Carl Zeiss Jena vs Pentax M @ 135mm f3.5, which one has the better IQ?

HoBykoYan · 10-19-2010, 12:56 AM

Dear All,

I am currently looking for good manual lenses after acquiring my A 50 1.4 and M 28 2.8. Manual is the way to go for me now after owning these two great lenses.

Now I need your opinions once again...

I found these two lenses in the neighborhood:

Carl Zeiss Jena (Red) M42 for 149us and
Pentax M for 70us (tried it and IQ is superb, i like the feel and the look on my k-x but the pictures taken are somewhat dark)

both 135mm and f3.5...

Is the CZ a lot better than the M IQ wise considering the pricing of the lens? or is it just because of the name and rarity of the lens?

Thanks in advance

Asahiflex · 10-19-2010, 01:08 AM - **1 Like**

I have both lenses and although I haven't made a shootout with both directly, I know that I like the CZJ better. However, it's considerably less well built than the M version; it's not rare to find CZJ's with non-working diaphragms.

On a side note: generally M42 lenses are more usable on our digital bodies. Because you can use them stopped down all the time, so the Av mode is possible. This is impossible with Pentax M-series unless you use a few tricks (which are not recommended).

HoBykoYan · 10-19-2010, 01:14 AM

Thank you Asahiflex for the prompt reply.

Am not quite sure about what your trying to tell me on the m42 advantage. Do you have any link to a discussion/topic about this advantage for me to grasp this particular advantage well.

Again thank you

m42man · 10-19-2010, 01:22 AM

You've taken the words out of my mouth Asahiflex! Except my feeling is that the M 135/3.5 isn't so far behind in terms of IQ (although the CZJ's colours are nicer).

In my opinion, HyBykoYan, all the CZJs are somewhat overpriced, mainly owing to the supply/demand situation.

Personally, I have a soft spot for the M 135/3.5, because it's so compact and light, and I think it's distinctly better value for money than the CZJ.

Other 135/3.5s to consider would of course be the S-M-C Takumar and (optically very similar, I believe) Pentax K versions. You may like to take a look here, for a comparison of various 135s (though not the M):

135mm Lens War

Asahiflex · 10-19-2010, 01:30 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by HoBykoYan

Thank you Asahiflex for the prompt reply.

Am not quite sure about what your trying to tell me on the m42 advantage. Do you have any link to a discussion/topic about this advantage for me to grasp this particular advantage well.

I don't have any links handy, but I'll try to elaborate on that.

Since the *ist, the last Pentax film body, there's no mechanical diaphragm feeler anymore inside the DSLR's. So with a M lens attached the camera does never know which f/stop it is at. The diaphragm will still be closed when a photo is taken (provided you change the diaphragm usage setting in the camera's menu), but light metering is not possible unless you use M mode and the green button (making this a modern variant of the OLD 1964'S Spotmatic metering

)

Now with most M42 lenses you can put them in "M" mode for the diaphragm operation (because most M42 lenses have their own Auto-Manual switch). The Auto setting does not have a meaning on our bodies since the diaphragm pin at the back of the lens is not operated, but in Manual the lens is stopped down all the time. This means that the camera is measuring the exact amount of light hitting the light meter sensors. This makes Av metering possible at all f/stops and this is why M42 lenses are so much more usable on DSLR's than the old pre-A K-mount lenses.

Asahiflex · 10-19-2010, 01:33 AM - **1 Like**

BTW: if I had to choose a M42 135mm then I'd take the 135mm f/2.5 Super-Multi-Coated Takumar (the later 6 element version) above the CZJ Sonnar, but that's me

**Douglas_of_Sweden** · 10-19-2010, 01:44 AM

Originally posted by m42man

You've taken the words out of my mouth Asahiflex! Except my feeling is that the M 135/3.5 isn't so far behind in terms of IQ (although the CZJ's colours are nicer).

In my opinion, HyBykoYan, all the CZJs are somewhat overpriced, mainly owing to the supply/demand situation.

Personally, I have a soft spot for the M 135/3.5, because it's so compact and light, and I think it's distinctly better value for money than the CZJ.

Other 135/3.5s to consider would of course be the S-M-C Takumar and (optically very similar, I believe) Pentax K versions. You may like to take a look here, for a comparison of various 135s (though not the M):

135mm Lens War

No, the m42 Takumar 135/3.5's are either a 5:4 lens solution (6 versions prior to 1965) or a 4:4 solution (two versions, with or without SMC). The K135/3.5 is optically identical to the later. The M135/3.5 is a unique 5:5 lens solution.

