PLEASE NOTE - A number of owners of 35mm f2.4 Flektogons have commented that their lenses are much sharper wide open than the tests I showed in the video from 7:57. And from TTL (commenting below) posted photograph, it's clear the lens I borrowed isn't as nearly sharp wide open as TTL's lens. I was aware of this potential issue/sample variation, and at 8:22 in the video I was careful to demonstrate how the lens I borrowed sharpened up nicely stopped down - so it wasn't just a "bad lens" issue.
I just commented elsewhere about this kind of issue. I have two Auto Takumar 35mm f3.5s. One is noticeably sharper than the other and I've seen this with other lenses as well. I always much preferred my Auto Takumar 2.3 to the 3.5 but then I got this oddly sharp 3.5 so now I use it as well.
Yes, in the 7:58 shot it looks like the lens is de-centred. If you at the 'ghost' around the text the blurry part points to the left on the left and right parts of the image. If this was coma or astigmatism it would point either sagittally or tangentially. Someone's either dropped the lens or taken it apart for cleaning and not seated the lens elements back correctly.
These reviews of M42 lenses are extremely helpful for all of us that use Canon EF mount cameras, as M42 lenses seem to be the only vintage glass that will easily adapt to EF with very simple economical adaptors...and IMPORTANTLY- Without having to either add additional glass element adaptors that degrade image, or spending 100÷ additional dollars on cinema mod conversion kits and taking apart lenses!...so, much thanks, from Canon EF users!
The quality of the Prakticar lenses, produced for the 'B' series Prakticas, is generally thought not to be as high as that of the earlier CZJ optics. A number of metal parts were replaced with plastic, and sample variation was quite pronounced. It is not generally known that in the days when the CZJ 'Zebra' libery lenses were being produced, and possibly even before, lenses were individually tested, and the test negative retained on file at the factory.
Great video - as always. I purchased the Zeiss 35mm f2.4 Flektogon electric MC about 8 months ago. I must admit, mostly due to the favourable reviews on RUclips. Even though at the time I already had the Sony ZEISS 35mm f2.8 and smc PENTAX-M 35mm f2.8. So three very similar lenses. My M42 version has a slightly different front compared to your Prakticar version. The lenses close focusing capabilities is definitely its use case - if I only want to carry a few lenses. It is lovely to use, very tactile. Yes it flares - and I will sometimes deliberately angle the lens towards the sun for this effect. Also now have a PENTAX-A 50mm f2.8 Macro and as expected this is a very sharp lens. Actually, it was your early videos on Pentax lenses that led me down the vintage lens path.
Another great video! Also happens to be a subject I've been thinking about lately. Lots of videos out there about 50mm lenses, but 35mm doesn't get the attention they deserve. Same goes for 28mm's. I missed out on an Auto-Tak 35/2.3 a year ago that was for sale locally. I should have just bought it, but it was expensive. This was another great video, Simon! Great inspiration!
Excellent video. Thank you. I would like to add that the Zeiss acts more as a 37mm lens, according to my tests. Just like the Mir-1 37mm 2.8. Exact same field of view. In addition, the Mir-1 doesn’t have that string field curvature and the corners are better far earlier, as you stop down. Of course, the Mir lacks the near focusing capability, but for the rest it is a nice alternative.
Wow that auto takumar produces some amazing images, it's now top of my unnecessary but much wanted list of vintage glass that grows by the day 🤓 great video once again Simon
I really like your straight to the point presentation style. I was also hesitating on buying a flaktogon 35/2.4 earlier, but gave up eventually due to similar reasons that you mentioned. There are so many other good old lenses, and the price just kinda didn't add up. I already got a minolta MC-PF 58/1.4, and now that I finally got my hands on a S-M-C Takumar 50/1.4 with a pretty good deal, it's harder to justify buying a old 35 even though my socket (four thirds not micro) do not have that much choice either. The takumar will handle that kind of job, and if I want a wider experience, I would pull out my 25/2.8 pancake either. Although a good, not so heavy 17mm might take my wallet... but until then, cheers!
Great video! You have great content & I appreciate your opinions. It would have been interesting to see how the Mir-1 37mm f2.8 lens would compare to the other vintage lenses.
I had been tempted by the flektagon from time to time, but having the Auto Takumar kept me from exploring that option. This reinforces my feelings about the lens. I can always throw the Takumar on extension tubes if I want to get closer.
