Carl Zeiss Jena 35mm f2.4 Flektogon - a review of this highly rated old lens + compared to Prakticar
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ก.ค. 2024
- Some people claim that the Flektogon is one of the very best vintage lenses. But what is this old M42 mount lens really like to use? And how does it compare to the Praktica mount Prakticar version. I enjoyed trying these legendary lenses, but would I buy one?
Many thanks to warwickshire_wanderer for lending me the lens. / warwickshire_wanderer - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![[Live สด] การออกรางวัลสลากกินแบ่งรัฐบาล งวดวันที่ 16 กรกฎาคม 2567](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/B8gcGM6I6e4/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm so glad that you were able to test the M42 version of the Fleck and test on both crop and full-frame mirrorless cameras. Your new results now closely match my M42 version.
I especially appreciated the comparison images and your expert descriptions of the characteristics of this lens.
Excellent and detailed review and summary. Great to see the feedback from the vintage lens community.
Many thanks!
The 35/2.4 Flektogon was my main travel lens for many years back in the day when it was so much cheaper (2010ish). What I valued was its close focusing ability when shooting exotic dishes on holiday, plus all the other qualities you mention here…especially its vintage look.
However, I found the screw on mount really frustrating as it was always coming lose and eventually would never screw on with the scales on top…they’re always off at an angle making it hard to use. I guess this could be resolved by buying a new adapter, but eventually I found its weight a burden on my shoulder and its front heaviness annoying. Worst of all, I tired of its vintage ‘over contrasty’ look in some situations.
So by 2012/13, I went completely in the opposite direction getting a Contax G35/f2, which is an amazing performer, super lightweight and half a stop faster. For travel photography and landscapes it’s a brilliant lens for its tiny size, perfect balance and excellent sharpness and modern contrast. I wasn’t at all phased by the clunky focusing adapter.
But when I went fullframe mirrorless, I noticed a problem with very slightly magenta corners with a tiny touch of smearing in the extreme corners. Plus I started missing close focusing for travel food photography.
Which brings me on to today, when around 2018 or so I bought the Zeiss ZM 35/1.4…a rangefinder lens which being redesigned for digital has far less problems in the corners (though it does come with field curvature problems). But best of all, it was a stop faster than the G35 and 1.5x faster than the Flek, and with a close focus adapter great for exotic food shots and limited macro.
The compromise is it’s significantly bigger and heavier than the G35 but still smaller than the Flek, but the trade off with the G35 is having a do-everything fast modern lens that’s tiny compared to non-rangefinder lenses.
Indeed it’s been so successful that I’ve pretty much switched to using rangefinder lenses for their excellent weight/size performance ratio when hiking for landscapes. Plus having tiny fast glass is perfect for travel portraits.
It’s been such a good experience that I’m now considering replacing my sensor glass with Kolari Ultra Thin to get even better performance with wide angle rangefinder lenses so that I can ditch the heavy SLR lenses I’m using and have just one mount (Leica M) which will allow me to ditch the heavy adapters by just having one plus a backup and save even more weight.
One of those adapters will be an autofocus adapter allowing me to do autofocus manual lenses…a seriously useful benefit as you can imagine.
But here’s the twist where I’ve come full circle, because there are times when a vintage look is just far more satisfying than taking the same shots as everyone else. And now that I have the good fortune of still having the Flek and G35…they both still find their way into my bag every now and then.
Though I really do have to replace that dodgy adaptor!
Cool video; thanks for making it. This comment is for you and the viewers. I'm an old guard photographer from the film days, and I'm still active today. One of my favorite setups includes this lens. I have a red MC Flektogon lens (identical to the one in this video) that I use on a Sony α7 mounted with an adjustable macro focusing helicoid M42 to Sony E adapter. When fully extended, the adapter brings the min focus distance down to single millimeters and gives you pretty good true macro performance. I've done two art shows with images taken with nothing but this setup. I highly recommend the 35mm CZJ Flektogon for this purpose and general use. I got mine before vintage lenses blew up. I think I paid $20 for it with its case. The current prices, though high, are still fair IMO when you compare the 35mm Flektogon and macro focuser combo price to modern macro setups that will give you comparable quality. That's just my opinion, though, your mileage may vary.
