-Zeiss-Jena (east) Pancolar 80mm 1:1,8 with M42 mount. Because of a small dint at the front thread it costed only 200 DM (120 US dollar) instead 390 DM. First slides taken with an aperture of 1:5,6 were great. Because there are no OM - M42 adaptors, which goes to infinity without an auxiliary lens, this message is somewhat off topic, but I think there aren't any M42 or Carl-Zeiss-Jena (east) discussion lists around where I could share this experience. Regards, Matthias. Some of CZJ's lenses such as the Pancolar and Flektagon have their roots in pre-WWII designs (Biotar and Distagon) for which CZJ could use the designs, but not the original trademark names due to court rulings about intellectual property rights. -- John http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/us/spe2/hresol.htm: The Pancolor 80_1.8 lens has a pupil diameter of 44.4 mm, which implies that there is no risk of vignetting in any part of the spectrum. A user of 80_1.8 and other CZJ primes wrote: Superb. I know everyone says Pentax made the best M42 lenses but I disagree. From the Contax discussion list: By the way I have bayonet mount practica lenses, Flektogon 20/f2.8 which is a very good lens Mayer 28/F2.8 not a bad lens at all Flektogon 35/f2.4 very very nice lens Pancolor 50/f1.8 very nice Pancolor 80/f1.8 ditto! Sonnar 135/f3.5 extremly nice lens Sonnar 300/f4 I do not use much, though good one and mayer 50/f1.8 CZJ 55/f2.8 MACRO lens (good lens) I would say these lenses have almost the same colour redention, which is very pleasing, and very small distortion. So I like them a lot, but cameras (B200 and BX20) are different story all together. I wish Penatcon servived and produced a better camera body! [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 85mm F:1.8 Auto Takumar
Paul, There shouldn't be any problems -- I believe all the Takumars (preset diaphragms) and Auto-Takumars were compatible with the Spotmatic and later cameras. The only difference, of course, is that sliding the meter switch up on the Spotmatic will stop the lens down, and if you turn the meter back off, the lens won't reopen until you cock the diaphragm lever on the lens again. On a camera like the SL (meterless Spotmatic), the only problem would be, essentially, no depth of field preview with an Auto-Takumar (in the diaphragm-cocked-open position) because the lens doesn't have an Auto/Manual switch. The lens would stop down, of course, when you take a picture and would remain stopped down until manually reopened again. Joe Hello, I just bid on an 85mm F:1.8 Auto Takumar. I believe they were made 1960 through 1962 and were really semi-auto diaphragm. (Cock to open - stop down when the shutter is fired). I'm not concerned about the optical quality so much as whether there might be a problem with fitting it to my circa 1968 Spotmatic. Of course, if any of you are raving enthusiasts of this optic, I'd loke to hear that too, I know the 85mm F:1.9 Super Takumar I once owned wasa fabulous performer. Paul
Re: 85mm F:1.8 Auto Takumar
Paul, There shouldn't be any problems -- I believe all the Takumars (preset diaphragms) and Auto-Takumars were compatible with the Spotmatic and later cameras. The only difference, of course, is that sliding the meter switch up on the Spotmatic will stop the lens down, and if you turn the meter back off, the lens won't reopen until you cock the diaphragm lever on the lens again. On a camera like the SL (meterless Spotmatic), the only problem would be, essentially, no depth of field preview with an Auto-Takumar (in the diaphragm-cocked-open position) because the lens doesn't have an Auto/Manual switch. The lens would stop down, of course, when you take a picture and would remain stopped down until manually reopened again. Joe As you impley, in that case it could be as practical to use the lens uncocked, in full manual mode, just learning to count the clicks to know at what aperture one is. Andre Hello, I just bid on an 85mm F:1.8 Auto Takumar. I believe they were made 1960 through 1962 and were really semi-auto diaphragm. (Cock to open - stop down when the shutter is fired). I'm not concerned about the optical quality so much as whether there might be a problem with fitting it to my circa 1968 Spotmatic. Of course, if any of you are raving enthusiasts of this optic, I'd loke to hear that too, I know the 85mm F:1.9 Super Takumar I once owned wasa fabulous performer. Paul --
