-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
My CZJ Sonnar 200/2.8 mounted on a NEX6 so that the comparison might be more relevant.This is the very well-known Carl Zeiss Jena Olympia Sonnar 180mm f/2.8. The Olympia Sonnar 180mm f/2.8 was built for the 1936 summer Olympics in Berlin to show off Zeiss' capability. This lens was designed for the Contax rangefinder and required a reflex box. The lens shown below is perhaps the latest version. It is usually available in M42 and Pentacon Six mounts. I am not sure whether an Exakta mount version is available. The one shown in the image has a Pentacon Six mount, and requires a Pentacon Six to Nikon (or Canon or ...) adapter to be used on a SLR. Once I have a Nikon mount, I can add a Nikon to NEX mount for my NEX. BTW, I found there is a Pentacon Six to NEX mount available.
The image quality, IMO, is dated and is not as good as some modern MF lenses such as Nikon 180mm f/2.8 ED.
CK
Carl Zeiss Jena Olympia Sonnar 180mm f/2.8
Taken late in the day near last light.
The difference between what this outfit and what the new Canon LTM lenses were doing is considerable.
--
Tom Caldwell
C
Ching-Kuang Shene
Guest
I have this 200mm f/2.8 Sonnar too, but I hate it very much. Initially, I thought it could be better than the 180mm f/2.8 Sonnar. When I got the lens and mounted on a camera, I felt cold because it is very difficult to handle, because at least its size and weight. Compared with my Nikon 180mm f/2.8 non-ED version, this 200mm f/2.8 did not have much advantage in terms of image quality. Well, the Nikon 180mm f/2.8 ED beats this Sonnar hands down. It is in my storage forever perhaps.
CZJ Sonnar 200mm f/2.8
The Sonnar 180mm f/2.8 is also a poorly designed lens. I don't care about the size because it was designed for the 6x6 Pentagon Six. The problem is its tripod mount. It is so small and not very stable.
Consequently, for small aperture 200mm, I use the Nikon 200mm f/4 (AI or AIS) frequently. For larger aperture 200mm, I'd go for the Nikon 180mm f/2.8 ED for MF or Nikon AF-D 180mm f/2.8 ED IF for AF, which is an even better lens than the MF version. The Tamron SP 180mm f/2.5 is also excellent and sometimes better than the Nikon. The Pentax 200mm f/2.5 is wonderful.
What is your opinion and/or experience in using the Sonnar 200mm f/28?
CK
C
Ching-Kuang Shene
Guest
This is a M42 lens people may not want to use nowadays. But, of course, it fits the pancake lens type well for sure. The available f-values are 11, 16, 22 and 32, and the lens DOES NOT have a focus ring! Image quality? Perhaps just OK if you are not very picky.
CK
Asahi Fish-Eye-Takumar 18mm f/11
Asahi Fish-Eye-Takumar 18mm f/11 on Pentax K-01
Asahi Fish-Eye-Takumar 18mm f/11
CK
Asahi Fish-Eye-Takumar 18mm f/11
Asahi Fish-Eye-Takumar 18mm f/11 on Pentax K-01
Asahi Fish-Eye-Takumar 18mm f/11
C
Ching-Kuang Shene
Guest
The following four are Asahi/Pentax big guns in the earlier development era, although the lenses shown may not be the earliest versions. Image quality of each lens is better than average and certainly acceptable. However, the Takumar 1000mm f/8 is not as good and looking into the lens just gave me a tunnel vision. IMO, it is not as good as the Canon 1200mm f/11 and Nikon 1200mm f/11, although both came to the market later.
Takumar 400mm f/5.6
Takumar 500mm f/4.5
Takumar 500mm f/5.0
Pentax SMC Takumar 1000mm f/8
Pentax SMC Takumar Zoom 135-600mm f/6.7
Takumar 400mm f/5.6
Takumar 500mm f/4.5
Takumar 500mm f/5.0
Pentax SMC Takumar 1000mm f/8
Pentax SMC Takumar Zoom 135-600mm f/6.7
CK
It is big and heavy and I have moved towards smaller camera bodies. It is not a lens that I would like to carry for any length of time (but I have). I think it is capable of some really good images - see the quick ooc jpg test snap that I enclosed as an example. It does not come with a tripod mount and the focus ring travel is very substantial for anything other than distance shots and it is not really a long telephoto by any regard.
