Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-19-2010, 12:56 AM   #1
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: HCMC
Posts: 272
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

10-19-2010, 01:08 AM - 1 Like   #2
Veteran Member
Asahiflex's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,754
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
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: HCMC
Posts: 272
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
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Southern England
Posts: 495
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
Veteran Member
Asahiflex's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,754
QuoteOriginally posted by HoBykoYan Quote
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
Veteran Member
Asahiflex's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,754
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
Site Supporter
Douglas_of_Sweden's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Stockholm
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,353
QuoteOriginally posted by m42man Quote
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
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: HCMC
Posts: 272
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
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: HCMC
Posts: 272
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
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Southern England
Posts: 495
QuoteOriginally posted by Douglas_of_Sweden Quote
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
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Southern England
Posts: 495
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
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: HCMC
Posts: 272
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
Veteran Member
Asahiflex's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,754
QuoteOriginally posted by HoBykoYan Quote
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
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Southern England
Posts: 495
QuoteOriginally posted by HoBykoYan Quote
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
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: HCMC
Posts: 272
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...
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 01:10 PM. | 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