Ha ha... I was just thinking the same... however if we bide our time and wait patiently with eBay gems turn up in auction where we can win (last bid 5 seconds to go..). Sometimes people list incorrectly... I search 'lens' auction lowest price/postage and scroll through..
By the way, I forgot to acknowledge the fact that you produce such beautiful videos and I can tell that you took your time to make sure you show off the best of these old glasses in various situations. And I thank you for that.🥂
Hi again, I just want to say I own a 50mm 1.8 Pancolar delivered to me by a miracle! Anyhow, all you read here is spot on. Let’s not confuse this vintage lens with the beautifully sharp, say Sigma 56-1.4, because they are different beasts. But more about the “Rendering” of colour and somehow the feeling of being right back in the time that this lens was made. It was, and is, an outstanding piece of engineering and glass work. In the old world, it was discussed as being the grinding mediums that were used, to cause the different characteristics of European, German lenses, and Japanese lenses, also the miracle coatings.But, those that believe such things, can’t actually explain, “Bitingly sharp and contrasty” and “Superbly sympathetic, colour rendering and detail” The Pancolar is such a lens, how does it feel? It feels great!
Hello and thank you so much for sharing your videos with us. I've got three slightly different Pancolars 50 f2.0 from Exactas IIa and IIb and I like them very much also with modern mirrorless full frame. Also I have three very different Tessar 2.8 with M42 and Exakta Bajonet from Praktica, Contax D and Exa. Great lenses and very sharp, great colors. I prefer the youngest Tessar of the Praktica. And at last I do have two Planars with Y/C and Rollei QBM Bajonet, one of my sharpest lenses together with the Zuikos and the Takumars and the Rokkors and the Nikkors and the ....;-) I like the old ones and I use plenty of them analog and digital. My favorite lens these days is the old Meyer Görlitz Lydith 30mm f3.5 with Exakta Bajonet. Beautiful lens.
All of these look fantastic, and I would be happy getting any of them. The one which stands out a bit for me is planar as I love muted colors which lean towards blue...feels cinematic
The Planar is lovely - I didn't find it quite as nice as the Pancolar in this test, but we must choose our lenses to suit our taste! Thanks for looking in.
Yet again another truly in-depth review of great lenses from the past. We are really spoilt for choice with these old lenses, the fact that the decades from the late 50's to the late 90's were dominated by SLR cameras in great profusion means that there are still lots of obscure lenses to be discovered, and until very recently, huge bargains to be had. Mirrorless photographers are snapping these lenses up like seals going after a slice of fish, and prices are climbing to reflect this. I wish the country was back to normal so we can get out and trawl the secondhand shops and charity/thrift shops again. You have given us so many great lenses to look out for, Nigel, I can feel my wallet weeping in pain. Regards George
Another excellent video. Back in the 70’s/80’s Amateur Photographer magazine used the Yashica ML 50mm 1.9 as the standard lens that all others were compared against then Yashica Contax released the 50mm 1.7 Planner and that became the one to have. I wish I had kept mine but still have the Yashica which I have had for 40+ years.
I've been using the Pancolar on my old Canon 5D full frame body. Very nice results - a very nostalgic look to images. I had an M42 to Canon EF adapter already and have ordered an M42 to Sony E adapter from Urth. I'll be using the Pancolar on my Sony A7 and A7iii bodies. Sony focus peaking makes using these old classic lenses very easy. Sony A7 bodies allow much higher ISO settings and have a very clean look when you push the ISO.
@@zenography7923 The 3D effect from vintage lenses in markedly different to the modern, computer-designed ones. While colours can be corrected in post production, the 3D 'character' cannot be replicated. I'm not a Luddite and have several modern lenses, including the lovely 85mm Viltrox mk2 but I do love the old-school, 3D film-era lenses for their nostalgic look.
Another great video, thank you very much! I just recently got interested in vintage lenses by a lucky purchase of a CZJ Pancolar 50, together with a camera which I was actually interested at first. I really fell in love with the Pancolar, its beautiful bokeh, but also the colors. And it has a very good sharpness and I appreciate the minimum distance for close-ups with my Sony Alpha 6600.
I love the Pancolar. Just got also the meyer-optic-gorlitz Oreston, took it out today the first time. very happy with that lens also. esp like it for bnw (on my fuji). the other CZJ favourite is the 2omm f2.8 Flektogon. I prefer the old lenses, and I have only 1 fuji lens left (the 56mm), sold the others to pay for old lenses.
I personally love the Craftsmanship on the Old Lenses, and really not Impressed by todays modern Plastics! Character is Better than Bland, and Look Alike(s) of today!
Like the Tessar this Planar is a single coated lens, the Pancolar is an MC lens. I'd like to see a 50mm test showing the differences between single and multi coated that seems like a better comparison. Sigle coated Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar f2.8 (4 elements in 3 groups) Carl Zeiss Planar f1.8 W.Germany (7 elements / 6 groups) Schneider-Kreuznach SL-Xenon 1.8 (6 elements / 4 groups or Carl Zeiss Planar f2 construction) Multi coated Carl Zeiss Planar f1.8 HFT by Rollei (6 elements / 4 groups) Carl Zeiss Planar f1.7 Contax / Yachica (7 elements / 6 groups) Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar f1.8 (6 elements / 5 groups)
I love the planar 50mm 1.8 in qbm mount and I prefer it to the later Contax/Yashica versions: it's sharper than the 1.4 C/Y, also the 1.8 focuses at a close distance of 45cm while the 1.7 C/Y reaches only 60cm - although the 1.8 is the coolest one, it has a great contrast and can sustain direct lights fairly well (the one I own was made in W.Germany, I don't know if those made in Singapore are quite as good). ....anyway great video! as always interesting and inspiring
My preference also goes to the Planar 50mm f1.8 in QBM Carl Zeiss W. Germany. I thought the Carl Zeiss Planar f1.8 W. Germany only existed single coated. When I bought one in QBM 2 mound I found out that it was a multi coated lens.
@@zenography7923 I appreciate your videos about camera and lenses but I see very interesting pictures why don't you make a video about composition or color, or both? thank you very much
Sorry for coming in very late. The Planar as featured was a unique design for Rollei/Voigtländer not used anywhere else, including the Contax/Yashica family. Always found in QBM only one version branded as Voigtländer Color-Ultron was made in M42 screw mount, with multi-coating, for the initial run of the VSL1, itself a re-manufacture of the Zeiss-Ikon SL706. I bought my VSL1 brand new back then and was quite impressed by the lens; I subsequently sold it, with the benefit of hindsight I should not have done that.
