Your voice is so relaxing that for a moment I forgot I was watching a video and drifted into thoughts of equipment.

Thanks for your take on some of my favorite lenses. Have been mounting Carl Zeiss Jena DDR lenses on my X-T3 almost exclusively those past two years. They are excellent indeed, and the Flektogon 2,4/35, the Flektogon 2.8/20, and the Pancolar 1.8/50 are my all time favorites, with the latter one in my use for exactly forty years now. Thanks!

@zenography7923

3 жыл бұрын

The Pancolar certainly takes some beating - it's really quite something! The Flektogon isn't quite as sharp, but still sharper than most vintage lenses - and the colours - wow!

Love your video. I've got 135 f3.5, 50 f4 macro, 55 f1.7 and 35 f2.8 in my smc Pentax m42 collection.

I have those Zeiss Jena lenses in Praktica B mount, somehow cheaper than M42, so you can save some money. That kit and the 50 1.4 are still the ones I regularly use and love. Great video and great recommendations!

One of the delights of your lens reviews, from four years ago to today, is your photography. To me, the magic of photography is (ignoring the ophthalmological origins of the phrase in the Bates method) "the art of seeing". Your still and video images always remind me that there is much more of the world around us if we will only open our eyes.

@zenography7923

4 жыл бұрын

Thank you, I'm very glad you like them!

Greetings from Mexico my man! Love your sharp and spot on reviews, can´t go wrong with all the aspects you gro through on each review. Gotta say your channel stands out above ALL of other camera/lenses review blogers who, ironicaly, show themselfs for the entire video instead of images of the products and the results shot with the products. Keep up the great work mate! Cheers and have a great seasson!

@zenography7923

4 жыл бұрын

Thanks man, glad you're enjoying the channel!

@Unidente02

4 жыл бұрын

From Mexico here, though not there now. Anyway, I agree that most of the other "photography experts" on KZread seem more interested in showing themselves (sometimes even their girlfriends) in their videos instead of images with narrative to explain their critiques. Some don't even show images. I believe I have stated, in an inverse manner, the reasons why I prefer the Zenography channel above others.

Your accompanying images are now of such a high standard. They are fantastic. Along with the overall quality and authoritative yet poetic way you deliver I am staggered that you are not much further up in the photo journalistic world. I guess it takes time for people to see and appreciate quality. Well I certainly do. I played with the Pentax ME Super in the 80s with standard lens and it was a lovely camera, but didn't make me want to part with my OM-1 in the end, and the Olympus lenses certainly had the edge. The Pentax glass in those days was much cheaper than Olympus if I remember correctly and buying a new lens was a big deal cash wise. People have so much choice now for comparatively peanuts. Edit I think I had the slower 50mm prime lens on the Pentax (and the faster 1.4 Zuiko which is my absolute favourite), I don't remember being too crazy about the slower lens...

@zenography7923

4 жыл бұрын

Thanks for your kind remarks, much appreciated!

Very good review of these interesting vintage lenses.

@zenography7923

3 жыл бұрын

Many thanks, glad you enjoyed it!

My favorite portrait lens for the Pentax is the Jena Biotar 75mm f 1.5. Now that I have a Nikon Z camera, I will try to get a Z to M42 adapter and try it out.

Yes. These are all worth every penny.

Thanks for creamy and crispy lens suggestions for peanuts 🥜

Very helpful review affirming my choice as I just bought the 35mm Jena for use on a Leica CL and Hasselblad X1D (as I have the adapters). Might now get the adapter for my R6 this is looking like a pretty nice lens for video as well and I need to start doing some of that.....thanks for the great review.

@zenography7923

3 жыл бұрын

Many thanks, glad you enjoyed it!

A fine review, and exceptional images. Thank-you.

I have the Pentax 50mm f/4 macro in K mount. It is a great lens for copy work as it is sharp corner to corner, distortion free and has no color fringing problems. I've never seen such a well behaved lens.

@zenography7923

4 жыл бұрын

It really is quite something!

@anbar5675

3 жыл бұрын

I agree. I use it also for general photography, not only copy work.

Great video once again. I have seen so many great pictures from the SMC-M 28/2.8 but my one is not good. I must have a lemon. I agree about the rest, I have never used the CZJ 35 , that lens is very, very expensive here.