In my opinion is not just a “good” lens. Depends on your luck, every copy is different in performance. I have and had a lot of lenses and used em’ all. From the Ultron to the somewhat weirdly Weltblick’s 135mm f/1,8 then to Pentax/Takumar territory.
So, I have the non MC Flek and I can say it’s razor sharp. At micro contrast it just blows away my modern sigma art 35 f/1,4. It’s just right as a lens for a 35, the focus is smooth and for b&w it is a just go for it lens. Now, where’s the problem?
Depends of the luck with it. As I mentioned earlier every copy it’s just different, at Flek’s. I had 2 more that I sold because the performance was waay lower. One of them was a red MC.
This lens have what a lot don’t. Character
• Cheers and welcome back! 🎉
I own this lens. One of the best 35mm lenses Ive ever used. Will NEVER sell it.
Another wonderful video, I was always hoping you'd get to this CZJ Flektogon.
I occasionally use the same type of red MC "Flek" that I inherited from my father on my Fuji XT10. The 1.5 crop makes it useful for some indoor portraits. I was delighted to get a few shots of my Dad's great grand children but I just love to be able to use it as more than an ornament and see some of the same magic he saw in it.
An informative and enjoyable review, thank you. I appreciate your illustrative comparison sample images. In the mid-1980s, I owned a Flektogon (M42) for use on a Ricoh XR-2s with a K-mount adapter, but I traded it toward a 28-135 zoom instead which I found more versatile for travel photography, only to regret it in hindsight. Although I was in photo retail at the time, I made no comparisons with the Prakticar of that time, so your review is appreciated as I gradually reassemble a small kit of mostly Pentax M-series primes in retirement to use with our K20D and K-5. Cheers.
I have this version in perfect condition and a Zebra 2.8 that needed a service.
The Zebra feels much older and is actually 3.8/4 at 18cm focus. Worth remembering. I've used a lot of Takumar and Cosina Tomioka and Pentacon glass, the MC Flektogon is always my go-to lens. I even prefer my Tessar over some of my Takumar 1.4. Not necessarily because they are better, but have much more character. I love the feel of the Zebra over the MC but it just does not deliver to the high standard I always get from it. Are they worth the hype? Yes.
I was ebay hunting for a Flektogon for a while. But after watching this and other channels about adapted lenses, decided that the Takumars and Yashicas were good enough.
I can get a quite decent new lens for my camera that will have AF and an iris under motor control for when that is desired (almost never tbh but there has to be some use?).
As far as I'm concerned, adapted lenses better make dogs look like unicorns if they cost more than a modern lens with all it's benefits. So I stick to Takumars mostly.
Though even my coated Takumars are humbled by scenes with too much brightness. Blobbing out on sunsets, lakes and bright architecture.
I assume the older Zeiss suffer as well from this. No amount of iris can fix that when it's happening in the glass in front of the iris.
The same scenes are rendered perfectly with my Fuji lenses (not even red badge ones).
Honestly the Helios-44 'zebra' I picked up for $45 is the only vintage M42 lens I have that I can't live without.
Besides the famous bokeh, I like the 85mm-ish focal length, on a crop sensor Fuji.
And it really has a look to it that works very well after punching up.
The Takumars and Yashicas are hit and miss. Some have too much CA and coma to be used for anything with lots of dynamic range, and the lack of AF makes them difficult for street shooting or birding. Though the price difference between a 200mm Fuji and Takumar has me trying very hard!
Many thanks for your very interesting comments. I used to think the Takumars were the "bees knees". However, as I get to know more brands - I agree with you - they are hit and miss in terms of their performance. My Best Takumars and Yashicas are excellent in any company. And a simple extension tube can give me that close up beauty with paying Flektogon prices. My Helios 44 (in my case it would be the silver 44) is one of the few lenses I can't live without.
I feel the close focussing capability and the sharpness wide open are a great combo for this lens. It is a more modern rendering lens than most vintage lenses, the Flektogon 35mm 2.8 (from which the Mir 1 37/2.8 is derived) has more vintage character. It is Comparable to the difference between Super-Takumar 35/2 version 1 to version 2. Comparing it to a Modern Macro probably isn't really fair but maybe something like the Pentax DA 35mm 1:2.4 is. That lens I think has better microcontrast than the Flektogon but I also think it's longitudinal aberration are worse.
I think you've got it about right here in your review. I have the Praktica version of this lens and frankly the main reason I keep it is for close up shots, and even at that there are other lenses which might do just as well. As far as landscapes, I have never had much luck with the lens (but then I do not have a lens hood). Lastly, my Praktica lens is also prone to lubrication problems, with a slightly sticky shutter. So, all in all I think it's just an ok lens.
Well reasoned points here, but I have to say that price dictates value as well. Buying a very nice Fleck at a low price would be a lifelong delight . .
Yes, I agree. If an excellent condition working copy could be found for under $75 (for example), it would be a very good buy.
You've done so well here! Keep this up and maybe Netflix will reach out. A vintage lens heist thriller in your future...? I've been happy with my Praktica lenses as far as build quality goes, but mine are all earlier, so I've nothing later to compare them too.
I have the red MC Flek, as well as the various Taks. This week I took out another 35 that deserves consideration, the Soligor C/D 35mm f2 lens. The glass seems to have a nicer inherent contrast that renders skies and clouds very pleasingly, much like the uncoated auto-Taks it seems to me. It can also focus as close as the Flektogon. I commented on a photo posted to my Flickr account a few days ago: "Soligor C/D lenses are somewhat rare. They were for the most part fast primes made by Tokina and marketed as professional lenses. This lens was manufactured in the mid 70s and can focus down to about eight inches or twenty centimeters. My subjective impression is that it may beat out the CZJ Flektogon 35mm f2.4 as far as image quality goes.'
The flek is nice, and I have one in my red set. However, the Zuiko 35mm F2.8 that I bought for less than half the price is way better.
Great review! I will note that you can get more accurate colors in camera once you use a grey card. I slightly disagree with it not being value for the money. 9 times out of 10 a modern lens will be very sterile with very flat rendering. Not to mention within the price range of the Flektogon you will be limited to cheaply made modern lenses from China or Korea that heavily rely on in camera corrections. I can understand if you prefer the convenience of AF for portraits. However, for landscape you would want to be using that AF lens in MF. The feel of a vintage MF lens is a better experience when shooting landscape. Not to mention that this Carl Zeiss has wonderful micro contrast that give a nice 3D pop to your photographs. The kind of depth that leave modern lenses within that budget soulless. I have a feeling that you're trying to influence the market to bring those prices down.💡😅 If that's the case than please make a video to influence the market to bring down the price of the Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar 55mm F/1.4. As I feel the Sony 50mm F/1.2 GM is better value for money.😉
Keep up the great work.👍🏼
I have seen this video before, but today it is more than idle curiosity. I have just picked up a Praktica MTL 5 with 3 Carl Zeiss Jena lenses, inclusive of which is this very same Flektagon that you have tested. I intend to use this on my full fram Pentax K-1 and my micro four thirds Olympus e-300 and OM-D E-M1 as a fast portrait lens. I am going to be very interested to see how this affects the two systems.
Thank you for the review.
Great comparison and follow up to your earlier video. I will stick with my Auto Takumar 35mm f2.3 with a my Leica M to L close focusing helicoid for my best vintage 35mm on my Leica SL 601.
I have the MC Red version for m42 together with a zhongy lens turbo II on my fuji X-T2 . Great combo and for me better option than the XF Fuji lens 23mmF2. My go out combo with CZJ lenses togehter with the pancolar 50mm 1.8
But right now my holy trinity is the takumar family with 20mm + 35mmF2 and 50mm 1.4 togehter with orginal lens hoods a dream
I own the 2.8 Zebra version. Sharp, can focus really close and very creamy. But it have something that I don't like. Maybe it's my copy, maybe I did not find the right moment to test it, I'm not sure. I don't love the colors, and don't love the sharpness. Anyway, at 35mm it's probably my best vintage glass, so maybe it's time to give it a second chance. Great video as always!
Love your videos, Simon! Could you please do a review for the revered Carl Zeiss Pancolar 50mm f1.8 (8 blades)? Thanks in advance.