HoBykoYan · 10-19-2010, 01:51 AM

Thanks Asahiflex for your explanation and the effort (appreciate it). Now i got your point though not so clear but i got it...

Thank you m42man for the 135 lens war link, very useful (not only for me but to all i guess)...

I am more inclined on the M 135 now and dropping the Carl Zeiss but i will try to look for the Super Taks out there, i think they're impressive from the link...

If anyone here has still other opinions please post and help...

Thanks a lot

HoBykoYan · 10-19-2010, 01:54 AM

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?

m42man · 10-19-2010, 01:57 AM

Originally posted by Douglas_of_Sweden

No, the m42 Takumar 135/3.5's are either a 5:4 lens solution (6 versions prior to 1965) or a 4:4 solution (two versions, with or without SMC). The K135/3.5 is optically identical to the later. The M135/3.5 is a unique 5:5 lens solution.

Yes, I know, that's what I was trying to say. It's relevant to the link, because the link takes you to a test which compares the CZJ against the SMC Takumar, and this can therefore be extrapolated to the (we agree) optically similar K.

By the way, I have an early 5:4 version of the Super Tak, and find it optically very inferior. Is this generally the case, or have I just got a bad copy?

m42man · 10-19-2010, 02:06 AM

HyBykoYan, we've got a fast-moving real-time thread going here!

Regarding Super Taks, these were early (but not the earliest) version of Takumar lenses. They're only single-coated lenses (so they should have poorer contrast and be more flare-prone than multicoated), and in my opinion you'd be better off going for the later Super-Multi-Coated or SMC Takumars.

Douglas will no doubt respond regarding the meaning of 5:4 and 4:4 etc., but in case he doesn't, he's referring to the optical formula: 5:4 for example means "5 glass elements in 4 groups". I wouldn't worry about this, but it can be a good way of differentiating between versions of the same lens.

HoBykoYan · 10-19-2010, 02:31 AM

Thanks m42man, learning a lot from you guys really appreciate all your help.

In this regard, i think i am highly considering the M 135 if i can't find the S-M-C Tak version...

By the way, which one of these (5:4, 4:4, or 5:5, etc...) should be the best optically or bokeh wise?

Asahiflex · 10-19-2010, 02:48 AM

Originally posted by HoBykoYan

Thanks m42man, learning a lot from you guys really appreciate all your help.

In this regard, i think i am highly considering the M 135 if i can't find the S-M-C Tak version...

By the way, which one of these (5:4, 4:4, or 5:5, etc...) should be the best optically or bokeh wise?

You can assess my 6:6 S-M-C Takumar 135mm f/2.5 version here: Manual Focus Lenses :: View topic - The Firefighters & The Brassband

m42man · 10-19-2010, 02:52 AM

Originally posted by HoBykoYan

Thanks m42man, learning a lot from you guys really appreciate all your help.

In this regard, i think i am highly considering the M 135 if i can't find the S-M-C Tak version...

By the way, which one of these (5:4, 4:4, or 5:5, etc...) should be the best optically or bokeh wise?

You're very welcome, HyBykoYan!

I must admit, I certainly like my M 135.

I don't think you can judge a lens's qualities simply by the number of elements/groups - there are many types of lens configurations (even for primes, and never mind modern zooms!), and there isn't any simple answer. (For instance, the CZJ is described as (and even named) a "Sonnar", and this is just one possibility for a telephoto lens.

And I don't think it's a case of "the more elements the better", because, in the case of the Pentax/Takumar 135/3.5s, the 4:4 is generally regarded as best (I believe). The M is probably 5:5 in order to make for a very compact lens without sacrificing IQ.

Regarding bokeh, I certainly haven't done any comparative testing of my various 135s, but I believe the CZJ scores well generally:

Bokeh Test

I have to sign-off now, so don't worry when I fail to respond quickly to any response you may make!

HoBykoYan · 10-19-2010, 03:07 AM

Asahiflex those shots were tack sharp and colors were amazing... I'll try to find one if i still can, if not i'll stick with the M 135 (pretty sharp as well)...

m42man thanks for the link and the help.

I'll stick with the M 135 unless i'll find a better lens

Keep the opinions coming...

Peace...