Therefore it might be an excellent lens for mid distance shots and portraits but a big brute to handle MF in the process - although it should be very precise for the patient. Longer shots? Well it is probably not really long enough except perhaps on a M4/3 body - (please don't laugh).
So I have no used it much but it is one of those lenses that should be used more and I would not part with it for some strange reason. I have an FD 200/2.8 which is a nicer lanes to use and probably just as capable.
The adapter had a tripod shoe and I just set it up on the small tripod for its picture - the images were hand held and I didn't really find any problem using it on the NEX6.
It is big and heavy and I have moved towards smaller camera bodies. It is not a lens that I would like to carry for any length of time (but I have). I think it is capable of some really good images - see the quick ooc jpg test snap that I enclosed as an example. It does not come with a tripod mount and the focus ring travel is very substantial for anything other than distance shots and it is not really a long telephoto by any regard.
Therefore it might be an excellent lens for mid distance shots and portraits but a big brute to handle MF in the process - although it should be very precise for the patient. Longer shots? Well it is probably not really long enough except perhaps on a M4/3 body - (please don't laugh).
So I have no used it much but it is one of those lenses that should be used more and I would not part with it for some strange reason. I have an FD 200/2.8 which is a nicer lanes to use and probably just as capable.
The adapter had a tripod shoe and I just set it up on the small tripod for its picture - the images were hand held and I didn't really find any problem using it on the NEX6.
C
Ching-Kuang Shene
Guest
Kuuan,
The list only includes Asahi/Pentax M42 lenses. P-mount is usually the other name for Pentax screw mount (or Pentax mount). I checked the link you provided and found that it only includes commonly seen lenses, mostly in the range of 35mm and 200mm. Some not-so-common lenses such as fisheye, super wide and super telephoto lenses are not even mentioned. I added an odd Fisheye 18mm f/11 and a few super telephoto lenses to the threads.
CK
Shene I had noticed that you had used the denomination 'P-mount' only for 2 lenses and incidentally exactly these came in both M37 and M42, hence the confusion resp. question if it was meant in reference to M37
accordingly the link provided only shows early 'pre-Super Takumar' lenses, that is Takumars or 'preset' Takumar in M37 and M42 and Auto Takumars in M42, looks complete to me for those.
--
photos mostly taken with manual lenses on Sony A7, NEX5n, Ricoh GXR M, Pentax K-x and *istDs: http://flickr.com/photos/kuuan/
Last edited:
No matter what the quality of the lens - I saw the asking prices this lens and decided that I would never need one. And the camera it appears on is already about as exotic as it gets. I thought that the yellow one would become collectible.This is a M42 lens people may not want to use nowadays. But, of course, it fits the pancake lens type well for sure. The available f-values are 11, 16, 22 and 32, and the lens DOES NOT have a focus ring! Image quality? Perhaps just OK if you are not very picky.
CK
Asahi Fish-Eye-Takumar 18mm f/11
Asahi Fish-Eye-Takumar 18mm f/11 on Pentax K-01
Asahi Fish-Eye-Takumar 18mm f/11
--
Tom Caldwell
rodriguezPhoto
Senior Member
--
~~~ Kim
I went ahead and got a Yashinon.
As you say, they are quite similar, but the Yashinon is slightly (but noticeably) heavier. Sitting them side by side, you can see some differences.
Tak has 10 aperture blades; Yashinon six (and the Tak goes to f22).
I've done a couple of back to back shots, and the field of view is definitely different (wider for the Yashinon), so 55mm versus 50mm seems about right.
As you say, they are quite similar, but the Yashinon is slightly (but noticeably) heavier. Sitting them side by side, you can see some differences.
Tak has 10 aperture blades; Yashinon six (and the Tak goes to f22).
I've done a couple of back to back shots, and the field of view is definitely different (wider for the Yashinon), so 55mm versus 50mm seems about right.
photominion
Active member
Wow, the glass on thebTak looks really bad..
How does it handle flaring?
My glasses have tiny "swirls" from cleaning and its an absolute pain in the eyes with light sources everwhere.
How does it handle flaring?
My glasses have tiny "swirls" from cleaning and its an absolute pain in the eyes with light sources everwhere.
John Michael Winterbourne
Senior Member
"The image quality, IMO, is dated and is not as good as some modern MF lenses such as Nikon 180mm f/2.8 ED."
