Paul,
would you please care to comment or compare the Mir 2.5/20 with
CZJ 2.8/20 ? I own the CZJ and am really curious how the Mir
compares to it. I have done 26x39cm (fullframe-that's 30x40cm
paper, I usually frame and print fullframe) which are really
sharp, at f/8 1/60 handheld. It has also suprisingly low
geometric distorsion, but corners are softer at wide apertures
and close focus (no floating elements - close focus is IMHO
pretty soft) - IMHO it's best for landscapes/architecture/people
from normal-moderate distance, not available light or near-macro
distances. But which 20mm is really good for avaialble light?
Perhaps the 20/2 Zuiko or the 20/1.4 prototype Pentax...
All in all, I _love_ the lens, and now I am looking for a better
body for it - something M42 (tired of using it via adapter, and
my onyl M42 body - Praktica - got a broken meter after long fall
on stone, even if otherwise works well, it's in
permanent-disassembly-repair state, with no time to finish it,
for over a two years <g>)
`BTW, did you (or anybody else) did a comparsion of the various
20mm side by side? Especially the Pentax M & A ones versus ex-USSR and
CZJ 2.8/20?
BTW, I think you are mistaken on few facts about the CZJ 2.8/20:
1) there is no native K version. Carl Zeiss Jena only produced
them in M42 mount (both plain and ELECTRIC), then in B (Praktica
Bayonet) mount (which is something of a copy of K mount, but
uses the ELECTRIC system of open-aperture metering, instead of
mechanical linkage). So all K mount versions are remachined by
machineshops. See my post about M42>K.
(in response to...)
PFS> I own a Flektogon 2.8/20 in K mount. There are probably four M42s
PFS> for every K, but if you are patient you can find a K. Be advised,
PFS> however, that the K mount is for fit only; like the M42, it
PFS> darkens the viewfinder as you stop down. Still, it's nice to be
2) AFAIK, all 2.8/20 Flektogons were produced after multicoating
was adopted by CZJ/PENTACON. So all of them, except perhaps some
prototypes, are MC/MULTICOATED (and state it with proud letters
on the barrel, either white or red MC or MULTICOATED in
capitals). The multicoating is not as good as SMC of same time,
but it improved well with age, with the B mount multicoating
quite good (even the original MC was way better than contemporary
"MC" of such makers as Vivitar or Kiron or Sun/Sigma).
The earlier Flektogon, the 4/20mm Flektogon was singlecoated,
with the latest ones maybe multicoated (but I never saw one MCd).
so there the confusion might come from.
I have never seen or heard about singlecoated 2.8/20 flektogon.
(in response to...)
PFS> I believe all Ks are multicoated. (Only the most recent M42s are
PFS> multicoated.) Be advised, however, that the K mount is for fit only; like
That's all ;)
PFS> I ruined a Super Program's autoaperture by carelessly removing a Pentax
PFS> M42-to-K adapter. My dealer advised me to put the adapter on one body and
PFS> never remove it.
And I never understand why pentax didn't choose same route when
changing mounts like Pentacon did with Prakticas - from M42 to B
bayonet. They decreased the register distance, so an adapter
exists that can the lens be screwed into permanently, and with
the adapter removed from (or put on) a B mount body quickly. Of course still
stop-wodn metering, but much better than Pentax's route. I too
almost ruined a Pentax body while removing the adapter (fortunately,
almost). But as I don't want the 2.8/20 or 1.8/80 be drilled
into (losing part of their value), I am looking for a good M42
body, preferably spotmatic or pre-sptmtc asahi. I personally feel
M42 lenses are really nice when one can screw them - it makes
you choose a given focal length for given action better, because
changing is slower, and it's also more precise fit than any
bayonet can give.
Good light,
Frantisek Vlcek
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
