stephentaylor
member
Reged: 02/07/2007
Posts: 119
|
|
Hello, does anyone know anything about Meyer-Optik lenses? I have inherited a Nova 1B - lovely camera but unfortunately the shutter sticks at slower speeds - but it comes with an M42 fit Meyer-Optik Gorlitz Domiplan 2.8/50mm manual lens.
Does anyone know anything about this lens? Is it any good? I also have a couple of Takumar SMC lenses, and I believe they are outstanding, so I wondered if this one is of the same quality?
Also, on the same subject. The Takumar is both manual and automatic aperture opening. The Domiplan is automatic only, so I see the iris closing when I half press the shutter. What's the difference in focus, or d.o.f., when using automatic aperture??
Thanks!!
|
john_g
Pooh-bah Hoo-ha
Reged: 09/05/2007
Posts: 2432
Loc: Surrey
|
|
My first camera and lens, back at the end of the 70s/early 80s! The camera did its job ok but the lens was always horribly soft. If I remember correctly, it was said that it was a quality control problem - most of the lenses were disappointing but a few were quite good.
The automatic and manual aperture lenses will take exactly the same photographs - no difference in depth of field. It's just to do with how and when the lens aperture will change from wide open to stopped down. At the moment of taking the picture, any lens will be closed down to the selected aperture.
--------------------
John
And the day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom - Anais Nin.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/john_gass
Edited by john_g (13/10/2007 09:59)
|
nimbus
enthusiast
Reged: 29/08/2007
Posts: 313
|
|
These were not the best of lenses for these cameras. I seem to recall that the 50mm f1.8 Oreston from the same manufacturer was considered to be quite good at the time. These were the budget lenses, for a low cost camera range, the more expensive option were the Carl Zeiss, Jena lenses. Some of the other Meyer Optik lenses were reckoned to be be good performers in their day. They are probably not as good as the Takumars though. The Takumars can put many modern lenses to shame.
|
mike_j
nobbut a beginner
Reged: 23/08/2005
Posts: 1309
|
|
The f1.8 Practica Pentacon is pretty good for the money and focusses down to about 13 inches. I sometimes use one on my Olympus digital as a close up lens. The Domiplan was the bottom of the Practica range as I remember.
Neither is in the same league as Takumars.
|
superskib
Reged: 17/01/2005
Posts: 12
Loc: devon uk
|
|
If you want to use this old camera with lenses to match your Pentax Takumars get yourself a 29mm f2.8 Orestegon, a 50mm F1.8 Oreston and my favourite lens of all time (and I have 11 Nikkors) is the 100mm F2.8 Orestor it is a beautiful short tele/portrait lens. Sadly my Prakticamat has died and my Nikons are so much better engineered.
Currently my favourite combo is an FA with 85mm F2.
|
mike_j
nobbut a beginner
Reged: 23/08/2005
Posts: 1309
|
|
My current favourite is Olympus E510 dSLR with Super Takumar f1.4 50mm lens. This is a 100mm equivalent on the 4/3 system and the f1.4 means I get decent control of the DoF though sharpness doesn't come up to the Zuiko digital lens standards, even stopped down.
One thing I do like about the Olympus is the zoomed live view focussing facility, helps a lot with manual focus lenses.
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 4494
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
The f1.8 Practica Pentacon is pretty good for the money and focusses down to about 13 inches. I sometimes use one on my Olympus digital as a close up lens. The Domiplan was the bottom of the Practica range as I remember.
IIRC the Nova 1B was available with four different standard lenses:
Practika Domiplan f/2.8 @ £39
Zeiss Tessar f/2.8 @ £49
Practika Pentacon f/1.8 @ £49
Zeiss Pancolor f/1.8 @ £59
The Tessar was a very decent lens although it was soft at wide apertures. The (Carl Zeiss Jena) Pancolor was rather good, very competitive with contemporary similar spec lenses from the major Japanese manufacturers.
|
nimbus
enthusiast
Reged: 29/08/2007
Posts: 313
|
|
I seem to recall there was also a Ludwig Meritar 50mm f2.9 preset lens available at lower cost. This was from all accounts a pretty poor performer, it was, I think, a three element design.
My first slr was a Praktica Nova1 with the Tessar. The first camera was defective new, it was replaced with a delay of about five weeks. The second failed after about five weeks, took another five weeks to be repaired, then failed again soon after the one year guarantee expired. I gave up and traded it in for a used Pentax S1a. This performed faultlessly for years until I sold it and bought a Minolta SRT 101.
|
stephentaylor
member
Reged: 02/07/2007
Posts: 119
|
|
Thanks everyone,
There it is then, the Takumar is superior, which means I probably won't be using the Praktica much.
Interstingly enough (Nimbus), I use a Pentax S3 with the Takumar lens. Together they take the most beautiful photographs.
Steve
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 37095
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
The f1.8 Practica Pentacon is pretty good for the money and focusses down to about 13 inches. I sometimes use one on my Olympus digital as a close up lens. The Domiplan was the bottom of the Practica range as I remember.