It's always very nice to listen to your presentation. However, I have a comment on the way you compare different lenses. A good comparison shows all 3 lenses side by side. Only then, in equal settings of course, is it clear what you mean by the blur, the sharpness, the contrast and the color saturation for example. But of course it's much more fun to go through the city and take some pretty nice photos. It's not fun at all to have to make lists of apertures and such. You should make a combination of both, with only a few side by side photos.
The magic of vintage lenses is not primarily based on the specs but on the artistic impression they allow you to create. Direct comparisons can be problematic due to lack of consistent production quality, the constant changes during production which these lenses had over time and naturally the condition of a tested lens. Therefore I recommend to use the comparisons here just as an inspiration to perform your own tests and discover some "keepers" for your own taste and purposes.
Considering the insanely high levels of radioactivity of some Pancolar lenses (see below) the Planar appears to me as a safer, similarly attractive alternative. As far as I am informed the first Pancolar 50/1.8 lenses were using the radioactive Thorium glass up to serial number 8552600 (from 1964 up to 1967). Then a new optical design was calculated which was based on a 6/5 design without using longer radioactive elements. But I recommend to check that with a Geiger counter since the high amount of Thorium in the glass causes lots of beta and gamma rays which represent in the measured intensity a serious health risk: th-cam.com/video/LjPTI5j0W4g/w-d-xo.html These old radioactive lenses had a much better picture quality than the later MC versions. This was caused not only due to the Thorium in the glass but ensured by a much better quality control during the production process. The mentioned Rollei F1.8 lens was produced in Singapore based on the Carl Zeiss design. The coating might be different and not be reaching the same quality level of the Planar F1.8. The very early Pentacon 50mm 1.8 lenses (which were produced in the CZJ factories) have the same 6/5 design of the Pancolar which got changed to a 6/4 design when the production of this lens was moved to the Meyer Optik Görlitz factories. I don't know yet how you can easily identify this early batch. A comparison with the popular, more modern and highly regarded Planar F1.7 (produced for Contax) would have been interesting too.
After so many glowing recommendations I finally acquired a Pancolar - and my Zeiss CY Planar f/1.7 absolutely trumps it. Planar is noticeably sharper, with a touch better contrast, and is more color accurate (not “cool” at all). I was disappointed the Pancolar didn’t win out, but have to admit the truth… Zeiss Planar is the king of my 50mm collection.
I whole heartily concur with you. This guy builds hype with his videos. Back in the day like 30 plus years ago these were considered economy lenses if you couldn’t afford lenses made in the free world.
This video shows the biggest difference two Cold War Zeiss operations. Quality versus Character. Oberkochen went for quality but Jena stuck by it's character. Whilst the Planar is technically better, the Pancolar retains the elements that made it a legend amongst Eastern/Soviet bloc lens connysewers. It's all about the swirl and the bubbles.
@@zenography7923 oh yes, its character is definitely the difference. I'm also pleased the Tessar managed to hold its own against its mighty siblings. It's still dirt cheap too.
Would love to see a comparison between this Planar f/1.8 and the Zeiss CY Planar f/1.7 [the one I have]. I definitely don't consider the CY Planar to look "cool" and I'm guessing it would rate a bit warmer than the f/1.8 here - but as warm as the Pancolor? Maybe not. I have no idea how sharpness would compare, but am super curious to know.
@@zenography7923 It really is... pleasant, accurate color and just a tiny fraction sharper than my Nikkor AiS 50 f/1.4 at f/2.8 [maybe a tie]; yet with a slightly "smoother" less 3D look if that makes sense. Is my go to lens for shooting interviews as a free lance videographer.
A really nice video on a really nice trio there, Nigel! I bought the 1.7 T* C/Y mount version a few days ago, from an elderly gentleman who sold his old gear. Do you know if there is any difference? By the way, I have a problem with the adapter it doesn't fit! However I have film cameras I can use.
Not sure whether there's a difference Kalle, but I would think they're pretty similar. Perhaps you have a bad adaptor there but as you say, it's always nice to shoot on film!
I know that the Carl Zeiss Ultron is a planar design with some additional elements, but I'd be curious to see that in the mix. I know it's a very expensive lens at this point. I haven't personally tested my copy out yet as I'm waiting to receive an adapter
Seems like the Zeiss Planar very much resembles the Auto-Revuenon MC f1,4 50 mm (which was a Tomioka made lens) in it's characteristics. I compared both on the fujifilm x e1 and found the Revuenon as cool, but even more contrasty and sharp as the Planar... although with slightly more CA.
I actually prefer the Tessar out of the 3 (kept it out of the 3) it has enough differences compared to the modern lenses to make it much more interesting while still beeing an excellent lens.
I like your pictures a lot..... What has always been mysterious to me: Why does the Auto whitebalance not correct the different color renditions of different lenses? Keep on making me wanting more lenses.....
Any light hitting the front element at the wrong angle is probably going to exit the rear element at a bad angle and although this may not be a problem for a Leica film camera, it may be a problem for a digital mirrorless camera, unless you've had your sensor customized. No? this is more a question than a statement as I'm not that experienced and am only about to get my first rangefinder M mount Zeiss lens, but I was of the opinion that these lenses can have problems on normal digital cameras, especially the wider lenses as the light leaving the rear element is at an even more bad angle than on a digital lens.
Well, you've tested a way old Planar design, without the famous T* (T-Star) multicoatings, this is the Rollei version, which was being avialable into Rollei QBM (Quick Bajonet Mount) and also more seldom in M42 mount. The Carl Zeiss Planar 50/1.7 T* is a different beast, and much better. That old Planar 50/1.8 was specifically computed for the SL35 Series (and SL 350) Rollei series, but it's optically a tad inferior to the later, newer, mentioned Carl Zeiss Planar C/Y (Contax/Yashica) 50mm F1.7 T* prime, and it does need especially a lens hood, otherwise it could have flares very easily into sunlight, since the coatings aren't that great. Later iterations featured the HFT (High Fidelity Transfer) coatings, which have been mass-produced by Rollei into Singapore, not germany, and HFT coatings are 99% as good, as the Zeiss West Germany (Oberkochen) T-Star coatings. (That means back into it's heyday, we're speaking of early 70's lenses - starting from 1972 on) So the later introduced C/Y Contax T* lenses, especially the MM Lenses starting from 1985 - does feature better, more advanced T* coatings here into contrast. I know that, because i am shooting literally all my life with Zeiss Lenses, since i was a teenager. HFT by Rollei was being made within a License agreement with Carl Zeiss Oberkochen, Germany and was being introduced into 1972. So basically all Rollei Lenses since then featured the HFT coatings, but these are older tech (T-Star coatings are always being optimized, during the years, -decades without further notice - so one can't simply compare a HFT or T* coating from the past with a current Zeiss Lens and T* coatings - it's totally different, and Zeiss wouldn't give away any kind of specific info, regarding how many layers these multicoatings are - what was being enhanced, etc to the Enduser.)