I had a copy of this Zeiss 2.4 a few years ago and found it was badly decentered. On the Zeiss version, you can remove the name ring and filter thread to get access to adjustment screws for the front optic group. Using a test chart and a FF digital camera I was able to dial in adjustments and correct for most of the decentering. This is a rather unique feature that I haven't found on any other vintage lens yet and allows the user to correct for any factory QC slack but also complicates disassembly. I'm not sure if the Prakticar has the same adjustment system but it might be easy enough to check.
My copy of the Zeiss was very sharp in the center and mid frame, with some deterioration is the corners that cleaned up when stopped down. Overall I agree with you that these lenses are overpriced and felt my money was better spent on something else, so I sold my copy some time after purchasing it.
Just happy having the SMC Takumar 50 and the wonderful Minolta Celtic 135mm 2.8 among my Fuji lenses. I paid 24 bucks for that on ebay, and it knocks me out. And I have plenty of Fuji primes to compare it to. The Fotasy adapters on ebay are a great deal, (12 bucks and free shipping) enough that I have one for each of my vintage lenses. That you turned me onto. (Yes the Tair, mint from Ukraine) But jeez, Minolta prices are so low...and they're marvelous. Plus, if I get robbed of it, I can get another.
Hi. I'm a cinematographer and have a set of Zeiss Jena flektagons adapted for use in filmmaking. I have 35, 50 and a 135 and I plan on getting a 20mm flektagon. The apertures on mine are declicked and there are some additions like rings to mount the lightweight snap-on matt box and focus rings. Upon removing the ball from the aperture I've encountered a problem where, if a M to A switch is changed in position, it will make the aperture stuck. A few of them had to be taken apart to "unstuck" the aperture after I learned that. Optical quality wise - I am extremely happy with my copies of 50 and 135. However, the 35mm is the worst one out of the bunch. It absolutely has to be stopped down to F4 to become somewhat sharp. Using it with a speed booster makes it worse, so I wouldn't recommend it on something like GH5 or a BM Pocket 4K if you want the best out of this one, or any lens for that matter. Chromatic aberration is OK it's not good and not bad either. Close focusing distance is very good.
I have a white MC flektogon 2.4 in zebra body. I'm sending it for a service next month since a piece of hair got into the lens. I hope it doesn't get messed up when it returns
I have the Flek red MC and also the Cosina made Distagon. IMO, the Flek is better because of its much close focusing distance and painterly bokeh. However, you have to watch out for the dry grease on the aperture blades. Fortunately, the Flek can be easily taken apart with the right tools. The Distagon has the typical Zeiss modern look with high contrast and 3D pop.
Great review. Thinking on getting one flektagon m42 to use in my Pentax MX with an adapter. Between this one and a Pentax 35mm 2.8, is the Carl Zeiss very superior?
Thank you !
I think there are 2 or 3 versions of the MC fleks. And a few other single coating f/2.8 versions. What I've seen so far is the versions from the 70s are the best built. My copy is the same as shown in the video, very sharp center, very little barrel distortion and fantastic flair resistance.
My copy is also the same as the one in the video, but after a couple years shooting with it, I think I either have a 'not great' copy, or that when it was serviced (by the previous owner) it wasn't put back together correctly. The results are... fine. I like the color rendition, especially on cloudy days, but when zooming in for focus on a modern mirrorless, I feel like even when focus is spot on, it's just... average. For reference, I shoot exclusively vintage Nikkor, Rokkor, Tak, Canon, and CZ (non-jena) lenses on this body, so it's not like I'm comparing it against modern digital lenses. I have 3 other vintage lenses in this focal length (as it is one of my favorites), from cheap to nearly as expensive as the Flek, and other than its focal distance I feel like it's quite firmly in the middle of the pack.
I like hexagons. It's my favorite aperture shape. Pentagons are also nice.
Over time I've become a fan of the 35mm focal length on my crop sensor cameras I still prefer 28mm somewhat I have two 35mm lenses a 35mm 2.4 autofocus and a 35mm Takumar 3.5 lens.