@zenography7923

4 жыл бұрын

That Flektogon's a bit expensive, but worth it!

Still as very good as ever, as usual

Just joined today and I am so happy to have found you

@zenography7923

4 жыл бұрын

Welcome!

Hi! I like your B&W-images a lot.... Do you do some split-toning or single toning in post? As I can remember, pictures from my A7II never had such a "pop", when shot in BW. I would really like a video from you, showing, how you perform your post-processing, if you do any... Thx, Stephan

I've put together this pentax kit, but I went entirely with the early k mount versions of all these lenses. I just prefer the bayonet, and see no difference in photo rendition between the early k mount and the takumar lenses.

wonderful video!

@zenography7923

4 жыл бұрын

Thanks!

If you want a 28mm with great bokkeh, try out the Albinar ADG 28 f2.8 Macro. Incredible contrasty. Snag a x2 adapter to get the macro down to 1:2 without distortion.

@luisfilipe9692

4 жыл бұрын

Albinar= Optics TAMRON

@savage1r

4 жыл бұрын

@@luisfilipe9692 really? That's interesting!

Nice review as ever - glad you mention the '3D pop' - these older lenses had less elements so they don't 'flatten' the planes in images so much. Ideal for portraits etc.

my favorite pentax lenses are: smc takumar 35mm f3.5 (sweet jesus!) super takumar 55mm 1.8 (1st version) smc pentax 24mm f2.8 smc pentax 85mm f1.8 smc pentax-m 28mm f2.8 smc pentax-m 40mm f2.8 none of them are radioactive, btw. they're relatively affordable now, but prices have been climbing the past few years... 40 lenses and counting... have owned nearly 100 vintage and modern lenses, only use pentax vintage on my X-T3. honorable mention: konica 40mm f1.8

@rams6702

4 жыл бұрын

I'm pretty sure the super takumar 55 is radioactive. At least in my copy, which has yellowed quite heavily.

@cyrilcrn

4 жыл бұрын

They're not radioactive? This wiki mentions the Takumar series as radioactive lenses: camerapedia.fandom.com/wiki/Radioactive_lenses

@rams6702

4 жыл бұрын

As with vintage lenses it really does vary when it comes to build and optical characteristics. Most of the Takumar models were consistently radioactive, but in some cases lenses of models known to contain thorium glass may not be radioactive at all when tested, and its apparently more so on the common 50's/55's. Dunno too much about the specifics of them old pentax lenses, but i do know that my super takumar 55 1.8 has the bizzare darkened yellow back element giving about a third of a stop less light than 1.8.

@punkrachmaninoff

4 жыл бұрын

@@rams6702 well well well... upon further reading, i stand corrected. apparently the 1962 version of the super tak 55mm f1.8 (which i own and love) isn't radioactive; it's very bright and almost appears to be uncoated when comparing color rendition with my other SMC lenses. whereas the SECOND run versions of the super tak 55mm 1.8, made from 1965 through the remainder of the manufacturing cycle ARE absolutely radioactive... presumably this later lens is the version you have. guess i lucked out. this little conversation is exactly why i think someone needs to make the definitive pentax / takumar back-catalogue radioactivity video.

@rams6702

4 жыл бұрын

@@punkrachmaninoff gotta say you've got a lucky one there with your bright no-thorium glass. Now i REALLY want to see a comparison between the radioactive super taks vs the early non-radioactive ones. Truly interesting stuff

My beloved one is the 50mm f4 Macro.

@luisfilipe9692

4 жыл бұрын

test www.flickr.com/photos/luisvasconcelos/37187388406/in/dateposted-friend/

@jameswburke

4 жыл бұрын

I agree - a great walkaround lens with nice closeup ability - here's a few shots taken with mine: instagram.com/biggerpicturephoto/ My other favourite is the Pentax f1.7 50mm. So small but amazingly sharp. (Chop off the aperture lugs for full frame cameras or it will foul the mirror).

Definitely going to look into the Pentax lenses. I have the Nikkor-H 50mm f/1.4, which I'm really happy for, good sharpness, and just got my hands in Olympus Zuiko 135mm f/3.5, which seem to be less sharp, but good for black and white. But seeing these Pentax options, there might be something for me there. Particularly the 28mm lens.

@zenography7923

4 жыл бұрын

That 28 is a wonderful little thing, it really did surprise me!

@anbar5675

3 жыл бұрын

The 28mm f2,8 M lens is very good although underrated between Pentax owners. Usually they prefer the f3,5 K version, wich is very good but overrated because is rare and collectable.

Very good. I have many of these so will have to dig a couple of them out. The yellowing makes me think it might be one of the radioactive ones? I have a couple of them.

@zenography7923

4 жыл бұрын

Yellowing usually means radioactivity...

I have the 28mm f/2.8, 28mm f3.5, 28mm f/2. All amazing lenses.

@billyshea2405

4 жыл бұрын

Michael Russo which ones would you recommend? Is there defining characteristics of each ?

This is great... really been thinking about collecting a Pentax kit. Are the differences strong enough that it would cause issues if you collected a kit with bits from each manufacturer, for video?

@PissTakeProduction

4 жыл бұрын

Consistency in the look of your work benefits from a kit from one manufacturer.

Curious as to whether you are using a SLR or DSLR, and if a DSLR, is it crop or full sensor? Thanks for the great vids!

@zenography7923

4 жыл бұрын

I usually use a Sony a7 mark 1 - full frame so the lenses perform pretty much as they would on film. Thanks for watching

The SMC macro takumar 50mm f4 is a tessar design. Have you compared it to the Soviet Industar 61? All three versions, the I61 (m39), industar 61 l/d (m39), and the industar 61 l/z (m42) are also tessar design with some lanthanum glass, and the m42 version is a close focus lens with slightly better resolution than the m39 versions.

@zenography7923

4 жыл бұрын

I didn't know there was an M42 version of the Industar 61 - must try one!

@geoffreymendelson

4 жыл бұрын

I look forward to your review, thanks.

If you check the current prices (and also at the end of last year), you can find a price of 50£ for the Super-Multi-Coated Macro 50mm f/4 only if the lenses are used for intensive mushroom cultivation (maybe...because Japanese eBay sellers will try to convince you that it will not affect your pictures - just your figure if you eat too many of them)

@zenography7923

3 жыл бұрын

Well, I paid £30 for mine about a year ago - it had been sitting on ebay for weeks, and nobody, apparently, wanted it! There are still bargains to be had, with patience...

Hello! I'm in a hunt for a vintage lens between 20mm and 40mm with lots of barrel distortion, could you recommend me one?

@zenography7923

3 жыл бұрын

I can't think of one offhand, but I think a very cheap, third party 28mm stands a good chance of fitting the bill nicely - the less well known, the better I should think!

@JacoboCastroCristo

3 жыл бұрын

@@zenography7923 thanks!!

@JacoboCastroCristo

3 жыл бұрын

@@zenography7923 I got a really cheap Miida 35mm and it actually turned out to be a very sharp lens with zero distortion. haha.

Not sure over the Britain, but those lens are no longer cheap if importing from Japan, given the good conditions. Loving your channel btw.

@zenography7923

4 жыл бұрын

Prices are rising, but they can still be found pretty cheaply. Glad you're enjoying the channel!

I'm a fan of Pentax vintage glass but I pay a little more simply because I prefer the K bayonet mount to the M42 screw. It's just easier to mount them on my adapter. One thing to ALWAYS be aware of when buying off the internet is that many people confuse M42 with T2 mount. The thread size is very close but the pitch is different and the two are NOT interchangeable. So if it's a pre-set lens sold without mount you will need to purchase one.

@zenography7923

4 жыл бұрын

Ah, I didn't realise that, thanks!

The problem in my case with vintage lenses has been my MFT mount camera. It's not the crop factor which is much of an issue for me, it's the resultant f-stop consequence. Where an f2.8 on an M42 vintage lens becomes f5.6 on my MFT.

@zenography7923

4 жыл бұрын

This is a problem when adapting vintage lenses to mft, however it can be solved by using a speedbooster.

