Hi Paul,
I have not performed controlled comparisons between the CZJ Sonnars and the 67 lenses that you mentioned, but I own all of them, the 165, 200 (latest Ernostar) the 300 M*, and also the 400 Takumar. I have used these lenses extensively to shoot portraits and flowers, so I can provide an opinion based on my experience.
All of the Pentax 67 telephotos have very good resolution – good enough for almost all photography work. Even wide open, they are quite acceptable. The 165, 200 and the 400 offer good contrast, whilst the 300 M*, and my copy of the 165, provide significantly higher contrast, hence appear the sharpest of the group.
None of these lenses is particularly prone to chromatic aberration, except the 400 Takumar, which shows some lateral CA with strongly lit backgrounds when shooting wide open, or close to it, but the problem is solved by stopping down some. For the type of photography I do, the CA has not been a problem, even wide open – I really like this lens a lot, one of my favourites.
The colour rendition of the 200 and 400 is very natural, whereas it is more vivid with the 300 M*, probably due to the ED glass, as well as with the 165. In my estimation, the bokeh of all of these lenses is quite acceptable – no donuts around out-of-focus specular highlights and no double lines along long, thin objects – thus backgrounds do not tend to appear overly busy or nervous. However, I would not characterise the bokeh of any of these lenses as notable, but rather, competent - neutral and not normally distracting.
All said, the 300 M* is probably the best of the lot, optically, and it can be focused as close as 2m; however, a small turn of the focus ring produces a big change in the focus. Many say that the 300 M* tends to “snap” into focus – either it is in focus, or it is not, but I have found it difficult and unforgiving in practice, leading to many slightly out of focus images. Perhaps this is especially a problem for me, as I tend to use the lens wide open, or close to it, and at close subject distances, where the DOF is very small. But there is no doubt that this lens, when properly focused, produces stunningly sharp images.
The CZJ 180 and 300 Sonnars provide resolution comparable to that of the Pentax 67 lenses, but the contrast is quite high - closer to that of the 300 M* and the 165, rather than that of the 200 and 400. But I believe that the CZJ’s are sharper wide open, or near wide open, than the comparable Pentax 67 lenses. The colour rendition of these CZJ lenses is vivid, like the 300 M* and the 165, but it retains a very natural look – a quality often attributed to Zeiss glass.
Where these CZJ Sonnars really distinguish themselves is in out-of-focus rendition – it is outstanding, simply gorgeous. Under corrected spherical aberration leads to very smooth transitions in the bokeh – there are no donuts or double lines, yet colour fidelity is nicely retained. This leads to a very pleasing smooth and colorful background, a very worthy compositional element in its own right.
Lastly, the CZJ lenses render subjects in a very 3D way, much like the Pentax 645 FA 150/2.8 and 200/4, which provide beautiful 3D rendition similar to that of certain Leica lenses often raved about in this regard.
I have provided several photos below taken with the CZJ 180 as examples of what I have attempted to explain. In the first photo, (645, ISO160, f/5.6), one can see the subject sharpness and the smooth, yet colourful background bokeh. In the second photo (67, ISO400, f/5.6), the two subjects appear very 3-dimensional, and the colour rendition is typically Zeiss like. I included the third photo (67, ISO 400, f/4) because it demonstrates very nice out-of-focus rendition, even against a bright background, and very smooth transitions between in-focus and out-of-focus areas of the photo. The fourth and fifth photos (645, ISO160, f/2.8) demonstrate the beautiful bokeh of shots wide open and the compositional importance of the out-of-focus areas to the overall picture.
If you primarily shoot with the lens stopped way down to maximise depth of field, I cannot see much value in finding reasonable copies of the CZJ 180 or 300, which is not so easy, and going through the hassle of adaptation to the 67. However, if you often shoot wide open for narrow DOF, and bokeh is an important compositional element in your photos, these CZJ Sonnars add formidable tools to the 67 arsenal.
Best, Alan
Originally posted by Paul Ewins Have you been able to compare the 180 Sonnar against the P67 165/2.8 and 200/4? Similarly have you compared the 300 Sonnar with the P67 300/4?
Last edited by ARCASIA; 06-28-2010 at 03:39 AM.