IIRC the Nova 1B was available with four different standard lenses:
Practika Domiplan f/2.8 @ £39
Zeiss Tessar f/2.8 @ £49
Practika Pentacon f/1.8 @ £49
Zeiss Pancolor f/1.8 @ £59
The Tessar was a very decent lens although it was soft at wide apertures. The (Carl Zeiss Jena) Pancolor was rather good, very competitive with contemporary similar spec lenses from the major Japanese manufacturers.
IMHO, the Domiplan is awful, the Tessar OK, the Pentacon/Oreston on a par with most 50mm lenses from major manufacturers (i.e. the Japanese - I still remember the AP test reports showing this) and the Pancolar better than all but the best - by which I mean Zeiss and Leica.
Meyer lenses varied from the dreadful - the Domiplan - through the competent - the Oreston - to the really rather good - the 30mm f3.5 Lydith. I only keep a Domiplan for special effects - it can be quite interesting used wide open.
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 4494
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
IMHO, the Domiplan is awful, the Tessar OK, the Pentacon/Oreston on a par with most 50mm lenses from major manufacturers (i.e. the Japanese - I still remember the AP test reports showing this) and the Pancolar better than all but the best - by which I mean Zeiss and Leica.
It's hardly worth having an argument at this range, but the two examples known to me are the f/2.8 Tessar which my dad had on his Nova 1B, and the f/1.8 Pentacon which I got with my Practika L. I have no doubt that the specific example of the Tessar was way better than the specific example of the Pentacon which I have personal knowledge of. In fact I swapped lenses with my dad when he traded his Nova in.
OTOH the qualities of the Pentacon which I disliked - poor contrast and a subtle but strange colour cast - would be easily compensated for by today's digital imaging systems. It was certainly sharp enough, but the images it took on film lacked punch.
A fellow student had a Pentax Spotmatic with a f/1.4 Takumar, this was IMO a much better lens than the Pentacon I had. Someone else had a Praktica with the Pancolor lens, that was definitely better than the Takumar. As for the bunch of people I knew who had Domiplans, most of them rushed to make amends as soon as they saw what a crock of s**t it was in comparison with everything else.
I have no doubt that other people's experiences differ, this is almost certainly due to the poor to non-existent quality control in East German manufacturing during the Cold War era, together with the fact that the best optical manufacturing capacity which survived Allied bombing was removed to the Soviet Union as war reparations - where it was put to work producing Zorkis, Feds and Zeniths.
On the whole it is surprising that the Pancolor was as good as it undoubtedly was, and still is.
|
mike_j
nobbut a beginner
Reged: 23/08/2005
Posts: 1309
|
|
The lenses are all shown in this catalogue which also has links to full specifications and sample photographs.
|
Mark_Norton
Reged: 29/06/2002
Posts: 1140
Loc: London, UK
|
|
Goerlitz is a small town on the German-Czech border...
Like some others here, I started off with a Praktica L and Domiplan when £32 for the two (as I recall) was a lot of money for a 16 year old in 1971 - I only earned £18 a week soldering televisions together for ITT in Hastings.
The lens was certainly soft but for 2 or 3 years, it produced acceptable 10*8 prints, especially compared to what I was used to. Easy to berate the lens now, but it provided an entry to SLR photography for thousands.
As also said, the Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar, especially in "zebra" form was the Holy Grail.
I have a 30mm f3.5 Lydith, as it happens sitting on my desk now, bought from a certain camera shop in Leicester called Jessops, from before the time they started employing spotty people who know little and care less.
--------------------
Mark
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 37095
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
Argument? More a discussion, I think. I have several examples of each lens (also of the Pancolar and Domiplan, FWIW), both single- and multi-coated, and in the case of the Oreston/Pentacon, in two different lens mounts. In single-coated versions, the Tessar does have more contrast - hardly a surprise, given fewer glass/air surfaces. Mine normally lives on my Praktica VF, and at f11 is capable of excellent results, for sure. My MC versions aren't really any better except in flare control under extreme conditions. With the Oreston/Pentacon, my personal experience is that they all seem to have similar resolution, but the MC ones offer better contrast. That said, I know there are some people who think that the earlier lens is superior, so doubtless the QC issue is fairly significant. However, I go along with the AP test reports, and consider the Pentacon to be a perfectly respectable lens.
Quote:
the best optical manufacturing capacity which survived Allied bombing was removed to the Soviet Union as war reparations - where it was put to work producing Zorkis, Feds and Zeniths.
Well no - no Zorkis, Zenit(h)s or FEDs were ever produced on former Carl Zeiss Stiftung equipment, although perhaps their lenses were. I must say I'm not entirely clear on how much of the lens manufacturing equipment was taken, although it's clear that the Jupiter lenses are clones of pre-war Carl Zeiss Jena lenses. The main prize was the Contax tooling, which was used for Kiev production.
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 37095
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
Quote:
As also said, the Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar, especially in "zebra" form was the Holy Grail.
Back then, perhaps - these days, most CZJ afficianados prefer the later MC version. I can't comment, as both of mine are MC ones.
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