@slowtony2

4 жыл бұрын

Ravikant Rai and Zenography, Although I have not used a Micro Four-Thirds (MFT) camera, I do not understand your description of a LIGHT limitation for the lenses from 35mm film cameras. Since an MFT sensor is much smaller than a full size 35mm sensor (which is 36mm x 24mm), the focal length of a standard 35mm film camera lens will be multiplied by a factor of two. (A 35mm standard frame lens will become a 70mm equivalent lens on an MFT body.) This has nothing to do with light transmission. An aperature of f2.8 will transmit exactly the same amount of light to the MFT body. What will change is the depth of field. The 35mm lens will have much less depth of field, the depth of field that a 70mm lens would have at the same aperture, whatever that aperture might be. I don't understand how you apply the 2x focal length factor to say that an f2.8 aperture becomes an f5.6 aperture (two stops or 4x less light). Am I misunderstanding something?

@slowtony2

4 жыл бұрын

Ravikant Rai and Zenography, YES I was missing something! However, to an old curmudgeon, it seems like an insanity. Obviously some people must buy "Speedbooster" lens couplers for their Micro Four Thirds (MFT) cameras. It is beyond my understanding why someone would pay $450 to $650 US to get a five-element symmetrical (360 degree) anamorphic lens that (because it concentrates light from the full image on half the area) claims a one stop "speed boost". Yes, it will transmit EXIF data from a modern lens to the camera body, so it is more than an optical device. However, the additional lens elements cannot help the resolution and other optical performance of the full frame lens and will surely impair the full artistic qualities that one seeks from a vintage lens. The huge cost completely destroys the economics of using vintage full frame lenses from film cameras. Yes, at one time there must have been a professional use for photographers doing commercial street work and other jobs where the small size of the MFT bodies were an advantage and the 0.71 focal length "adjustment" was helpful. However, mirrorless cameras with larger sensors are now taking away the size advantage that MFT systems once enjoyed. I think that MFT is a dying format. Although the cameras may continue to serve Ravikant Rai and others well, I would be hesitant to invest so much money in the format today.

@RavikantRai21490

4 жыл бұрын

@@slowtony2 Yes it does serve me well. You also have to look at systems today that offer RAW video capabilities without costing an arm and a leg. You'll be hard pressed to find many options. For me, the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema 4k offers a great advantage for price. I am not sure what MFT systems will look like or what developments they will see going into the future, but I think it's far from "Dying". You just look at BMPCC 4k and its adoption by the market. Not to mention the Panasonics. It's been incredibly popular within the indie filmmaking community and it will continue to be so I think. Unless they pull the plug on this. In fact, the system has advantages in terms of both size and price.

@slowtony2

4 жыл бұрын

Ravikant Rai, Thank you for your insights! One of my failings is to overstate a case. It gets me in trouble all the time. I love camera gear of all vintages. It's great to hear good news for the MFT/M43 format from someone who, unlike me, knows it well. Having 4k video and raw capture in a pocket-size camera should keep on working magic for years. Thanks for helping me to learn more about the format and its uses. KZread comments, like Zenography videos, are always pleasant discoveries. Best wishes for the new year.

I have been using Pentax manual focus lenses since the 1970’s and I like their simplicity. The 50 1.4 is superb at f8 but it is weak wide open. A better buy is the 50mm f1.7 which is sharp from wide open.At f1.7 it is a lot sharper than the 1.4. The 1.4 catches up between f4 to f11. Neither of these lenses are as sharp as the f4 macro. That lens is as sharp wide open as it is at f8. However, it should be pointed out that lens manufacturers of this vintage used thoriated radioactive glass. Kodak was the worst at this, but Pentax also went heavy on the thorium. The sharper the lens, the greater the likelihood of radioactivity. The lenses should be stored more than 1 meter from human contact, and time with the camera near the head should be kept to a minimum. It is even worse if using a vintage 35mm SLR. It was illegal, but some manufacturers still did it - using thoriated glass in the eyepiece. This brings radiation quite close to the eye. Pentax is suspected of being one of the manufacturer’s doing this. It is interesting to speculate about why Pentax did this, but my personal observation is that Pentax was making the smallest SLR’s of that era, and smaller means it is more difficult to retain lens sharpness because elements needed to bend light more. Using more elements one way of dealing with it, but Pentax from the 1960’s to the 1980’s professed the belief that less elements improved the image. As a result, I think that thoriated glass was then unavoidable. Kodak too tended to use less elements and they too were a big user of thorium. Most, if not all manufacturers used it to a certain extent, including Zeiss. However Nikon, it appears, used it the least, and Canon didn’t need to use it in any lens where they used flourite (thoriated glass and flourite are very similar in their beneficial optical effects, with the one difference being weight) As manufacturers never published any information on which lenses contained thorium most of us who don’t own a geiger counter cannot tell which of these lenses are radioactive, and which are not. A rule of thumb tends to be - sharper, fewer CA, and warmer colors, are all indicators of thoriated glass. Thoriated glass will often slightly yellow with age, so glass with a brownish tint (which creates a warmer color in images) need to be treated as suspect. The level of radiation is low. A year of daily use is about the equivalent of taking several high altitude flights, and it accumulates over time. It is low enough that I keep my old glass, but I treat it with caution. I think anyone contemplating buying vintage glass needs to be informed so that they have the choice of buying the lenses, or not. I have my old glass, and I keep it, but if starting over, I would not buy vintage Pentax glass and would stick to Nikon and Canon FD.

@zenography7923

4 жыл бұрын

Radioactive lenses should be used cautiously but, I think, can be used with no ill effects. Don't let them come too close to the body and never, ever hold them close to your eye!

@artistjoh

4 жыл бұрын

Zenography Unfortunately, it is necessary to bring the camera with lens to the eye. The lenses get all the attention, but it is the cases where radioactive glass is used in camera eyepieces that is far more of a problem than the lenses themselves, because the eyepiece has to get very close to the eye. Despite it being illegal at the time, it was surprisingly common for vintage cameras from about 1930 to about 1975-1980 to have thoriated glass eyepieces. They only stopped when labor laws made manufacturers liable for the health of their workers where negligence is involved. Knowingly using thoriated glass in eyepieces is negligence. Kodak was the largest user of thoriated glass, and when they stopped using it, other companies followed suit.

If you get the late Pentax Tak SMC 50mm f1.4 or the K versions, you don't have to contend with the yellowing, at least that has been my experience.

Creamy dreamy early morning watch.

I confirm old German lenses are brilliant. I own several f/2.8 and faster Pentacons and one Zeiss and they all are sharp on modern cameras even wide open. Not mentioning beautifully smooth bokeh all around. Here's *how too easily focus manually* by the way (e.g. with Canon 70D): kzread.info/dash/bejne/hZuLtreOc7jAkpM.html

I Love it 👍

@zenography7923

4 жыл бұрын

Thanks!

Never shot Western Zeiss lenses? Astonishing!

@zenography7923

3 жыл бұрын

I guess there's a first time for everything!

☕️🍰👍

Remember, it's the photographer who takes the pictures, not the lens. :) I think our friend Zenography could take some great pictures with a champagne bottle ass :)))

@zenography7923

4 жыл бұрын

:) Thanks!

I have Takumars bought new in the 70s and their optical and mechanical performnce is superb, it's worth remembering that they come as SMC or Super Multi Coated which are the later ones and Multi coated which are a bit earlier. All mine are still as smooth as a hot knife through butter. I do have a couple of East German lenses namely recently acquired Meyer Optik Gorlitz Domiplan, which is absolute rubbish and a better Oreston. The later has some sort of odd fault with the pin which doesn't close the iris blades but a small button to the side, under certain circumstances does, I assume it's a DOF preview button but the point is they were dirt cheap and were only bought for their potential Bokeh. Personally, my view is that the Takumars are vastly superior but our views are subjective but the feel of a lens and the way it operates are also , for me, quite important and from my limited experience Communist lenses in terms of mechanical quality simply don't cut the mustard cut the mustard. I have some old well used NIkkor lenses and they feel past their best but are optically still excellent to but my own Takumars bought new in the 70s and a 28mm I bought a few years back are still something very special for me. I like your images that you use very high quality and imaginative.

@zenography7923

4 жыл бұрын

Glad you like the images, many thanks! You're right, the old Eastern bloc lenses are not made with quite the finesse of their Western counterparts, but many have stood the test of time, and some produce outstanding images!

@punkrachmaninoff

4 жыл бұрын

@@zenography7923 a great many of my professional friends use Soviet glass. also of note, the infamous domiplan is one of my top 3 50mm lenses on the street -- that Cooke's triplet design is a time machine on my Fuji X-T3... 😎📷