Which Zeiss 35 Flektogon to have?

Avotius

Avotius

Some guy
Local time
6:15 AM
Joined
Dec 5, 2005
Messages
3,518
Sad day as my Enna lens turned out to be a dud. I will post a lens report about that later in the optics forum.

In the meantime im going to trade it in for the zeiss 35mm flektagon. The problem is....which one? Information online doesnt seem to go into much detail about the variations. I see auto's and electrics and some that doesnt say either auto or electric, red mc's and white mc's....older style barrels and newer style barrels, and even a 2.8 with older style barrel. Too many combinations frankly for this poor guy to figure out.


Also I found some interesting zeiss 50 2.8 tessars, but again, a bunch of variations. A silver metal bodied thing, a shorter black body that says "aus jena ddr" on it but no zeiss name, and another that has a black body, silver ring, and what seems to be ears for grabbing on to that does say carl zeiss on the front.

And while im at it, there are some other interesting items, a Schnieder 35mm 2.8 C Curtagon, a pentax smc takumar N.2 35mm f2, a Rollei 50mm 1.8 planar, Zeiss jena 50 1.8 pancolor, and a Zeiss 135 3.5 Sonnar.

Of course there are probably a lot of duds in these lenses but maybe there is a gem in this pile that could be used on my 20D with my m42 adapter? I need a 35 (or 28) and the 50 is highly optional as I already seem to have a dozen 50's floating around the house. By the way I really like that quintessential zeissness to images, after using a hasselblad and my 50 planar ZM my canon ef lenses are just so....ick....


Gear sucks!
 
Last edited:
Colin,

I had the 35/2.4 Flektogon (Carl Zeiss Jena DDR) and liked it very much on my Praktica. Digital on the Sigma SD-10, I was not so happy with it.

Also, I was not so convinced about the 20/2.8 M42-Flektogon on the Sigma.

The 50/1.8 Pancolar was very ok both on film and digital.

I sold the 35 Flektogon for about 100 €, which I honestly think is well overpriced - but fine with me as a seller.
The 20 Flektogon went for about 200 € :eek: - also fine with me :angel:

I would not buy those for that kind of money.

Best regards,
Uwe
 
Colin, it's even worse, there seem to be a variation of quality even within the same "type". I agree with Uwe that these lenses are way overpriced.

The red MC sold for over $200 USD constantly on the bay, that's the one that seems to be the "best".
 
Avotius said:
Also I found some interesting zeiss 50 2.8 tessars, but again, a bunch of variations. A silver metal bodied thing, a shorter black body that says "aus jena ddr" on it but no zeiss name, and another that has a black body, silver ring, and what seems to be ears for grabbing on to that does say carl zeiss on the front.
Gear sucks!
Click to expand...
As others have said, the CZJ Flektogons are generally overpriced now. Not that they are bad lenses, but they require more stopping down than modern wide angles for optimum sharpness, which of course is actually less of a problem with digital than it is with film, since you can increase the sensitivity easily at least until ISO 400 without significant noise issues. But still they are overpriced. I would say that if you can get a 35 mm Flektogon for less than $60 or a 20 mm for less than $100, then go for it, but otherwise it would be better to save some more money and get a Nikkor or Pentax SMC with a suitable adapter, if you don't like the Canon glass.

As for the CZJ Tessars, they are all almost the same. The optical formula was not changed and they all have normal coating, no MC. Early versions are pre-set or semiautomatic and they go only to f/16. Later automatic versions go to f/22. The CZJ Tessar is pretty ordinary Tessar (i.e. four element normal) lens, reasonably sharp wide open but not as good as more complex normal lenses of the same period and by no means a match for any modern normal lens. Of course there are also differences between different examples. In general it is not as good as for example the Industar-61L/Z (the SLR version of the I-61L/D). Steinheil Cassar is also better than the CZJ Tessar.

Of course there was also a Carl Zeiss (i.e. Zeiss Oberkochen or Zeiss West) Tessar. The latest version was 45/2.8 "pancake" for the Y/C mount. It was the cheapest Zeiss lens for the Y/C, but it's still not very common, probably due to the fact that you could get a faster Planar-type Yashica ML normal lens for the same price. I have no idea about it's quality, but it's definitely a later design than the CZJ Tessar and has the T* multicoating. In general it might be a good idea to get a Y/C to Canon EF adapter, since the Y/C mount Zeiss lenses are still affordable and of course the very respectable Yashica ML lenses cost almost nothing, since there are no DSLR's for the Y/C mount.
 
I think that the best Flektogon 35 mm f/ 2,4 in M42 mount is the last model, with MC coating. I own one of this, that i mount on the Bessaflex TM and i found this lens very excellent, both in optical and in mechanical quality. As all M42 lenses, the Flektogon 35 mm f/ 2,4 MC work very well on the DSLR of Canon, Pentax, Sony and Olympus.
Ciao.
Vincenzo
 
Some time ago i had a Flek 2.8/35, such a silver one out of the 60ies. It was a really nice lens, not tack sharp but it was "painting" pretty old style pictures with creamy bokeh. Sorry that i sold it ... Now its (still) far overpriced.
 
For the Flektogon 35mm (in M42 mount) there are really two versions, the earlier f/2.8 and the later f/2.4. The f/2.8 first came out as a bright finish preset, then a "diamond grip" automatic, and then the "zebra". The f/2.4 came out during the period of the second generation Praktica L-series. The minor revisions such as cosmetics, mechanics, and later electric and non-electric do not change the optical formulation, exccept for the application of better coatings as technology progressed.

While being only available used, you cannot say how an example's previous owner(s) did to it which may have affected its ultimate on-film performance. It is true that prices of the Flektogons have been inflated over the years, I think in terms of bang-for-buck there might still be a lot of other choices. Takumars of course are good, but don't overlook the Mamiya-Sekor35/2.8. Naturally we still have to bear in mind that any individual example has to be treated as unique like what I said earlier.
 
I can only say that Sean Reid has tested the 20/2.8 Flektogon on a full frame Canon, and it scored very well on distortion and, stopped down a bit, also on overall quality. Apart from this, I've read that the Schneider 35/2.8 Curtagon has been a cult lens in its own time, so it should not be a disappointment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom