[schnitzer79]

Been looking around to buy a couple of M42 lenses since I recently bought an adapter and just need some advice. so far I bought the helios 44m-7 58/2 which hasnt arrived yet, and ive been looking to buy a 35mm lens as well.
out of these 3 which one will perform better?

carl zeiss jena flektogon 35/2.4
vs
schneider kreuznach curtagon 35/2.8
vs
auto takumar 35/2.3

which one of these has more character and uniqueness? im also looking for one that will hold its value over time, and im sure all of these will. so far for me the czj has the slight edge since it is the cheapest and also has close focusing abilities.

thanks for your time

[Na Horuk]

I think the Takumar is hard to find, no? With m42 lenses it often comes down to what is available at a good price (and in good condition) locally.
Anyway, of those I have the Flektogon and I like it, even though my copy is rather soft wide open (maybe its just my copy, dunno). But it gets sharp once stopped down. The main advantage of this lens is the near-macro close focusing. There are a couple thread about the 35mm Flektogon lenses, along with sample photos. I compared mine with the Pentax DA 35mm. They have rather different character, the DA 35mm has very modern rendering, is sharp enough wide open, has full automation, and very saturated colours. Flektogon has a more vintage rendering, with calmer bokeh, and great MFD, but is not as sharp wide open. Good CA control, though. If you buy a Flektogon (or any old lens for that matter), get a nice hood for it as well. I got a PH-SA49 knockoff and it seems to work okay on my 28mm and 35mm lenses

[schnitzer79]

I think the Takumar is hard to find, no? With m42 lenses it often comes down to what is available at a good price (and in good condition) locally.
Anyway, of those I have the Flektogon and I like it, even though my copy is rather soft wide open (maybe its just my copy, dunno). But it gets sharp once stopped down. The main advantage of this lens is the near-macro close focusing. There are a couple thread about the 35mm Flektogon lenses, along with sample photos. I compared mine with the Pentax DA 35mm. They have rather different character, the DA 35mm has very modern rendering, is sharp enough wide open, has full automation, and very saturated colours. Flektogon has a more vintage rendering, with calmer bokeh, and great MFD, but is not as sharp wide open. Good CA control, though. If you buy a Flektogon (or any old lens for that matter), get a nice hood for it as well.

the tak 35/2.3 is a little rare but i managed to find one. not exactly inexpensive but not much more than the czj. i did have a look at all the reviews and photos for the czj and im liking what im seeing so far. just need to know if im better off just sticking to my DA 35/2.4. just need something at 35mm which will give a different feel. as you said, modern rendering....i want something which is quite the opposite of that lol

[Kozlok]

There's a Fektogon group on flickr, thousands of samples:

https://www.flickr.com/groups/311992@N25/pool/page8/

Looks to have that old-lens vibe in spades!

[marcusBMG]

Flek is overpriced for what is it and how common IMO difficult to get for less than 3 fig price (partic in $). My DA 35/2/.4 was better value at less than $150 equiv. Quite a few DA 35's drifting on to the auctions because they have been supplied with camera bodies. Totally different lens to the flek of course, but by golly far less hassle than all the M42 pernicketinesses.
I'd prompt towards a tak 55 as a complement to the helios..fine lenses.

[manntax]

Flek is overpriced for what is it and how common IMO difficult to get for less than 3 fig price (partic in $). My DA 35/2/.4 was better value at less than $150 equiv. Quite a few DA 35's drifting on to the auctions because they have been supplied with camera bodies. Totally different lens to the flek of course, but by golly far less hassle than all the M42 pernicketinesses. I'd prompt towards a tak 55 as a complement to the helios..fine lenses.

Absolutely disagree.. firstly Flektogon in good shape is something you will pay for - minty condition with snappy aperture, smooth focusing and crystal optics =- will command a good price. Sure oyu can get one cheaper - but they tend to fail at some point. That is why I got minty copy - which not only excels with sharpness but also delivers absolutely fantastic manual experience. Why bother ? For film shooting for 1st, also manual focusing is simple p-r-e-c-i-s-e - and lastly - for video use - even today most expensive cinema lenses are manual focusing only !

So all in all - its comparing apples and oranges. I surely like my FA 35mm 2.0 - it is even faster, sharp and focuses fast. But it is simple a different lens - the quality of optics inside some of those older lenses ( like Super Takumar , Zeiss etc ) would command not maybe even 4 figure prices - just look at even older zeiss lenses ! The difference is that Flektogons, Sonnars or Super Takumars were plentiful - but again a good copy, sharp, clean and working smoothly - will command its price - whether one like it or not

[Na Horuk]

the tak 35/2.3 is a little rare but i managed to find one. not exactly inexpensive but not much more than the czj.

I would go for the Takumar, just for that. Unless you really want close focusing abilities of the Flektogon (I don't know what the max magnification of the Takumar is).
I'd say the DA 35mm is better if you want to do things like landscape photos, where sharpness and saturation are important. You can also think about the DA 35mm macro for a true maco, but again with modern rendering. If you prefer an older look, I think any of those lenses would deliver (although I only have the Flektogon)

firstly Flektogon in good shape is something you will pay for

I got my Flektogon 35mm f2.4 for around 60euro, plus 5 for the little case (Koffer) in Germany. It looked like it was in great condition, but recently the aperture ring stopped cooperating, so now it is either wide open or stopped all the way down, depending on A/M switch. I'll have to get it fixed. With old lenses, even "mint appearance" is no assurance

[manntax]

I got my Flektogon 35mm f2.4 for around 60euro, plus 5 for the little case (Koffer) in Germany. It looked like it was in great condition, but recently the aperture ring stopped cooperating, so now it is either wide open or stopped all the way down, depending on A/M switch. I'll have to get it fixed. With old lenses, even "mint appearance" is no assurance

That price was a steal - nonetheless my copy, bought from a dealer was not only perfect in appearance but fully working and tested - the condition seemed so good that I am sure this lens was fully CLA'ed at one point - it clearly was used, with some minor cosmetic marks. But when compared to other lenses that I got cheaply from bidding over some privately sold bargains, Flektogon is simple superior. I mean - 40 years old lens that has no visible dust, fogging , hazing , focusing dryness or aperture blade marks or sluggishness ? But the truth is : my idea of 'fair price' for these older classic lenses has been challenged many times over the years and I've learned that buying bargain often meant a sudden failure (as in your case ) sooner or later.

( still you got it cheap ;P )

[schnitzer79]

some good advice here. the flek can be a bit of a gamble as far as finding one in great condition. however it seems that there are various versions out there for some reason and im not sure what the difference is. theres one with all white lettering, theres another with the MC lettering in redand another one which is similar but with the word electric before the MC. heres some pics :

[manntax]

some good advice here. the flek can be a bit of a gamble as far as finding one in great condition. however it seems that there are various versions out there for some reason and im not sure what the difference is. theres one with all white lettering, theres another with the MC lettering in redand another one which is similar but with the word electric before the MC. heres some pics :

I went through this when buying mine. The only difference is between Zebra 2.8 version and black 2.4 versions. Other than that - electric is just designation of mount with additional electric contacts for Praktica cameras. And lettering has no impact on image quality or coating. I had three of those side by side tested and all were superb. Black 2.4 has little bit more speed ( 2.4 vs 2.8 ) - but Zebra focuses EVEN closer , so offers evebn greater macro magnification ( somewhere around 1:2 ). Optically all are superior - but I agree some lemon copies can be found. Mine is sharp wide open in contrary to some that I've seen online. But I attribut that to mine being in superb clean condition. Here are few shots with it - there are others from Flektogos in this club thread : Only Zeiss Flektogon 35mm lens club

[Na Horuk]

( still you got it cheap ;P )

Yep, and I hope once I have it fixed, it will work even better than when I got it! Got it in a small photography store in a small German city just a couple kilometers from Jena.

Oh and I've never heard of the Schneider kreuznach curtagon 35/2.8. Modern Schneider lenses are considered top notch, right up there with Leica and Zeiss, no?

[manntax]

Oh and I've never heard of the Schneider kreuznach curtagon 35/2.8. Modern Schneider lenses are considered top notch, right up there with Leica and Zeiss, no?

Never had one of those, nor did I see or test that Auto Takumar 2.3 - both considered to be excellent , with Takumar probably more desirable than the other. As somebody said : so many lenses... so little time :P

[schnitzer79]

Oh and I've never heard of the Schneider kreuznach curtagon 35/2.8. Modern Schneider lenses are considered top notch, right up there with Leica and Zeiss, no?

apparently they are very good lenses but not too sure about the curtagon 35mm 2.8. theres mixed reviews on it actually whereas the flek and the tak that i listed above, get consistent great reviews.apparently the tak is around $50 more expensive than the flek i found which is in mint condition. initially i also started looking at leicas but then you're talking about a totally different class. way outta my budget!!

[.a.t.]

. . . . .
carl zeiss jena flektogon 35/2.4
vs
schneider kreuznach curtagon 35/2.8
vs
auto takumar 35/2.3

which one of these has more character and uniqueness? im also looking for one that will hold its value over time, and im sure all of these will. so far for me the czj has the slight edge since it is the cheapest and also has close focusing abilities.

thanks for your time

I can't comment on the CZJ or Schneider, but I really like my Auto Tak 35 for its rendering at f/2.3.
Here's a recent shot:


(Canon 5D, Standard JPEG setting)

I would go for the Takumar, just for that. Unless you really want close focusing abilities of the Flektogon (I don't know what the max magnification of the Takumar is) . . .

On my copy the minimum focus distance is 45cm. That's longer than I'd like for the garden scenes I enjoy shooting, but it's usually not a problem.