Don’t know if you’re taking requests, but I’d love to see a comparison between this lens versus the TTArtisan 35mm 1.2 and the Laowa 33mm .95
Hey! I've got a question: is the focus ring direction normal or reversed? What I call "normal" is rotating counterclockwise to focus infinity (from the cameraman perspective). Thanks!! Great video, by the way! Thanks :)
My flek has a broken aperture and when I called a lens repair specialist he said it was uneconomical to repair/replace and is a very common flaw. It would be a great lens if it didn't have this inherent flaw and if I were in the market for a 35 I would steer clear of them for this reason.
i have the Zeiss Jenna Tessa 50mm m42 lens with Canon m42 mount... all ok, but aperture not working.. tried on Sony e mount, Nikon... same. any idea why ?
pretty good result for a old lens， but the color do show a yellow tint
A very interesting review. I am not at all surprised that the earlier lens turned in a better performance. I suppose one now has to ask whether the f2.4 version is a better performer than the earlier f2.8!. The earlier lenses seem to be somewhat cheaper to buy, except perhaps, the original, natural finish aluminium version, which seems to command a price premium. However, even to my incomplete knowledge, there are at least five different versions of the f2.8 35mm Flektogon. A lot of the changes were cosmetic, but not all. It must also be remembered that although these earlier lenses were coated, they were not multi coated, and this may affect flare/colour etc. The 'Zebra' livery models had the close focussing ability, (down to 0.6 ft), plus the close focussing, Automatic Aperture Correction mechanism. I do not think that earlier Flektogons had the close focussing ability, or the aperture correction mechanism, but I could be very wrong on this point. Again, I do not know if this mechanism was fitted to the later f2.4 version. It was certainly present on some other lenses from Jena, my 135mm f4 'Sonnar' is so fitted.
On a completely different topic, will you be carrying out a review of the Exakta VX1000 camera shown during the Flektogon revue?.
Many thanks for your very informative comments. They are much appreciated.
And thanks for the mention of the extremely handsome Exakta VX1000. I have been thinking of reviewing the camera and the Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar 50mm f2 lens. It'll have to be the ergonomics and mechanics, and not the camera's performance with film, as my copy is non-functioning. The lens is good too (on digital cameras). I also need to compare the lens with the M42 Pancolar 50mm f1.8. The VX1000 has a number of interesting features - not least the interchangeable viewfinder/prism. Quite a hefty camera to hold!
@@Simonsutak If you wish I may be able help you with the VX 1000. I am in touch with a person in the UK, that handles GDR equipment exclusively. He has overhauled two Exaktas for me, and at the moment has two of my EXA's. He has also rebuilt a Pentacon Contax 'F' for me. He makes his own shutter curtains too.
I would have to ask him though as he once told me that he did not really want any more work, as he has been trying to retire for the last twenty years!!.
if you are sensitive to color reproduction, it would be much interesting to compare french legendary vintage lens such as som berthiot’ s flor and anastigmat series, h.roussel’ s kynor series, boyer paris saphir B green letter version etc with german made vintage lens. you might get shocked for how stunning and color/grey smooth transition that french vintage lens outperformed all other german made lens.
Got the SMC version in impeccable condition for 10 bucks at a private sale. Steal of my life.
have you ever tried the kipon iberit 35mm f2.4 version of the zeiss flectakon?
No, in fact I’ve not looked at one before your comment. It looks interesting. Do you have one?
And there will still be some people saying that ''3D pop'' isn't a real thing, even though it can literally be observed in some lenses, while it can't in others, no matter how good the lighting is! 🤣This is why old Nikon, Zeiss, Leica, Hasselblad, Voigtlander, Contax, Yashica and many other lenses produce such good images! It's because of that almost 3D like rendering!
It came from viewing transparencies originally. The Contax Zeiss 120mm macro was king of 3D back then.
@@sclogse1 What I found out over the years of trying out different glass from various different manufacturers, is that no matter the manufacturer, almost all lenses that have APO glass design (not only APO coatings, actual APO glass) and good (read; clear) rendition of contrast and saturation of light, are usually the lenses that have that so called ''3D pop'' to them.
I found an Asahi Pentax Auto-Takumar 35mm f/2.3 lens for more than double the price of the Carl Zeiss Jena 35mm f2.4 Flektogon, for triple the price of the Mir 37, and one and a half times the MC MIR 24N (24H) 35mm f/2. In your opinion, is it worth buying?
Thank you!
Really hard choice. Do I think the Auto-Takumar is worth twice a Flektogon? Personally, to me, yes, because I love its wide open bokeh, and how I can unscrew the front element and use it as a macro lens. I've not tried the Mirs so I can't comment. The real question though, is whether you'd like the Takumar enough to justify it's price, given how you plan to use it. For example, if you plan to use one as a stopped down lens, I'd not buy one. (BTW I'm planning to post a TH-cam review of the Auto-Takumar within the next seven days, where I talk about the bokeh/macro options etc).
@@Simonsutak
The doubt is gone!
I already own the Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 55mm f 1.8 and the Super Takumar 50mm f1.4 (8 elements) so I decided and bought the Auto-Takumar 35mm f/2.3. Watched and rewatched your beautiful and helpful vintage lens films I realized you were absolutely right: Takumar forever!
Thank you very much indeed!
Alec
Simon, I think you got one of those bad exemplars or previously opened and badly assembled one. My "aus Jena Prakticar" does not show any of that ghosting and is very sharp. Not the sharpest vintage 35mm lens but I see no issue there. I may put some photos on flickr if you want. As far as I know prakticar and flektogon has same optical design and glass and are from that point of view same lens. However, they differ in MFD and are not identical.
Side note: aus Jena was export brand for Carl Zeiss Jena due to some legal issues with western Zeiss. In most socialist countries of the time quality control for exported good was the first class and lacking for domestic ones, and that often resulted i big difference in quality of the products targeted for domestic market. I could not be sure for DDR but that my be the case.
Is this (RED) MC Flektogon 35mm 2.4 Radioactive?
Camerapedia only have Auto Not Radioactive. I see no other forum or video talking if it is radioactive.
I see 3 Variant of this
No Electric Text in Front (This Video) before the MC
- (RED) MC Flektogon 2.4/35
The one with Electric text before the MC in the Front
- Electric MC Flektogon 2.4/35
And Auto after the end of Flecktagon Text in the Front
- Flektogon 2.4/35 Auto
The one in this video is not radioactive. Not sure about the others.
Ty for the response @@Simonsutak
I was planning to buy this if not radioactive
Sorry once again, that last word should have read 'review', yet another senior moment!.
Your images are great.. but you’re too forensic..
You are correct. The lens was criticised in comparison to a modern example. We are looking at a 70 year old design. Would one expect a 70 year old car, or just about anything else 70 years old for that matter, to perform as well as newer products, no, of course not, so why should a lens, particularly one that was designed without any of the aids that modern lens designers have at their disposal, yet, no mention was made of this. I feel that the fact that these old lenses are being compared to newer examples tells us all we need to know about their quality. Any comparison should be a fair one.
After finishing this video, I looked the images and thought - why didn't I just let the images speak for themselves? But this video was also an exercise in trying to answer the question - is this lens really worth the money one needs to pay (typically) for a good copy?
Well, I agree with everything you say! I tried to cover these kinds of points in a video I posted some time ago on vintage lenses on digital cameras.
My objective in this review was to look at how the Flektogon performs optically on digital cameras - putting aside discussions of the old design, the emotions of using a fine old lens and so on. If you only have a certain amount of money to spend on a prime 35mm lens, I wanted to show how the Flektogon I borrowed performed, regardless of its heritage.
I tried to select lenses for comparison in this and the other video on the Prakticar, that were in the same "ball-park" cost-wise for second-hand versions. And when I find a cheap new Sony kit lens (that some reviewers describe as "rubbish") performs better in terms of contrasts and colours to the Flektogon - then that to me is a relevant finding.
It's not an unfair head-to-head analysis of lenses of different ages and designs; it's a simple head-to-head competition for my money. And balanced against this of course is the excellent and relatively unique character of the Flektogon close-up wide open - you pays your money and you takes your choice.
@@Simonsutak You are quite right Simon of course!. I have to admit to being biased, as I do not own a digital camera, only my analogue Exaktas, so kit lenses, and the like, for digital cameras, I have no knowledge of.