I see different pancolar. One looks just the same as yours but the "MC" sign is plain white, so I'm wondering if that makes a difference? because those seem to be a bit cheaper.
Another great video, thank you. Have you ever used or reviewed Meyer Optik Gorlitz lenses, I have the Lydith 30 mm f3.5 and the Oreston 50 mm f1.8, would be interested in your thoughts some time.
How did you test lenses regarding aperture settings? How did you compensate for the Tessar being f2.8 vs the other two being 1.8, in respect to background blur/bokeh? Good review. I love your videos.
I didn't compensate at all - the idea in this one was to see how a cheaper lens stands up against two more expensive ones - I'm glad to say the Tessar acquitted itself well!
Pancolars 855xxx and earlier are thoriated and have 8 blades in the diaphragm. Their glass often is characteristically yellow from the thorium. The cutoff runs right between 855xxx and 856xxx. While still in zebra design, the 856xxx and following have six blades and a bluish purple front element from the coating. I would venture the hypothesis that the zebra versions are better mechanically and close if not identical optically to the later version shown here, except perhaps the coating.
Hi Zenography. Would you consider reviewing the Konica Hexanon 50mm f/1.8? I know you’ve reviewed other Hexanon lenses before, but this one appears to be not very talked about online and I’ve seen it as cheap as $19 USD online.
I think there's a different way to street test lens edge sharpness. That is to focus on the edge of the frame with a manual lens, not the center. Naturally having a detailed object on the edge. It's a rare kick these days to actually watch the image get sharper as you stop down. With a 1.8, you might want to focus at 2.8 just to help you see. My all metal 1.8 planar is very tack sharp across the field at f4. Of course, being mounted on a Fuji, it's now a 75mm. But with the bright light still coming in wide open, you wouldn't think so.
There's little to no difference in optical quality vetween early and late (MC) versions, but the earlier version contains thorium in its glass, and is slightly radioactive, which may or may not influence your decision!
For any given lens, effective MFD will be shorter by about 50% on a micro four thirds camera. The lens doesn't change of course, but the smaller sensor looks through a more central portion of the lens, hence an effective magnification, hence shorter MFD!
I bought a Tessar for £34 at the house clearance sale, but I'm feeling really smug because it's a West Germany Zeiss, not jena, its beautiful workmanship, but needs an element clean ideally.
Thank you for this instructive comparison. I've been buying lenses based on your analysis and recommendations. Are other focal lengths in the Carl Zeiss Jena line as good for sharpness and character as the Pancolar 50mm? Such as the 35mm etc?
The 35mm Flektogon 2.4 is very sharp wide open, as is the 135mm f3.5. The 28mm 2.8 is nice too, although I think that lens was made by Cosina, or another third party manufacturer.
The 20 2.8, the Flektogon (35mm), the Pancolar 50/1.8 and the Pancolar 80/1.8 are phenomenal lenses. The 20 and 80 are late east German designs and, believe it or not, even better than the other two. The 50 is a great allrounder, but honestly many 50s are. The 35 is special and quite sought after. It is not actually a very sharp lens technically and produces softness in the corners below f3.5. What it does, however, is render perceptual sharpness because it has typical Zeiss 3D pop (best visible in b/w), it renders colors absolutely beautifully (although unusually for Zeiss Jena quite different from their other lenses), and it acts as a quasi macro with an MFD of 19 centimeters. Adapted to mirrorless the front element is basically on the object. Downsides are variable mechanical precision, frequently stuck aperture, and wiggly front group (that you can re-center easily yourself, yiu just have to know that it’s happening. The worst of all downsides is the front element right at the front of the barrel. You cannot reasonably shoot this lens without a lens hood. It ghost and flares and loses contrast like crazy in any side light situation otherwise.
Here's some more technical Data: Both the Planar and the Pancolar are descendents of the Double Gauß Lens. Here's where the similarity in evolution ends. Whereas the Planar is a direct descendant of the Double-Gauß lens, the Pancolar has a more complex history that goes as follows: Planar -> Biotar 2/58mm -> Biotar 2/50mm -> Flexon 2/50mm (Renamed due to Zeiss Oberkochen claiming the name "Biotar") -> Pancolar 2/50mm -> Pancolar 1.8/50mm -> JENA Prakticar 1.8/50mm (Renamed for the Praktica B-series and not to be confused with the PENTACON Prakticar 1.8/50mm which is just the classic Pentacon 1.8/50mm slightly modified). The planar should consist of 7 elements in 6 groups but the Pancolar needs less with only 6 elements in 5 groups. Another difference is that the Planar was originally a completely symetric design wheras the Pancolar is an asymetric design (Inherited from the Biotar). Whether or not one is better is difficult to say as both are incredibly well corrected constructions coming from well reputed Designers. If Harry Zöllner, one of the main engineers at Jena, got what he wanted we'd have a bunch of aspheric DDR lenses as he was considering this complex technique already in the mid 60s ! If you find one of those two for cheap, go for it. Another fun fact from the GDR lens production: An actual better lens than the Pancolar 2/50mm was produced along it. The then very advanced and now highly sought after Domiron 2/50mm from Meyer-Optik Görlitz. This lens offered better optical qualities and was cheaper than the Pancolar, it was however put out of production with the decreasing sales of the Exakta in the late 60s. The Domiron would later be overhauled becoming the Oreston 1.8/50mm which in turn would be slightly modified again in the 70s becoming the widely available PENTACON 1.8/50mm. It would be overhauled again for the new Praktica B-Series becoming the aforementioned PENTACON Prakticar 1.8/50mm. That's all
@@zenography7923 GDR Cameras and related photogrphical equipment is kinda my niche. Always happy to add some more knowledge. I could go on and on but I kinda wanna keep it related to what's in the Video. Also many thanks as you led me to many a great lens !
Gosh, that's a good price, well done! You'll find it's quite a lens, and as for the Flektogon it appeared quite regularly in my early videos, shouldn't be difficult to find!