What a surprise! Come on, as you stated, the Olympic Sonnar lens design and manufacture was completed in time to take photos at the 1936 summer Olympics - nearly 80 years ago, so the development/design must have started some years earlier - it seems to me a bit perverse to point out that the IQ is "dated"?
And as to the IQ anyway: your illustration shows the lens on the camera without its lens hood - which is nearly as long as the lens itself. Do you have one, did you use it when coming to your conclusion, and I suppose (not so important) do/did you have a hood on the Nikon 200/4 to take your comparison shots?
And, given that I think you started this thread with the title "Show off your M42 lenses", couldn't almost all of them be "accused" of having dated designs?
What a surprise! Come on, as you stated, the Olympic Sonnar lens design and manufacture was completed in time to take photos at the 1936 summer Olympics - nearly 80 years ago, so the development/design must have started some years earlier - it seems to me a bit perverse to point out that the IQ is "dated"?
And as to the IQ anyway: your illustration shows the lens on the camera without its lens hood - which is nearly as long as the lens itself. Do you have one, did you use it when coming to your conclusion, and I suppose (not so important) do/did you have a hood on the Nikon 200/4 to take your comparison shots?
And, given that I think you started this thread with the title "Show off your M42 lenses", couldn't almost all of them be "accused" of having dated designs?
baxters
Veteran Member
Mounted on the Panasonic GM1, the smallest M43 body, this little lens plus adapter looks huge.
Although small, the combo performs very well.
Although small, the combo performs very well.
baxters
Veteran Member
My Olympus EPL5 with the Tak 135. The PEN's in-body IS is the the most robust, but
does works well at this focal length. The Tak is the smallest of the 135's I own. Also
performs well like any Tak.
does works well at this focal length. The Tak is the smallest of the 135's I own. Also
performs well like any Tak.
H
Henry Richardson
Guest
I thought I would just mention that Olympus has an 9mm f8 fisheye bodycap lens for m4/3 that is very much like this old Takumar you show. I have the Olympus and use it sometimes. Very small, very light, and inexpensive -- about $65-70 now in Japan. Here's some info:This is a M42 lens people may not want to use nowadays. But, of course, it fits the pancake lens type well for sure. The available f-values are 11, 16, 22 and 32, and the lens DOES NOT have a focus ring! Image quality? Perhaps just OK if you are not very picky.
CK
Asahi Fish-Eye-Takumar 18mm f/11
Olympus 9mm Fisheye Body Cap Lens Review
Olympus, Micro Four Thirds, camera review, OM-D, photography, Malaysia photographer, photography tips, shutter therapy, street photography
robinwong.blogspot.jp
--
Henry Richardson
Looks like quite a bit of studying an earlier design and then not quite copying it to make it cheaper to build.
Yes there are two - one is wider. The old Takumar 18/11 is an example of a rare lens that I don't believe has a lot of general purpose use that is quite expensive for its very rarity and priced for collectors only who have better heels than I have. I wouldn't mind one just to flesh out my Takumar set but I have not been silly enough to test my bank manager that hard.I thought I would just mention that Olympus has an 9mm f8 fisheye bodycap lens for m4/3 that is very much like this old Takumar you show. I have the Olympus and use it sometimes. Very small, very light, and inexpensive -- about $65-70 now in Japan. Here's some info:This is a M42 lens people may not want to use nowadays. But, of course, it fits the pancake lens type well for sure. The available f-values are 11, 16, 22 and 32, and the lens DOES NOT have a focus ring! Image quality? Perhaps just OK if you are not very picky.
CK
Asahi Fish-Eye-Takumar 18mm f/11
http://robinwong.blogspot.jp/2014/02/olympus-9mm-fisheye-body-cap-lens-review.html
--
Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com
--
Tom Caldwell
Astrotripper
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 8,676
- Solutions
- 14
- Reaction score
- 12,107
Probably the favourite of my legacy lenses. It's in a pretty bad shape, but works fine.
SLN001
Senior Member
Sony A7II & Industar 61 L/Z 2.8/50 (Tessar design)
Sony A7II & Zenitar-M 1.7/50 (Not sure what lens design is but lens is super sharp)
--
Steve
Just an Armadillo on the shoulder of the information superhighway.
Similar threads
- Ching-Kuang Shene
- Adapted Lens Talk
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum