Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-19-2010, 07:37 AM   #16
Senior Member
openyourap's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Canberra - you get used to it.
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 164
I've just posted a review of my CZJ135/3.5MC Sonnar.

I'd be most grateful if anyone else could post a review or any photographs of the lens.

10-19-2010, 08:08 AM   #17
Site Supporter
Douglas_of_Sweden's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Stockholm
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,353
QuoteOriginally posted by HoBykoYan Quote
Hi Douglas,

thanks for your help but am confused about the 5:4, 4:4 and 5:5 (no idea at all)...

can you please clarify that for me?
As m42man explained, for example 5:4 means 5 lens elements in 4 groups. It is simply the shortest way to describe a lens formula, though it of course does not sum up all its properties (far from). The lens elements that make one group is often cemented to each other, and never move in relation to each other, but move relative to the other lens elements and groups.

For example, the Zeiss 135mm sonar has a 4:3 solution:


The SMC Pentax-M 135mm has the following 5:5 solution:


I don't have the Zeiss sonar, so I cannot say much about it myself. It has an iconic reputation, which drives up prices, therefore I have not picked up one myself yet.
The M135 is however a very nice lens. For its size a very good performer. Among the Takumars I like the 5:4 solution, but is not very impressed by the 4:4.

Speaking in general terms, the more optical faults you try to correct in a lens, the more lens elements you need. Old lens designs were often limited to a few lens elemensts because lack of sufficient coatings caused large light losses. Light is reflected for every lens element, when passing from both sides of the lens element. If the glass reflect 5% of the light, in a 4 lens element design, 0.95^(2*4)=0.66, 66% of the light got through (compared to a multi-coated lens with say 1% reflection, 0.99^(2*4)=0.92, 92%). Lets say they would have built a lens for the same purpose with 6 elements, you would have lost 0.95^(2*8)=0.54, 54%. Another factor limiting the lens designs were the complex computations which before the use of computers were hard for complex designs with many elements. Therefore, older lenses tend to have less elements. Despite this, the lens designers in the old days still managed to find many good designs, sort of optimal solutions, simple, elegant and efficient, using I presume trial and error, and an accumulated feeling for what to expect if they changed things a little here and a little there.

You can find examples of these lenses and many more on the https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/99057-135mm-lens-club.html.

EDIT: Should mention that the lens diagrams are from http://www.praktica-users.com/ and http://www.bdimitrov.de/ respecticely, two great web sites.

Last edited by Douglas_of_Sweden; 10-19-2010 at 01:31 PM.
10-19-2010, 11:09 PM   #18
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Southern England
Posts: 495
QuoteOriginally posted by Douglas_of_Sweden Quote
...Among the Takumars I like the 5:4 solution, but is not very impressed by the 4:4...
Oh, I was half expecting that - so my 5:4 135/3.5 Super-Tak is probably just a bad copy (probably due to botched repair, rather than being bad from new - unlike what I'd expect from a modern mass-market zoom, of course!).

Openyourap, I'm glad you've kicked off a section for the CZJ 135/3.5 in the lens database - I was surprised to find there wasn't one already. Whilst I haven't really done any controlled comparative testing against my other 135s, it was always apparent to me that it was very sharp, with the most striking aspect perhaps being the vibrant (and warm) colours. Not so nice to use though (clunky build quality), and colour/contrast can easily be done in PP anyway.

I really must do a 135mm lens shootout (I think I have about 7). Is it reasonably straightforward to post images (I've never done it before)?
10-20-2010, 01:08 AM   #19
Site Supporter
Douglas_of_Sweden's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Stockholm
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,353
QuoteOriginally posted by m42man Quote
Oh, I was half expecting that - so my 5:4 135/3.5 Super-Tak is probably just a bad copy (probably due to botched repair, rather than being bad from new - unlike what I'd expect from a modern mass-market zoom, of course!).

Openyourap, I'm glad you've kicked off a section for the CZJ 135/3.5 in the lens database - I was surprised to find there wasn't one already. Whilst I haven't really done any controlled comparative testing against my other 135s, it was always apparent to me that it was very sharp, with the most striking aspect perhaps being the vibrant (and warm) colours. Not so nice to use though (clunky build quality), and colour/contrast can easily be done in PP anyway.

I really must do a 135mm lens shootout (I think I have about 7). Is it reasonably straightforward to post images (I've never done it before)?
Isn't one of the russion 135mm a copy of the CZJ design?

You'd be very welcome to post your 135mm review in the 135mm club thread...

My current Takumar favorite is the Auto Takumar 135mm/3.5 (5:4), but is partly due to its finnish and build quality. Superb!

10-20-2010, 01:40 AM   #20
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Southern England
Posts: 495
QuoteOriginally posted by Douglas_of_Sweden Quote
Isn't one of the russion 135mm a copy of the CZJ design?

You'd be very welcome to post your 135mm review in the 135mm club thread...

My current Takumar favorite is the Auto Takumar 135mm/3.5 (5:4), but is partly due to its finnish and build quality. Superb!
Yes, I think I've heard that the Jupiter-11 135/4 is a Sonnar copy. Also, the East German Pentacon 135/2.8 (it's one of my 7) may be based on the CZJ.
10-20-2010, 02:05 AM   #21
Site Supporter
Douglas_of_Sweden's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Stockholm
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,353
QuoteOriginally posted by m42man Quote
Yes, I think I've heard that the Jupiter-11 135/4 is a Sonnar copy. Also, the East German Pentacon 135/2.8 (it's one of my 7) may be based on the CZJ.
I've got the Pentacon 135/2.8. But I think it is a 5:4 solution based on the older Meyer Orestor 135/2.8, but with less apperture blades. Have not seen a lens diagram though.
10-20-2010, 02:16 AM   #22
Senior Member
DaniRo's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Romania
Posts: 102
the M 135mm is the smallest 135mm I have ever seen
I'm not that much into this focal lenght but I must say it's a very sharp lens and has great bokeh (8 blades)







10-21-2010, 11:30 PM   #23
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
FWIW, the Jupiter 37 is as small as the M135.

In the matter of the OP choice, I'd go with the CZJ. The Russian 135 are my favorite 135 lenses and the CZJ is supposed to be in the same league. On the other hand, I found nothing remarkable about the M 135 other than the facility with which it fell prey to purple fringing.

10-22-2010, 06:02 AM   #24
Veteran Member
frank's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Singapore
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,202
Other than the quite common sticky aperture blades problem, I'd say the 135 CZJ is a better lens optically. Another plus point is that it can focus down to 1m while the M135 can only go as close as 150mm.
02-25-2012, 10:36 AM   #25
Junior Member
siddharth's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: San Jose
Photos: Albums
Posts: 25
Hi, I am using Pentax k-X
anyone please help, where can find "Carl Zeiss Jenna 135mm, f3.5 Sonnar MC"
i am eagerly searching for it....

Thanks in advance
02-25-2012, 11:51 AM   #26
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,438
QuoteOriginally posted by siddharth Quote
Hi, I am using Pentax k-X
anyone please help, where can find "Carl Zeiss Jenna 135mm, f3.5 Sonnar MC"
i am eagerly searching for it....

Thanks in advance
There are several available on eBay right now. Expect to pay about $120 USD buy-it-now price. Note that several that this focal length was available is several designs over the years and not all are explicitly labeled "Sonnar", so it is not clear that all are of the Sonnar design. Also be wary of non-screw mount Jena lenses...they are not the real thing.


Steve
02-26-2012, 12:16 AM   #27
Junior Member
siddharth's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: San Jose
Photos: Albums
Posts: 25
Thanks Steve
yeah i fond it... thanks a lot
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
135mm, carl, carl zeiss jena, iq, jena, k-mount, lens, lenses, pentax, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Carl Zeiss Jena 75-300mm has anyone experience with it on pentax k-x davidvandoren Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 0 03-06-2010 07:09 AM
For Sale - Sold: [Worldwide] Carl Zeiss Jena 29mm f2.8 (K mount), Pentax FA* 24mm f2 knyghtfall Sold Items 6 03-04-2010 01:54 AM
Rare Carl Zeiss Jena STASI lens set for M42 Pentax mt. netuser Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 6 02-18-2010 06:07 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:45 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top