@@zenography7923 hi i found one however, my flektogon that needed repairing that i paid £69 for was missing an aperture pin which i have managed to repair with a home made pin and just needs assembling now; i also purchased a Carl Zeiss 135mm 3.5 Sonar from ebay in mint condition for £55 posted which according to some reviews especially the pentax forum state it is a very good sharp lens however, i have my eye on a 2.8 version that are even better...
Everytime I watch one of your videos, I wind up on Ebay shortly thereafter. Last week I tried out the Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 50mm f/2.8 on a Sony A7III and took a few shots on the north shore of Prince Edward Island. I really like your channel and the lens as well, so please keep up the good work you are doing. I posted images from my first outing with the Tessar on my blog. www.robfaucher.com/nov-27-2020-photographing-peis-north-shore-with-a-50-year-old-cold-war-lens/
I've got a Zeiss Planar 50mm 2.0, from a Contarex camera. I haven't, shame on me, used it a lot. But in my limited use, I've found it to be very good, with good colors and sharpness. I finally just acquired a lens that I've been looking for, for several years. I've come across a few examples, but they were non functional or full of mold or beat to death, or they were way overpriced. This copy is in very good condition and was, by my standards, very reasonably priced. It's a Tokina 60 - 120 2.8 zoom and is in OM mount. In my limited, initial testing, I've found it to be very sharp, wide open, and stopped down one click even sharper and of course sharp from there on out. It's gloomy and raining right now, where I live. But, I hope to get out and do some more shooting with it in the near future. As I said, I've been "chasing" this lens for a while and from what I've seen, so far, I'm sure it will live up to my expectations. As always, I quite enjoyed your video, today. Thank you.
With a TS sound at the beginning, right? I studied German many years ago, but I hope you'll permit an Anglicisation, and that it doesn't grate too much...
From 1963-65 Zeiss made a fixed lens camera, the Contessa LK, that had a Zeiss Tessar 50mm f2.8 lens. The disadvantages were that it was a film camera, a fixed lens camera, and it required that you judge the distance to the subject for focus. The lens, however, was one of the best I've ever owned. What it did with light and color was magical. Even after forty years have passed I regret its loss. This week I chanced on a man in Germany who has removed some of these fixed lenses from the cameras and adapted them to m42 mounts. So now I'm waiting for the Tessar from a Contessa LK to arrive, and am excited to anticipate shooting with it on my Sony a7. www.etsy.com/shop/vintageglas
Please stop doing this to me! I can’t keep buying lenses! 🤣👌🏻
Ha ha... I was just thinking the same... however if we bide our time and wait patiently with eBay gems turn up in auction where we can win (last bid 5 seconds to go..). Sometimes people list incorrectly... I search 'lens' auction lowest price/postage and scroll through..
😁
I’m going broke buying adapters for lenses I don’t even have.... yet. 😁
:)
Glad you enjoyed my little Zeiss :)
Let's see what else I find that might be interesting for you.
It's wonderful, a lovely lens!
i found that the tessar used as a macro lens with extension tubes gives stunning results as well.
Thanks for the tip!
By the way, I forgot to acknowledge the fact that you produce such beautiful videos and I can tell that you took your time to make sure you show off the best of these old glasses in various situations. And I thank you for that.🥂
I don't know rather anyone can see it but the pancolar takes my breath away at every shots. I think I'm inlove... I haven't even own that lens.
f/2.8 - f/1.8 = + 1 1/3 stops ;) Great review - comprehensive and insightful, thank you. I used to see those Pancolars on Praktica SLRs in the 1960's.
Hi again, I just want to say I own a 50mm 1.8 Pancolar delivered to me by a miracle! Anyhow, all you read here is spot on. Let’s not confuse this vintage lens with the beautifully sharp, say Sigma 56-1.4, because they are different beasts. But more about the “Rendering” of colour and somehow the feeling of being right back in the time that this lens was made. It was, and is, an outstanding piece of engineering and glass work. In the old world, it was discussed as being the grinding mediums that were used, to cause the different characteristics of European, German lenses, and Japanese lenses, also the miracle coatings.But, those that believe such things, can’t actually explain, “Bitingly sharp and contrasty” and “Superbly sympathetic, colour rendering and detail”
The Pancolar is such a lens, how does it feel? It feels great!
Hello and thank you so much for sharing your videos with us.
I've got three slightly different Pancolars 50 f2.0 from Exactas IIa and IIb and I like them very much also with modern mirrorless full frame. Also I have three very different Tessar 2.8 with M42 and Exakta Bajonet from Praktica, Contax D and Exa. Great lenses and very sharp, great colors. I prefer the youngest Tessar of the Praktica. And at last I do have two Planars with Y/C and Rollei QBM Bajonet, one of my sharpest lenses together with the Zuikos and the Takumars and the Rokkors and the Nikkors and the ....;-) I like the old ones and I use plenty of them analog and digital. My favorite lens these days is the old Meyer Görlitz Lydith 30mm f3.5 with Exakta Bajonet. Beautiful lens.
Now that sounds like a very nice lens!
All of these look fantastic, and I would be happy getting any of them. The one which stands out a bit for me is planar as I love muted colors which lean towards blue...feels cinematic
The Planar is lovely - I didn't find it quite as nice as the Pancolar in this test, but we must choose our lenses to suit our taste! Thanks for looking in.
I use Pancolar Zebra 1.8 and its great portrait lense on Fuji system.
Yet again another truly in-depth review of great lenses from the past.
We are really spoilt for choice with these old lenses, the fact that the decades from the late 50's to the late 90's were dominated by SLR cameras in great profusion means that there are still lots of obscure lenses to be discovered, and until very recently, huge bargains to be had.
Mirrorless photographers are snapping these lenses up like seals going after a slice of fish, and prices are climbing to reflect this.
I wish the country was back to normal so we can get out and trawl the secondhand shops and charity/thrift shops again. You have given us so many great lenses to look out for, Nigel, I can feel my wallet weeping in pain.
Regards
George
Thanks George, very glad you're enjoying the videos. And yes, it will be nice when the world opens up again!
I love your test photos!
Thanks very much!
Great to see you back!!! Allways sharing!!! Grettings from sweden
Hello there!
Another excellent video. Back in the 70’s/80’s Amateur Photographer magazine used the Yashica ML 50mm 1.9 as the standard lens that all others were compared against then Yashica Contax released the 50mm 1.7 Planner and that became the one to have. I wish I had kept mine but still have the Yashica which I have had for 40+ years.
Glad to hear you're still enjoying it!
I`m from the former GDR and I use a lot of these lenses. Thanks for the videos.
Many thanks, glad you're enjoying the videos!
I've been using the Pancolar on my old Canon 5D full frame body. Very nice results - a very nostalgic look to images. I had an M42 to Canon EF adapter already and have ordered an M42 to Sony E adapter from Urth. I'll be using the Pancolar on my Sony A7 and A7iii bodies. Sony focus peaking makes using these old classic lenses very easy. Sony A7 bodies allow much higher ISO settings and have a very clean look when you push the ISO.
The a7 is still a fantastic camera, even today!
@@zenography7923 The 3D effect from vintage lenses in markedly different to the modern, computer-designed ones. While colours can be corrected in post production, the 3D 'character' cannot be replicated. I'm not a Luddite and have several modern lenses, including the lovely 85mm Viltrox mk2 but I do love the old-school, 3D film-era lenses for their nostalgic look.
Another great video, thank you very much! I just recently got interested in vintage lenses by a lucky purchase of a CZJ Pancolar 50, together with a camera which I was actually interested at first.
I really fell in love with the Pancolar, its beautiful bokeh, but also the colors. And it has a very good sharpness and I appreciate the minimum distance for close-ups with my Sony Alpha 6600.
The Pancolar is just about the nicest vintage lens I've ever used - an incredible piece of glass.
All make beautiful dreamy colourful images
Indeed they do!
I love the Pancolar. Just got also the meyer-optic-gorlitz Oreston, took it out today the first time. very happy with that lens also. esp like it for bnw (on my fuji). the other CZJ favourite is the 2omm f2.8 Flektogon. I prefer the old lenses, and I have only 1 fuji lens left (the 56mm), sold the others to pay for old lenses.
I personally love the Craftsmanship on the Old Lenses, and really not Impressed by todays modern Plastics! Character is Better than Bland, and Look Alike(s) of today!
I haven't tried the Oreston but I hear it's very good - enjoy!
I was waiting for you to get a Rollei Planar 50mm 1.8! And was betting you'd like it!
I do!
Like the Tessar this Planar is a single coated lens, the Pancolar is an MC lens. I'd like to see a 50mm test showing the differences between single and multi coated that seems like a better comparison.
Sigle coated
Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar f2.8 (4 elements in 3 groups)
Carl Zeiss Planar f1.8 W.Germany (7 elements / 6 groups)
Schneider-Kreuznach SL-Xenon 1.8 (6 elements / 4 groups or Carl Zeiss Planar f2 construction)
Multi coated
Carl Zeiss Planar f1.8 HFT by Rollei (6 elements / 4 groups)
Carl Zeiss Planar f1.7 Contax / Yachica (7 elements / 6 groups)
Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar f1.8 (6 elements / 5 groups)
Thanks for the suggestion!
I love the planar 50mm 1.8 in qbm mount and I prefer it to the later Contax/Yashica versions: it's sharper than the 1.4 C/Y, also the 1.8 focuses at a close distance of 45cm while the 1.7 C/Y reaches only 60cm - although the 1.8 is the coolest one, it has a great contrast and can sustain direct lights fairly well (the one I own was made in W.Germany, I don't know if those made in Singapore are quite as good). ....anyway great video! as always interesting and inspiring
Many thanks, glad you enjoyed it!
My preference also goes to the Planar 50mm f1.8 in QBM Carl Zeiss W. Germany. I thought the Carl Zeiss Planar f1.8 W. Germany only existed single coated. When I bought one in QBM 2 mound I found out that it was a multi coated lens.
@@zenography7923 I appreciate your videos about camera and lenses but I see very interesting pictures why don't you make a video about composition or color, or both? thank you very much
Sorry for coming in very late. The Planar as featured was a unique design for Rollei/Voigtländer not used anywhere else, including the Contax/Yashica family. Always found in QBM only one version branded as Voigtländer Color-Ultron was made in M42 screw mount, with multi-coating, for the initial run of the VSL1, itself a re-manufacture of the Zeiss-Ikon SL706. I bought my VSL1 brand new back then and was quite impressed by the lens; I subsequently sold it, with the benefit of hindsight I should not have done that.
nothing can beat the pancolar on fuji x , it is a magic masterpiece, at least in this discipline the comrades have won the cold war
I don't know of many nicer...
what a nice vintage comparison!!!! aaaah love it
Many thanks, glad you enjoyed it!
It's always very nice to listen to your presentation. However, I have a comment on the way you compare different lenses. A good comparison shows all 3 lenses side by side. Only then, in equal settings of course, is it clear what you mean by the blur, the sharpness, the contrast and the color saturation for example. But of course it's much more fun to go through the city and take some pretty nice photos. It's not fun at all to have to make lists of apertures and such. You should make a combination of both, with only a few side by side photos.
Thanks for the suggestion!
The magic of vintage lenses is not primarily based on the specs but on the artistic impression they allow you to create. Direct comparisons can be problematic due to lack of consistent production quality, the constant changes during production which these lenses had over time and naturally the condition of a tested lens. Therefore I recommend to use the comparisons here just as an inspiration to perform your own tests and discover some "keepers" for your own taste and purposes.
My favorite sunday morning show.
Thank you!
Considering the insanely high levels of radioactivity of some Pancolar lenses (see below) the Planar appears to me as a safer, similarly attractive alternative. As far as I am informed the first Pancolar 50/1.8 lenses were using the radioactive Thorium glass up to serial number 8552600 (from 1964 up to 1967). Then a new optical design was calculated which was based on a 6/5 design without using longer radioactive elements. But I recommend to check that with a Geiger counter since the high amount of Thorium in the glass causes lots of beta and gamma rays which represent in the measured intensity a serious health risk: th-cam.com/video/LjPTI5j0W4g/w-d-xo.html
These old radioactive lenses had a much better picture quality than the later MC versions. This was caused not only due to the Thorium in the glass but ensured by a much better quality control during the production process.
The mentioned Rollei F1.8 lens was produced in Singapore based on the Carl Zeiss design. The coating might be different and not be reaching the same quality level of the Planar F1.8.
The very early Pentacon 50mm 1.8 lenses (which were produced in the CZJ factories) have the same 6/5 design of the Pancolar which got changed to a 6/4 design when the production of this lens was moved to the Meyer Optik Görlitz factories. I don't know yet how you can easily identify this early batch.
A comparison with the popular, more modern and highly regarded Planar F1.7 (produced for Contax) would have been interesting too.