10-19-2010, 12:56 AM	#1
HoBykoYan Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: HCMC Posts: 271	Carl Zeiss Jena vs Pentax M @ 135mm f3.5, which one has the better IQ? Dear All, I am currently looking for good manual lenses after acquiring my A 50 1.4 and M 28 2.8. Manual is the way to go for me now after owning these two great lenses. Now I need your opinions once again... I found these two lenses in the neighborhood: Carl Zeiss Jena (Red) M42 for 149us and Pentax M for 70us (tried it and IQ is superb, i like the feel and the look on my k-x but the pictures taken are somewhat dark) both 135mm and f3.5... Is the CZ a lot better than the M IQ wise considering the pricing of the lens? or is it just because of the name and rarity of the lens? Thanks in advance

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

10-19-2010, 01:08 AM - 1 Like	#2
Asahiflex Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Netherlands Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,795	I have both lenses and although I haven't made a shootout with both directly, I know that I like the CZJ better. However, it's considerably less well built than the M version; it's not rare to find CZJ's with non-working diaphragms. On a side note: generally M42 lenses are more usable on our digital bodies. Because you can use them stopped down all the time, so the Av mode is possible. This is impossible with Pentax M-series unless you use a few tricks (which are not recommended).

10-19-2010, 01:14 AM	#3
HoBykoYan Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: HCMC Posts: 271 Original Poster	Thank you Asahiflex for the prompt reply. Am not quite sure about what your trying to tell me on the m42 advantage. Do you have any link to a discussion/topic about this advantage for me to grasp this particular advantage well. Again thank you

10-19-2010, 01:22 AM	#4
m42man Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Southern England Posts: 624	You've taken the words out of my mouth Asahiflex! Except my feeling is that the M 135/3.5 isn't so far behind in terms of IQ (although the CZJ's colours are nicer). In my opinion, HyBykoYan, all the CZJs are somewhat overpriced, mainly owing to the supply/demand situation. Personally, I have a soft spot for the M 135/3.5, because it's so compact and light, and I think it's distinctly better value for money than the CZJ. Other 135/3.5s to consider would of course be the S-M-C Takumar and (optically very similar, I believe) Pentax K versions. You may like to take a look here, for a comparison of various 135s (though not the M): 135mm Lens War

10-19-2010, 01:30 AM - 1 Like	#5
Asahiflex Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Netherlands Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,795	Originally posted by HoBykoYan Thank you Asahiflex for the prompt reply. Am not quite sure about what your trying to tell me on the m42 advantage. Do you have any link to a discussion/topic about this advantage for me to grasp this particular advantage well. I don't have any links handy, but I'll try to elaborate on that. Since the *ist, the last Pentax film body, there's no mechanical diaphragm feeler anymore inside the DSLR's. So with a M lens attached the camera does never know which f/stop it is at. The diaphragm will still be closed when a photo is taken (provided you change the diaphragm usage setting in the camera's menu), but light metering is not possible unless you use M mode and the green button (making this a modern variant of the OLD 1964'S Spotmatic metering ) Now with most M42 lenses you can put them in "M" mode for the diaphragm operation (because most M42 lenses have their own Auto-Manual switch). The Auto setting does not have a meaning on our bodies since the diaphragm pin at the back of the lens is not operated, but in Manual the lens is stopped down all the time. This means that the camera is measuring the exact amount of light hitting the light meter sensors. This makes Av metering possible at all f/stops and this is why M42 lenses are so much more usable on DSLR's than the old pre-A K-mount lenses.

10-19-2010, 01:33 AM - 1 Like	#6
Asahiflex Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Netherlands Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,795	BTW: if I had to choose a M42 135mm then I'd take the 135mm f/2.5 Super-Multi-Coated Takumar (the later 6 element version) above the CZJ Sonnar, but that's me

10-19-2010, 01:44 AM	#7
Douglas_of_Sweden Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Stockholm Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,374	Originally posted by m42man You've taken the words out of my mouth Asahiflex! Except my feeling is that the M 135/3.5 isn't so far behind in terms of IQ (although the CZJ's colours are nicer). In my opinion, HyBykoYan, all the CZJs are somewhat overpriced, mainly owing to the supply/demand situation. Personally, I have a soft spot for the M 135/3.5, because it's so compact and light, and I think it's distinctly better value for money than the CZJ. Other 135/3.5s to consider would of course be the S-M-C Takumar and (optically very similar, I believe) Pentax K versions. You may like to take a look here, for a comparison of various 135s (though not the M): 135mm Lens War No, the m42 Takumar 135/3.5's are either a 5:4 lens solution (6 versions prior to 1965) or a 4:4 solution (two versions, with or without SMC). The K135/3.5 is optically identical to the later. The M135/3.5 is a unique 5:5 lens solution.

10-19-2010, 01:51 AM	#8
HoBykoYan Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: HCMC Posts: 271 Original Poster	Thanks Asahiflex for your explanation and the effort (appreciate it). Now i got your point though not so clear but i got it... Thank you m42man for the 135 lens war link, very useful (not only for me but to all i guess)... I am more inclined on the M 135 now and dropping the Carl Zeiss but i will try to look for the Super Taks out there, i think they're impressive from the link... If anyone here has still other opinions please post and help... Thanks a lot

10-19-2010, 01:54 AM	#9
HoBykoYan Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: HCMC Posts: 271 Original Poster	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?

10-19-2010, 01:57 AM	#10
m42man Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Southern England Posts: 624	Originally posted by Douglas_of_Sweden No, the m42 Takumar 135/3.5's are either a 5:4 lens solution (6 versions prior to 1965) or a 4:4 solution (two versions, with or without SMC). The K135/3.5 is optically identical to the later. The M135/3.5 is a unique 5:5 lens solution. Yes, I know, that's what I was trying to say. It's relevant to the link, because the link takes you to a test which compares the CZJ against the SMC Takumar, and this can therefore be extrapolated to the (we agree) optically similar K. By the way, I have an early 5:4 version of the Super Tak, and find it optically very inferior. Is this generally the case, or have I just got a bad copy?

10-19-2010, 02:06 AM	#11
m42man Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Southern England Posts: 624	HyBykoYan, we've got a fast-moving real-time thread going here! Regarding Super Taks, these were early (but not the earliest) version of Takumar lenses. They're only single-coated lenses (so they should have poorer contrast and be more flare-prone than multicoated), and in my opinion you'd be better off going for the later Super-Multi-Coated or SMC Takumars. Douglas will no doubt respond regarding the meaning of 5:4 and 4:4 etc., but in case he doesn't, he's referring to the optical formula: 5:4 for example means "5 glass elements in 4 groups". I wouldn't worry about this, but it can be a good way of differentiating between versions of the same lens.

10-19-2010, 02:31 AM	#12
HoBykoYan Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: HCMC Posts: 271 Original Poster	Thanks m42man, learning a lot from you guys really appreciate all your help. In this regard, i think i am highly considering the M 135 if i can't find the S-M-C Tak version... By the way, which one of these (5:4, 4:4, or 5:5, etc...) should be the best optically or bokeh wise?

10-19-2010, 02:48 AM	#13
Asahiflex Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Netherlands Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,795	Originally posted by HoBykoYan Thanks m42man, learning a lot from you guys really appreciate all your help. In this regard, i think i am highly considering the M 135 if i can't find the S-M-C Tak version... By the way, which one of these (5:4, 4:4, or 5:5, etc...) should be the best optically or bokeh wise? You can assess my 6:6 S-M-C Takumar 135mm f/2.5 version here: Manual Focus Lenses :: View topic - The Firefighters & The Brassband

10-19-2010, 02:52 AM	#14
m42man Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Southern England Posts: 624	Originally posted by HoBykoYan Thanks m42man, learning a lot from you guys really appreciate all your help. In this regard, i think i am highly considering the M 135 if i can't find the S-M-C Tak version... By the way, which one of these (5:4, 4:4, or 5:5, etc...) should be the best optically or bokeh wise? You're very welcome, HyBykoYan! I must admit, I certainly like my M 135. I don't think you can judge a lens's qualities simply by the number of elements/groups - there are many types of lens configurations (even for primes, and never mind modern zooms!), and there isn't any simple answer. (For instance, the CZJ is described as (and even named) a "Sonnar", and this is just one possibility for a telephoto lens. And I don't think it's a case of "the more elements the better", because, in the case of the Pentax/Takumar 135/3.5s, the 4:4 is generally regarded as best (I believe). The M is probably 5:5 in order to make for a very compact lens without sacrificing IQ. Regarding bokeh, I certainly haven't done any comparative testing of my various 135s, but I believe the CZJ scores well generally: Bokeh Test I have to sign-off now, so don't worry when I fail to respond quickly to any response you may make!

10-19-2010, 03:07 AM	#15
HoBykoYan Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: HCMC Posts: 271 Original Poster	Asahiflex those shots were tack sharp and colors were amazing... I'll try to find one if i still can, if not i'll stick with the M 135 (pretty sharp as well)... m42man thanks for the link and the help. I'll stick with the M 135 unless i'll find a better lens Keep the opinions coming... Peace...