I have a later version of this lens, from around the late 70s-early 80s perhaps (the black version). I am still impressed by the quality, colors and contrast I can get out of the lens and it's a pleasure to use
one of my favorite lenses, I own the later version and its amazingly sharp for being such an old lens. I love the Sonnar bokeh its just fantastic, the 180mm CZJ 2.8 has even better bokeh I think.
Thanks for the review. I recently got the multicoated M42 black version. Some years before I had a bad copy of the Prakticar-Version. That bad copy was clearly inferior to the M42 copy I have right now. East German lenses commonly suffer from large sample variation and the newer they are the worse it gets. Did a little comparison with my Minolta MC Tele Rokkor 2.8/135mm. My Minolta is a little sharper wide open, but has more color fringing and is larger and much heavier.
Great video and review. Loved your samples page.
I have a later version of this lens, from around the late 70s-early 80s perhaps (the black version). I am still impressed by the quality, colors and contrast I can get out of the lens and it's a pleasure to use
one of my favorite lenses, I own the later version and its amazingly sharp for being such an old lens. I love the Sonnar bokeh its just fantastic, the 180mm CZJ 2.8 has even better bokeh I think.
Thanks for the review. I recently got the multicoated M42 black version. Some years before I had a bad copy of the Prakticar-Version. That bad copy was clearly inferior to the M42 copy I have right now. East German lenses commonly suffer from large sample variation and the newer they are the worse it gets.
Did a little comparison with my Minolta MC Tele Rokkor 2.8/135mm. My Minolta is a little sharper wide open, but has more color fringing and is larger and much heavier.
I have this in a later version, and I agree that it is a great lens. However, as I have new lenses for mirrorless, I almost never use it.
Were you using the techart autofocus adapter?
@@Dariusdd Partially yes