After so many glowing recommendations I finally acquired a Pancolar - and my Zeiss CY Planar f/1.7 absolutely trumps it. Planar is noticeably sharper, with a touch better contrast, and is more color accurate (not “cool” at all). I was disappointed the Pancolar didn’t win out, but have to admit the truth… Zeiss Planar is the king of my 50mm collection.
I whole heartily concur with you. This guy builds hype with his videos. Back in the day like 30 plus years ago these were considered economy lenses if you couldn’t afford lenses made in the free world.
Another sunday highlight.Thank you / Ulf
Glad you enjoyed it
GREAT review! :) Did you notice any difference in image quality between the red and the white MC version of Pancolar?
Pancolars do seem to vary - I've recently shot a very early f2 pancolar, and it does give a subtly different image to the later MC version.
ThanX for reply! :)
Wonderful review, Nigel! I am new to vintage lenses. Could you help identify Planar’s mount type? Is it M42? Thank you and a happy New Year!
It's the C/Y, or Contax/Yashica mount.
Thank you!
This video shows the biggest difference two Cold War Zeiss operations. Quality versus Character. Oberkochen went for quality but Jena stuck by it's character. Whilst the Planar is technically better, the Pancolar retains the elements that made it a legend amongst Eastern/Soviet bloc lens connysewers. It's all about the swirl and the bubbles.
In the final analysis, it's just that bit nicer!
@@zenography7923 oh yes, its character is definitely the difference. I'm also pleased the Tessar managed to hold its own against its mighty siblings. It's still dirt cheap too.
You're missing Biotar 50/1.4 and Pancolar 55/1.4, and Contax Planar 50/1.4 :P
Absolutely amazing lenses! Maybe he could borrow these from someone as they’re not exactly cheap
New ideas: 35mm Flektogon vs Distagon and CZJ 50 Tessar vs Contax Zeiss Tessar 45.
I own the Pancolar. Engineering masterpiece.
Would love to see a comparison between this Planar f/1.8 and the Zeiss CY Planar f/1.7 [the one I have]. I definitely don't consider the CY Planar to look "cool" and I'm guessing it would rate a bit warmer than the f/1.8 here - but as warm as the Pancolor? Maybe not. I have no idea how sharpness would compare, but am super curious to know.
I'd love to try one too - I've heard they're very nice.
@@zenography7923 It really is... pleasant, accurate color and just a tiny fraction sharper than my Nikkor AiS 50 f/1.4 at f/2.8 [maybe a tie]; yet with a slightly "smoother" less 3D look if that makes sense. Is my go to lens for shooting interviews as a free lance videographer.
A really nice video on a really nice trio there, Nigel! I bought the 1.7 T* C/Y mount version a few days ago, from an elderly gentleman who sold his old gear. Do you know if there is any difference? By the way, I have a problem with the adapter it doesn't fit! However I have film cameras I can use.
Not sure whether there's a difference Kalle, but I would think they're pretty similar. Perhaps you have a bad adaptor there but as you say, it's always nice to shoot on film!
Durchweg tolle Fotos!
Danke schon mein freund!
I know that the Carl Zeiss Ultron is a planar design with some additional elements, but I'd be curious to see that in the mix. I know it's a very expensive lens at this point. I haven't personally tested my copy out yet as I'm waiting to receive an adapter
Seems like the Zeiss Planar very much resembles the Auto-Revuenon MC f1,4 50 mm (which was a Tomioka made lens) in it's characteristics. I compared both on the fujifilm x e1 and found the Revuenon as cool, but even more contrasty and sharp as the Planar... although with slightly more CA.
I actually prefer the Tessar out of the 3 (kept it out of the 3) it has enough differences compared to the modern lenses to make it much more interesting while still beeing an excellent lens.
It is indeed an excellent little lens - and great value too!
This is between the most radioactive lens !
None of these is radioactive - the Pancolar is the later, non-thoriated version!
My Carl Zeiss Jena Zebra lens lives on a like new black Practika LTL and they are a great match!
Sounds like a nice combo!
I like your pictures a lot..... What has always been mysterious to me: Why does the Auto whitebalance not correct the different color renditions of different lenses?
Keep on making me wanting more lenses.....
It probably does, to some extent at least...
Any light hitting the front element at the wrong angle is probably going to exit the rear element at a bad angle and although this may not be a problem for a Leica film camera, it may be a problem for a digital mirrorless camera, unless you've had your sensor customized. No? this is more a question than a statement as I'm not that experienced and am only about to get my first rangefinder M mount Zeiss lens, but I was of the opinion that these lenses can have problems on normal digital cameras, especially the wider lenses as the light leaving the rear element is at an even more bad angle than on a digital lens.
Well, you've tested a way old Planar design, without the famous T* (T-Star) multicoatings, this is the Rollei version, which was being avialable into Rollei QBM (Quick Bajonet Mount) and also more seldom in M42 mount. The Carl Zeiss Planar 50/1.7 T* is a different beast, and much better.
That old Planar 50/1.8 was specifically computed for the SL35 Series (and SL 350) Rollei series, but it's optically a tad inferior to the later, newer, mentioned Carl Zeiss Planar C/Y (Contax/Yashica) 50mm F1.7 T* prime, and it does need especially a lens hood, otherwise it could have flares very easily into sunlight, since the coatings aren't that great. Later iterations featured the HFT (High Fidelity Transfer) coatings, which have been mass-produced by Rollei into Singapore, not germany, and HFT coatings are 99% as good, as the Zeiss West Germany (Oberkochen) T-Star coatings. (That means back into it's heyday, we're speaking of early 70's lenses - starting from 1972 on) So the later introduced C/Y Contax T* lenses, especially the MM Lenses starting from 1985 - does feature better, more advanced T* coatings here into contrast.
I know that, because i am shooting literally all my life with Zeiss Lenses, since i was a teenager. HFT by Rollei was being made within a License agreement with Carl Zeiss Oberkochen, Germany and was being introduced into 1972. So basically all Rollei Lenses since then featured the HFT coatings, but these are older tech (T-Star coatings are always being optimized, during the years, -decades without further notice - so one can't simply compare a HFT or T* coating from the past with a current Zeiss Lens and T* coatings - it's totally different, and Zeiss wouldn't give away any kind of specific info, regarding how many layers these multicoatings are - what was being enhanced, etc to the Enduser.)
I see different pancolar. One looks just the same as yours but the "MC" sign is plain white, so I'm wondering if that makes a difference? because those seem to be a bit cheaper.
Another great video, thank you. Have you ever used or reviewed Meyer Optik Gorlitz lenses, I have the Lydith 30 mm f3.5 and the Oreston 50 mm f1.8, would be interested in your thoughts some time.
I'd love to try them, but none have come my way up to now!
@@zenography7923 Would you like to try mine.
Richard H Thanks I’d love to; if you email me at zenography11@gmail.com, we can arrange.
How did you test lenses regarding aperture settings? How did you compensate for the Tessar being f2.8 vs the other two being 1.8, in respect to background blur/bokeh? Good review. I love your videos.
I didn't compensate at all - the idea in this one was to see how a cheaper lens stands up against two more expensive ones - I'm glad to say the Tessar acquitted itself well!
@@zenography7923 PS The Mir 1b 37mm f2.8 is one of my most filmic rendering lens. IMO
Great contents, I have to say. Have you ever had the chance to test or try the Pancolar Zebra against the Pancolar MC?
I haven't - I've heard they're pretty similar though!
Pancolars 855xxx and earlier are thoriated and have 8 blades in the diaphragm. Their glass often is characteristically yellow from the thorium. The cutoff runs right between 855xxx and 856xxx. While still in zebra design, the 856xxx and following have six blades and a bluish purple front element from the coating. I would venture the hypothesis that the zebra versions are better mechanically and close if not identical optically to the later version shown here, except perhaps the coating.
I can detect some swirl in the bokeh of both the Tessar and Planar, but it is more minimal than on the Pancolar.
I think it was 'developed' out by Western Zeiss, unfortunately!
What type of adapter would i get for a canon eos fd mount type?
Hi Zenography. Would you consider reviewing the Konica Hexanon 50mm f/1.8? I know you’ve reviewed other Hexanon lenses before, but this one appears to be not very talked about online and I’ve seen it as cheap as $19 USD online.
Thanks for the tip, I'll look out for one!
I think there's a different way to street test lens edge sharpness. That is to focus on the edge of the frame with a manual lens, not the center. Naturally having a detailed object on the edge. It's a rare kick these days to actually watch the image get sharper as you stop down. With a 1.8, you might want to focus at 2.8 just to help you see. My all metal 1.8 planar is very tack sharp across the field at f4. Of course, being mounted on a Fuji, it's now a 75mm. But with the bright light still coming in wide open, you wouldn't think so.
I'll try that, thanks for the tip!
Great video and has now wanting to buy a Pancolar lens. Can I ask is the MC version the one to go for? Appreciate any help thank you
There's little to no difference in optical quality vetween early and late (MC) versions, but the earlier version contains thorium in its glass, and is slightly radioactive, which may or may not influence your decision!
Enjoy the review. These are lovely lenses. I have a question. Is minimum focusing distance affected if these lenses are mounted on micro 4/3?
No, the minimum distance is not effected. 😀
For any given lens, effective MFD will be shorter by about 50% on a micro four thirds camera. The lens doesn't change of course, but the smaller sensor looks through a more central portion of the lens, hence an effective magnification, hence shorter MFD!
@@zenography7923 , thanks for the answer! I am going to review some of your past videos again!
Have you done a comparison between CZJ MC versus Single Coating? I've always been curious...
Not so far I'm afraid...
I bought a Tessar for £34 at the house clearance sale, but I'm feeling really smug because it's a West Germany Zeiss, not jena, its beautiful workmanship, but needs an element clean ideally.
I got a Rollei one for 19€. Is the Rollei version actually the same as the Zeiss one?
I believe it is, although I think the coatings are different.
Thank you for this instructive comparison. I've been buying lenses based on your analysis and recommendations. Are other focal lengths in the Carl Zeiss Jena line as good for sharpness and character as the Pancolar 50mm? Such as the 35mm etc?
The 35mm Flektogon 2.4 is very sharp wide open, as is the 135mm f3.5. The 28mm 2.8 is nice too, although I think that lens was made by Cosina, or another third party manufacturer.
The 20 2.8, the Flektogon (35mm), the Pancolar 50/1.8 and the Pancolar 80/1.8 are phenomenal lenses.
The 20 and 80 are late east German designs and, believe it or not, even better than the other two. The 50 is a great allrounder, but honestly many 50s are. The 35 is special and quite sought after. It is not actually a very sharp lens technically and produces softness in the corners below f3.5. What it does, however, is render perceptual sharpness because it has typical Zeiss 3D pop (best visible in b/w), it renders colors absolutely beautifully (although unusually for Zeiss Jena quite different from their other lenses), and it acts as a quasi macro with an MFD of 19 centimeters. Adapted to mirrorless the front element is basically on the object. Downsides are variable mechanical precision, frequently stuck aperture, and wiggly front group (that you can re-center easily yourself, yiu just have to know that it’s happening. The worst of all downsides is the front element right at the front of the barrel. You cannot reasonably shoot this lens without a lens hood. It ghost and flares and loses contrast like crazy in any side light situation otherwise.
Forgit to mention the bokeh of the Flek. From the rendering perspective you will never lust after a Summicron if you have a Flek.
Have you ever tried the Voigtländer Color Ultron 1,8 50mm? Rumor says it's a Planar as well...!??
I have, and it's fantastic, one of the nicest lenses I've used!
Here's some more technical Data:
Both the Planar and the Pancolar are descendents of the Double Gauß Lens. Here's where the similarity in evolution ends. Whereas the Planar is a direct descendant of the Double-Gauß lens, the Pancolar has a more complex history that goes as follows: Planar -> Biotar 2/58mm -> Biotar 2/50mm -> Flexon 2/50mm (Renamed due to Zeiss Oberkochen claiming the name "Biotar") -> Pancolar 2/50mm -> Pancolar 1.8/50mm -> JENA Prakticar 1.8/50mm (Renamed for the Praktica B-series and not to be confused with the PENTACON Prakticar 1.8/50mm which is just the classic Pentacon 1.8/50mm slightly modified).
The planar should consist of 7 elements in 6 groups but the Pancolar needs less with only 6 elements in 5 groups. Another difference is that the Planar was originally a completely symetric design wheras the Pancolar is an asymetric design (Inherited from the Biotar).
Whether or not one is better is difficult to say as both are incredibly well corrected constructions coming from well reputed Designers. If Harry Zöllner, one of the main engineers at Jena, got what he wanted we'd have a bunch of aspheric DDR lenses as he was considering this complex technique already in the mid 60s ! If you find one of those two for cheap, go for it.
Another fun fact from the GDR lens production: An actual better lens than the Pancolar 2/50mm was produced along it. The then very advanced and now highly sought after Domiron 2/50mm from Meyer-Optik Görlitz. This lens offered better optical qualities and was cheaper than the Pancolar, it was however put out of production with the decreasing sales of the Exakta in the late 60s. The Domiron would later be overhauled becoming the Oreston 1.8/50mm which in turn would be slightly modified again in the 70s becoming the widely available PENTACON 1.8/50mm. It would be overhauled again for the new Praktica B-Series becoming the aforementioned PENTACON Prakticar 1.8/50mm.
That's all
That's fascinating, many thanks!
@@zenography7923 GDR Cameras and related photogrphical equipment is kinda my niche. Always happy to add some more knowledge. I could go on and on but I kinda wanna keep it related to what's in the Video. Also many thanks as you led me to many a great lens !
just bought and received my Carl Zeiss 50mm f/1.8 Pancolar auto for £75 delivered can we see the Flektogon f/2.5 review next please...
Gosh, that's a good price, well done! You'll find it's quite a lens, and as for the Flektogon it appeared quite regularly in my early videos, shouldn't be difficult to find!
@@zenography7923 hi i found one however, my flektogon that needed repairing that i paid £69 for was missing an aperture pin which i have managed to repair with a home made pin and just needs assembling now; i also purchased a Carl Zeiss 135mm 3.5 Sonar from ebay in mint condition for £55 posted which according to some reviews especially the pentax forum state it is a very good sharp lens however, i have my eye on a 2.8 version that are even better...
Also, always remember to put your 50mm f1.7 in water when not in use and especially before you go to bed. Because it's a Contax lense.
I'm not sure that's in the service manual!
Everytime I watch one of your videos, I wind up on Ebay shortly thereafter. Last week I tried out the Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 50mm f/2.8 on a Sony A7III and took a few shots on the north shore of Prince Edward Island. I really like your channel and the lens as well, so please keep up the good work you are doing. I posted images from my first outing with the Tessar on my blog.
www.robfaucher.com/nov-27-2020-photographing-peis-north-shore-with-a-50-year-old-cold-war-lens/
Some very nice shots there - that Tessar is quite something isn't it?
@@zenography7923 Thank you very much! I really enjoy using that lens. Also having fun with some old Pentax glass and Russian lenses.
Excellent....
Many thanks, glad you enjoyed it!
Have you ever used vintage M42 Fujinons?
i have. they're astounding and sharper than most. deeply regret selling my fujinon 55mm 1.8...
mamiya m42 lenses are also underrated.
@@punkrachmaninoff Thanks. I just got an SRT101, 58mm 1.4, 135mm 2.8, and 28mm 3.5, and I've heard good things about them too.
I haven't, but they're certainly on my list!
what adapter i can use for this lent in a fuji xt3 ?
I've got a Zeiss Planar 50mm 2.0, from a Contarex camera. I haven't, shame on me, used it a lot. But in my limited use, I've found it to be very good, with good colors and sharpness. I finally just acquired a lens that I've been looking for, for several years. I've come across a few examples, but they were non functional or full of mold or beat to death, or they were way overpriced. This copy is in very good condition and was, by my standards, very reasonably priced. It's a Tokina 60 - 120 2.8 zoom and is in OM mount. In my limited, initial testing, I've found it to be very sharp, wide open, and stopped down one click even sharper and of course sharp from there on out. It's gloomy and raining right now, where I live. But, I hope to get out and do some more shooting with it in the near future. As I said, I've been "chasing" this lens for a while and from what I've seen, so far, I'm sure it will live up to my expectations. As always, I quite enjoyed your video, today. Thank you.
It's always nice to find a lens you've been chasing - I hope you enjoy it, when the skies clear!
@@zenography7923 Thank you, I'm sure I will enjoy it. Keep putting out the great and informative videos.
Hello. Do you shoot jpegs or raw for the image samples? If jpeg is it just standard picture profile? :) been wondering. Cheers
Hi, all are straight out of camera jpegs with no post processing, unless I need to tweak exposure a bit!
@@zenography7923 Thank you 😊
Please make a review of biometar 80mm f2.8
I'd love to - if I had one!
Is there any vintage ultra wide lenses that can be adapted to fuji x mount?
The recent Voigtlander 16mm is very nice indeed! You'd need a Leica M mount to Fuji X adaptor.
i have a question, do you have any images of original jupiter 11 (4/135) lens caps? or did they just come without lens caps
They did have lens caps - I've seen them in both black and white soft plastic.
@@zenography7923 ok thanks, i've since got a load of generic pinch ones and rear screw m42's, thanks for the reply though :)
I see Zenography I like.
Thank you!
ahhh but whats it like on a full spectrum camera :D
Не обязательно покупать Tessar 2.8/50, можно обойтись советским объективом за £3 - "Индустар-50" 3.5/50. Рисунки этих объективов очень схожи.
Мне нравится Индустар 50, это очень хороший маленький объектив - я бы тоже хотел получить его со складным креплением!
Are we gonna address the radioactivity of some of these lenses?
And the winner is... Contax Zeiss Planar 1.4 MM... best of both worlds in my point of view.
I'd love to try one!
You have all thorium-glasses that exist !
:)
East German meh.
Get a Nikkor 55mm 2.8 if you want a lens to compare others to.
See Ken Rockwells review.
I have one. My favourite all round lens
A lens to best the Pancolar? Now that sounds like an interesting optic!
Who to hell is Kid Rockwell lol 😂🤣🤦????
@@robertb.3651 You dunna ken
Learn to pronounce ZEISS properly.
With a TS sound at the beginning, right? I studied German many years ago, but I hope you'll permit an Anglicisation, and that it doesn't grate too much...
ihr ton gefällt mir nicht
From 1963-65 Zeiss made a fixed lens camera, the Contessa LK, that had a Zeiss Tessar 50mm f2.8 lens. The disadvantages were that it was a film camera, a fixed lens camera, and it required that you judge the distance to the subject for focus. The lens, however, was one of the best I've ever owned. What it did with light and color was magical. Even after forty years have passed I regret its loss. This week I chanced on a man in Germany who has removed some of these fixed lenses from the cameras and adapted them to m42 mounts. So now I'm waiting for the Tessar from a Contessa LK to arrive, and am excited to anticipate shooting with it on my Sony a7. www.etsy.com/shop/vintageglas
Gosh, those do look interesting, thanks for letting me know!