I own a red MC CZJ Flektogon 35mm f2.4 and a Takumar S-M-C 35mm f3.5. They are fairly comparable, but the CZJ does have the advantage of very close focus. I have to admit though that I use my Minolta 35mm f2 much more, as it is AF and one could almost say it is vintage, as my one is 30 years old now. Great comparison and thanks for sharing.
Got the 'red' MC version of the Flek, and I keep trying to love it. I never quite get there, tho. I have the tiny little SMK Takumar 35mm f3.5 and I have to admit that in most circumstances, I prefer the color and contrast I get out of it over the Flek.
Interesting, I've had a few copies of the flektogon pass through my hands from job lots that I've bought, I've not had the praktikar version yet though so I've not been able to compare. What I would say though that the flektogon is my favourite lens and it gets the most outings on my camera, I've never noticed that softness that you can see in some of your photos wide open particularly the photo of the writing on the front of that lens that softness is shocking I'll try taking the same photo myself tomorrow to compare but I've found the flektogon to be very sharp and even sharp wide open. I've got a suspicion that the praktikar version either isn't quite the same or that's a dodgy copy you've got there, I'll take a photo of the front of a lens wide open and have a good look on the computer but I'm pretty confident it'll be sharp, I'll add onto this post my results.
Hi, I'll be interested to see your findings. I'm interested in buying a MC white version since I hear that it has the latest coatings. Although, I'm not sure if it's the white or red that has that unique fiery circular flare. I think he might have had a decentered copy. The only CZJ lenses I own are the 20 F/4 Flektogon and the CZJ Pancolar original 8 aperture blade version which I absolutely love. I'd also like to pickup the updated MC white version of it as well.
@@princeharbinger I get that fiery flare from mine it's from around the late 70s early 80s I think, it's got a 5 digit serial number. It reminds me a bit of the eye of sauron from lord of the rings. There's definitely something not right with the lens he tested because the czj ones are very sharp and even pretty good around the edges wide open. I rate the 35mm flektogon as one of my best lenses. I much prefer it to my 1.4 50mm takumar which I think is definitely an overrated lens but that flektogon really is worth every penny. You can still pick them up cheap off Facebook marketplace if you buy it with a body. I come across them sometimes with old praktica bodies and I've bought a few kits, usually you can get the body with the 35mm flek and normally the 135czj lens and a 50mm tessar or pentacon 1.8 for around £50. I've not had the same version of the 35mm he tested so I don't know if it's that different prakticar version that's caused him the problems but the few czj ones I've had and tested before selling (and I kept the best condition one) have all been excellent.
@@ttlreviews @TTL Which MC is your Flektogon? Is it the white MC or red MC? It reminds me of the sauron too.😁 I own the original 8 element version of that Takumar you mentioned. While I love the compactness, build quality and handling. I found the rendering to be more pleasing on my Minolta 50mm F/1.4. Than again it's probably not fair to compare them. Since the Minolta MD is much younger than the Takumar. Eventually I'd like to pickup a copy of the CZ Planar 50mm F/1.4 Contax to do a head to head comparison. I'm surprised no one has done that yet. Considering the Takumar was labeled the Zeiss killer, lol. I Still prefer my CZ Jena Pancolar Zebra. I love the look and it's certainly my lightest lens. It's a shame they cheaped out with the later versions by adding less aperture blades. Wish I knew someone that can mod them. Like some of those Helios 44-2 lenses that I've seen with 16 aperture blades. Thanks for the suggestions. Unfortunately here in the United States. It's not a easy lens to come by. I'll have to rely on Ebay and pay the bogus price of whatever the seller marks it up to. When knowing full well they likely paid $5 for it at a thrift store.
@@princeharbinger it's the red coating on mine, I quite like the effect occasionally, to be honest it's not really a very flarey lens for a vintage lens but it's got quite a unique flare when you do get it. I find the 1.4 takumar to have quite a lot of chromatic aberration, I'd say it's worse than the 18-55 Canon kit lens which is pretty bad, I've got the zebra pancolar aswell the earlier radioactive version and I like that lens aswell. I really rate the 55mm f2 takumar that's a really good lens and very reasonable in price but I think the best bang for buck lens is the pentacon 50 1.8 and the Meyer equivalent they're so cheap and get great results, I think being in the UK we're quite lucky as East german and Russian lenses are very easy to come by as geographically it's not very far and we have a lot of Eastern Europeans living in the UK aswell that have brought photography stuff over with them. I've been lucky that I've spotted poorly written adverts with not great photos and been able to recognise the lenses and get the kits for cheap. I'm still hunting for a cheap helios 40 and a flektogon 20mm, eventually I'll find them at the right price it's just a waiting game.
Interesting review Simon. The Pentax seems quite interesting (takumar reputation doesn’t need to be challenged) but honestly I find it ugly … and it s now very expensive. The bokeh of the Zeiss is really beautiful but I won t buy it either as I consider a vintage lens (except very fast ones) should be between 50 and 100 euros.
Thanks a lot for this interesting video, great to hear from you again, Simon. I own the CZ Flektogon for a while (use it adapted on Fuji APS-C)and paid €100 which I thought was already quite expensive, but when I looked for the Auto Takumar it sold already and still for more than €300, which I find ridiculous. As far as I can see the pentax macro sells also for around €200-300, so I feel pretty comfortable with the Flektogon and what I really love is the close focusing distance and the Bokeh, which differentiates this lens for me at least to other modern lenses I have. But I agree, it is not an „excellent“ lens one has to own 🙂
I own the Prakticar version of this Carl Zeiss Jena 35mm f2.4 lens and I love it for its close focus macro capabilities and its beautiful rendering. So it's great for shooting flowers, leaves, mushrooms, etc. But as a landscape lens I have been disappointed, especially in high contrast areas of shade and sun. I've also found that there is a limit to what can be done in post processing with the lens - hard to get the blacks under control.
Auto-Takumar produces a very interesting picture. Pentax's sharpening quality is incredible. I'm looking to buy the Pentax 35/2.8 Macro soon. But I will have to use it with adapter for Canon. Thanks again for the excellent work.
Very nice video, Simon. The Prakticar seems to give a pleasing look, but, as you, I'm not buying one (unless one turns up cheap), because my favourite 35mm lens is my Canon FD 35mm f2.0, I also have the Nikkor 35mm f2.0, and that's a really good lens too.
And the operator overall is the deciding factor. Its not just the lens but the man/woman behind the machine. Hence why your shots look very attractive and appealling as you know what your doing.
Nice video. I recently used the Flektogon 35 2.4, and my impressions are mixed. I liked its performance at close distances, including the sharpness and bokeh even wide open, I liked the micro contrast on long distance f8 shots, but I strongly disliked the bokeh at middle distances, especially when I tried it for some environmental portraiture. Quite busy and distracting sharp edged bokeh in my opinion. I did better even with an old Yashinon-R 35mm 2.8 in that department.
Yeah thanks very much Simon!! I now have that Takumar and Pentax on my eBay radar, not cheap! 😱😱. Also the Flek you are using looks faulty. Mine is very good wide open
Great video as always. I have a Flektogon and enjoy its close focus and bokeh on a Fuji crop sensor. Interestingly I find the colour, particularly reds, from my copy quite saturated and bright. I've just acquired a medium format Fuji GFX and it seems to cover the sensor pretty well - looking forward to super charging the bokeh and close focus!!
I have these 35mm lenses. However, one problem with these old lenses is that one lens can be different from another. I have two of the other 35mm Auto Takumar f3,5. One is noticeably sharper than the other. Between the f2.3 Takumar and the Flektogon, the Takumar is more interesting. It's also very sharp stopped down. The Flektogon is nice though.
I have the Flek 35mm 2.8 zebra which has been in the family from new. It produces adequately sharp images for wide open close-up shots but I was considering buying the 2.4. Like you I managed to borrow a copy for evaluation, the 2.4 had a marginally shallower DOF wide open, and produced less longitudinal CA, but not enough to warrant the upgrade IMO. There was however no sign of the poor image quality wide open which you experienced with your version. My gut feeling is someone has opened up your 2.4 for cleaning and got something wrong on reassembly.
Simon I have the Takumar 35mm3.5 and the Pentax 35mm2.4 autofocus lens I have been using the 35mm focal more lately on my Pentax crop sensor cameras I find I prefer 35mm the focal length to the 50mm focal length
The Pentax seems a great lens but having to deal with the aperture eccentricities would somehow be a deal breaker. Maybe that's why they're a more affordable option, despite the Pentax hype of being the best lens ever made.
I enjoyed this video and the channel. I own the older version CZJ 35, f2.8 and use it regularly. I like the click-less aperture and using it as a taking lens with an anamorphic adapter. I've taken some of my favorite photos with this lens. I just looked at a trusted eBay seller, and I'm a bit surprised to see this lens has gone up to $240.
Is it the zebra version? I have a 2.8 Zebra Flektogon, which has taken some of my favourite photos. There's no aperture switch as such though, just a button/lever, so it really does work best on an M42 film camera (otherwise you have to remember to stop it down manually). It's easily my favourite 35mm lens though.
@@GrahamAtDesk Mine is the older silver version, serial number 589xxxx. It's been on my daily use camera for weeks. The full manual aspect is a lot of fun for me.
I have the Flektogon 35/2,4 but I don’t like it. I got one in a really good condition for about €50, so it was a good deal anyway. It’s an old lens with all the drawbacks an old lens has and no apparent upsides or cool charm. I totally agree with your conclusion.
Hi Simon, I've been watching your videos on vintage lenses for a while now, I personally bought Yashica Yashinon-DX45mm not long ago and been loving it so far, the fact that I'm using some kind of history to take pics and the solid and heft feeling of their construction is just something special. That said, what do you think about current new manual lenses? like the ones from 7artisans or TTartisan? How do they compare to vintage lenses? considering they're mostly priced very affordably, and "compete" (in terms of pricing and where I live) with vintage lens in both price and usage
Interesting video. I have this lens and I enjoy. I also had sigma art 1.8 35 but chose flexigon. I enjoy lens for street series and abstract art. Seldom for portraits. I was recommended this lens from RUclipsr vintage optics and my friend sold me this lens. That time was coincidence. Now I am waiting for zenitar 16m to experiment with focal lengths and aspect ratios. What are your thoughts of ultra wide lens?
Great Video Simon, But In honestly I do not like Sigma, I have my lens line Nikkors, and Zeiss line for both my SLR, RF, and adapted for my digital line via adapters, I really love in how the Zeiss Jena line that I obtain really shows the depth, and contrast, and colors that I use in both film, and digital shooting,. As for my Nikkor line lenses which they date back from the early to mid 1960's design followed by early 1970's updated design that I lobe the quality look on the Nikkor lenses that I have too. So why should I spend even MORE money on a lens for the 21st Century that I have much better results from the late 20th century design... Again Good Video, and you did made your point... As final quote in the reason in why that you, and others are seeing very High Price on the Zeiss Jena Lens Line is that other RUclipsrs have praise these lenses and is making the Ebay sellers to Jack up the Price of the lenses, I would of know that I have 8 Zeiss lenses that I obtain for 42mm thread to Praktina Lens mount... Very Costly yes...
Thanks for your superb channel. Love your images and your taste in lenses is equally sublime ... Shooting a classic lens like this with a crop sensor or in crop mode doesn't really do justice to it. The center will lose resolution (1/1.5) while cropping the edges (over half the image) takes away most of the character which is most pronounced at the edges. The pop is also reduced for the same reason. You can, of course, create great images, but you are not really using this lens to its maximum effectiveness, especially for art photographs where character is tantamount. ps - I notice that you value MFD and sometimes use extension tubes to achieve this. Another (and more flexible) option is to use a helicoid adapter instead of a extension tube and thereby you will not lose infinity focus. For m42 you can use an m42-md adapter + md to e-mount (of whatever you use) helicoid. Alternatively, instead of the helicoid adapter, you can use a tilt-shift adapter (fotodiox makes excellent ones). I actually bought my Helios 40 (new from Russia) with a legacy m42 mount (rather than e-mount which is also an option) so that I could use either helicoid or tilt-shift adapter with it. In a similar fashion, you can also use an m39-m42 helicoid to which you can add a m42-emount adapter to improve the MFD of rangefinder (m39) lenses dramatically. Really no weight/size penalty of other disadvantage to this approach.
Many thanks for this. Interestingly, I have a M42 helicoid adapter but I've never used it with "conventional" lenses, only projector lenses, so I must try it, on your advice.
regarding the takumar - mark holtze has a vid on it and shows how you can remove the front element for closer focusing. ruclips.net/video/_AlI_sYH-2k/видео.html you are welcome. thank mark not me as i'm sure he thanked the person who told him as well. thank you for the vid its good to see you're back at it!
Hi. I bought an Electric Flektogon MC 35/2,4 a few years ago for 112€. The 35/2,8 for an equivalent of 100€ and I am quite satisfied. For your same reasons, I am absolutely not interested to buy now a Takumar 35mm/2,3 for about 400€...crazy. For the same amount of money I bought a modern 35/1,8 I remember that when COVID-19 started somebody (Brian) said that people would start to undersell their old lenses. After a few months I commented that instead it looked like prices doubled. I suggest you get rid of your Prakticar copy.
Hi, I have a M42 Fujinon 55mm f1.8, and I like it lot - the colours and the bokeh. You have to file down a metal "pillar" on the rear of the lens to use it on a normal M42 adapter, but that's not too difficult with a small hacksaw. Here's my small album of photos with the lens: www.flickr.com/photos/95859572@N06/albums/72157667140004384/ I've read that the EBC Fujinon 50mm f1.4 is an excellent lens, but I've never used one personally.
Dear Sir, Could you help me with the fact that I want to buy a lens for the Fuji GF X system, the character of which is similar to the Fuji X system 35 f1.4 r. 1930 cas lens design very special character. What seems very similar to me is the Zeiss sonar 50 mm 1.5 Thank you Bes regards
i dont believe the Carl Zeiss Jena 35mm f2.4 Flektogon and the Prakticar are the same because i bought the practica with the view to repair my flektagon and found the internals to be completely different nothing was interchangeable...
A good video, but not really a fair comparison. It is obvious that a modern design from a well respected manufacturer will perform in a superior fashion to a lens that first appeared in 1949/50!!. There are still some of us however, who use these lenses on the cameras for which they were designed, and who appreciate their pictorial performance, and who are not interested in pixel peeping. Overall, and I emphasise that word, they bring a quality to an image that modern lenses, such as your digital Pentax lens, cannot.
I thought there was something not right about the quality of your photos Simon so I recreated one. I did the test and got very different results, for some reason my posts on here are auto deleted. I've posted my results on the social media platform that begins with an I and has square photos my id is Warwickshire wanderer but with an underscore between the two words. Maybe this message will get past the RUclips bots.
Many thanks for posting your test - your lens is indeed much sharper wide open than the lens I borrowed. The lens I used sharpened up nicely stopped down, but not wide open, like your Flektogon.
@@ttlreviews That would be great and very kind - I'd really like to try the lens. I'll post a new video on the results. If you could email me about this: Simons.utak1@gmail.com
@@Simonsutak hi simon, I've sent you an email now, you might want to check your spam though because some email accounts don't seem to like my address, thanks Darren.
@@Simonsutak Thanks for your great work! I have all the Carl Zeiss Jena lens, and what you have is a VEB Pentacon copy, probably a diferent design than the original flektagon, there's also a Carl Zeiss Jena 28mm with the same build quality, that is actually a pentacon 29mm redesign.
pentaxs best lens i would say its FDA* 50mm 1.4， but you could say 35/2.8 has the unique spec，only 1:1 35mm macro till this day（tokina‘s 35mm macro is the same formula due to share patent）
Yep I took photos and have posted them online of the front of a lens wide open the same as Simon did and my results were hugely different. There must be an issue with his lens or the prakticar version is different and much poorer quality.
The Schneider Kreuznach Curtagon Electric 35mm easily beats the Flektogon. The Schneider Kreuznach Tele-Zenar Electric 135mm is even better than the 35mm. These were two of Schneider's last photo lenses and benefit from more modern design. The 135 is stupidly cheap in my opinion because it's rare. These two Schneiders are great and the 135mm is a really great lens. I much prefer the 20mm Flektogon to the 35 which I think is overrated.
Your results are not surprising as lens technology has improved over the decades, although it may not always be used. I have had various Zeiss lenses over the (many) years and most of them were top-notch - at least at the time. Perhaps a bit of the "Helios mythology" has invaded the brand; the notion that an old lens is automatically better than a new one, even when it demonstrably isn't. Of course sometimes the characteristic 'flaws' in an old lens are what we are looking for, especially in artistic photography.
I tested my czj copy of the flektogon and have posted my results online. I took an identical photo to Simon wide open of the front of a lens and my results are vastly different so either he had a duff copy or the prakticar lens is different from the czj. In my tests the czj has excellent sharpness wide open over much of the frame and still good sharpness at the edges.
I use the Sigma the most - by a considerable margin. But I’m not keen on it’s wide open bokeh. So for bokeh my favourite is the Takumar. The lens I admire the most is the Pentax 35mm Limited, it is an optical gem. I borrowed but have not bought the CZJ. Very good lens but the fact I haven’t bought one (at current prices) tells you my feelings for this lens!
This is not a review but a waste of time. Would it be a review, it would not compare two lenses that cover full format to two crop lenses. Also it would not praise the shit bukeh of one and at the same time ignore that the other one was thinkered with.
PLEASE NOTE - A number of owners of 35mm f2.4 Flektogons have commented that their lenses are much sharper wide open than the tests I showed in the video from 7:57. And from TTL (commenting below) posted photograph, it's clear the lens I borrowed isn't as nearly sharp wide open as TTL's lens.
I was aware of this potential issue/sample variation, and at 8:22 in the video I was careful to demonstrate how the lens I borrowed sharpened up nicely stopped down - so it wasn't just a "bad lens" issue.
I just commented elsewhere about this kind of issue. I have two Auto Takumar 35mm f3.5s. One is noticeably sharper than the other and I've seen this with other lenses as well. I always much preferred my Auto Takumar 2.3 to the 3.5 but then I got this oddly sharp 3.5 so now I use it as well.
try the M42 iteration of the 35mm Jena Flektogon with the red MC. It surpasses the Praktica's by leaps and bounds.
Yes, in the 7:58 shot it looks like the lens is de-centred. If you at the 'ghost' around the text the blurry part points to the left on the left and right parts of the image. If this was coma or astigmatism it would point either sagittally or tangentially. Someone's either dropped the lens or taken it apart for cleaning and not seated the lens elements back correctly.
These reviews of M42 lenses are extremely helpful for all of us that use Canon EF mount cameras, as M42 lenses seem to be the only vintage glass that will easily adapt to EF with very simple economical adaptors...and IMPORTANTLY- Without having to either add additional glass element adaptors that degrade image, or spending 100÷ additional dollars on cinema mod conversion kits and taking apart lenses!...so, much thanks, from Canon EF users!
The quality of the Prakticar lenses, produced for the 'B' series Prakticas, is generally thought not to be as high as that of the earlier CZJ optics. A number of metal parts were replaced with plastic, and sample variation was quite pronounced. It is not generally known that in the days when the CZJ 'Zebra' libery lenses were being produced, and possibly even before, lenses were individually tested, and the test negative retained on file at the factory.
Sorry!, should have been livery, not libery. Profuse apologies!
I was wondering about the radio silence just a few weeks ago so it's excellent to see you post again.
I really enjoy your vintage lens reviews, and this is another really good one!
The advantage is mostly close focus but the two Takumars 35mm f3.5 and 35mm f2 are both strong options that have better strengths over all.
Great video - as always. I purchased the Zeiss 35mm f2.4 Flektogon electric MC about 8 months ago. I must admit, mostly due to the favourable reviews on RUclips. Even though at the time I already had the Sony ZEISS 35mm f2.8 and smc PENTAX-M 35mm f2.8. So three very similar lenses. My M42 version has a slightly different front compared to your Prakticar version. The lenses close focusing capabilities is definitely its use case - if I only want to carry a few lenses. It is lovely to use, very tactile. Yes it flares - and I will sometimes deliberately angle the lens towards the sun for this effect. Also now have a PENTAX-A 50mm f2.8 Macro and as expected this is a very sharp lens. Actually, it was your early videos on Pentax lenses that led me down the vintage lens path.
Another great video! Also happens to be a subject I've been thinking about lately. Lots of videos out there about 50mm lenses, but 35mm doesn't get the attention they deserve. Same goes for 28mm's. I missed out on an Auto-Tak 35/2.3 a year ago that was for sale locally. I should have just bought it, but it was expensive. This was another great video, Simon! Great inspiration!
Excellent video. Thank you. I would like to add that the Zeiss acts more as a 37mm lens, according to my tests. Just like the Mir-1 37mm 2.8. Exact same field of view. In addition, the Mir-1 doesn’t have that string field curvature and the corners are better far earlier, as you stop down. Of course, the Mir lacks the near focusing capability, but for the rest it is a nice alternative.
Wow that auto takumar produces some amazing images, it's now top of my unnecessary but much wanted list of vintage glass that grows by the day 🤓 great video once again Simon
That lens lives permanently in my kit! It makes images unlike any other lens I've found, and the secret macro mode is a real joy
When I got my flektogon 2.4 I was a bit disappointed honestly. But gotta say, I do love the resistance to flare and when it does it's very usable
I really like your straight to the point presentation style. I was also hesitating on buying a flaktogon 35/2.4 earlier, but gave up eventually due to similar reasons that you mentioned. There are so many other good old lenses, and the price just kinda didn't add up. I already got a minolta MC-PF 58/1.4, and now that I finally got my hands on a S-M-C Takumar 50/1.4 with a pretty good deal, it's harder to justify buying a old 35 even though my socket (four thirds not micro) do not have that much choice either. The takumar will handle that kind of job, and if I want a wider experience, I would pull out my 25/2.8 pancake either. Although a good, not so heavy 17mm might take my wallet... but until then, cheers!
Many thanks. I've just got that Minolta 58/1.4, and hoping for some sunshine this week. it didn't do so well in the gloom light today.
Great video! You have great content & I appreciate your opinions.
It would have been interesting to see how the Mir-1 37mm f2.8 lens would compare to the other vintage lenses.
I had been tempted by the flektagon from time to time, but having the Auto Takumar kept me from exploring that option. This reinforces my feelings about the lens. I can always throw the Takumar on extension tubes if I want to get closer.
I own a red MC CZJ Flektogon 35mm f2.4 and a Takumar S-M-C 35mm f3.5. They are fairly comparable, but the CZJ does have the advantage of very close focus. I have to admit though that I use my Minolta 35mm f2 much more, as it is AF and one could almost say it is vintage, as my one is 30 years old now.
Great comparison and thanks for sharing.
Got the 'red' MC version of the Flek, and I keep trying to love it. I never quite get there, tho. I have the tiny little SMK Takumar 35mm f3.5 and I have to admit that in most circumstances, I prefer the color and contrast I get out of it over the Flek.
Interesting, I've had a few copies of the flektogon pass through my hands from job lots that I've bought, I've not had the praktikar version yet though so I've not been able to compare. What I would say though that the flektogon is my favourite lens and it gets the most outings on my camera, I've never noticed that softness that you can see in some of your photos wide open particularly the photo of the writing on the front of that lens that softness is shocking I'll try taking the same photo myself tomorrow to compare but I've found the flektogon to be very sharp and even sharp wide open. I've got a suspicion that the praktikar version either isn't quite the same or that's a dodgy copy you've got there, I'll take a photo of the front of a lens wide open and have a good look on the computer but I'm pretty confident it'll be sharp, I'll add onto this post my results.
Hi, I'll be interested to see your findings. I'm interested in buying a MC white version since I hear that it has the latest coatings. Although, I'm not sure if it's the white or red that has that unique fiery circular flare. I think he might have had a decentered copy. The only CZJ lenses I own are the 20 F/4 Flektogon and the CZJ Pancolar original 8 aperture blade version which I absolutely love. I'd also like to pickup the updated MC white version of it as well.
@@princeharbinger I get that fiery flare from mine it's from around the late 70s early 80s I think, it's got a 5 digit serial number. It reminds me a bit of the eye of sauron from lord of the rings. There's definitely something not right with the lens he tested because the czj ones are very sharp and even pretty good around the edges wide open. I rate the 35mm flektogon as one of my best lenses. I much prefer it to my 1.4 50mm takumar which I think is definitely an overrated lens but that flektogon really is worth every penny. You can still pick them up cheap off Facebook marketplace if you buy it with a body. I come across them sometimes with old praktica bodies and I've bought a few kits, usually you can get the body with the 35mm flek and normally the 135czj lens and a 50mm tessar or pentacon 1.8 for around £50. I've not had the same version of the 35mm he tested so I don't know if it's that different prakticar version that's caused him the problems but the few czj ones I've had and tested before selling (and I kept the best condition one) have all been excellent.
@@ttlreviews @TTL Which MC is your Flektogon? Is it the white MC or red MC? It reminds me of the sauron too.😁 I own the original 8 element version of that Takumar you mentioned. While I love the compactness, build quality and handling. I found the rendering to be more pleasing on my Minolta 50mm F/1.4. Than again it's probably not fair to compare them. Since the Minolta MD is much younger than the Takumar. Eventually I'd like to pickup a copy of the CZ Planar 50mm F/1.4 Contax to do a head to head comparison. I'm surprised no one has done that yet. Considering the Takumar was labeled the Zeiss killer, lol. I Still prefer my CZ Jena Pancolar Zebra. I love the look and it's certainly my lightest lens. It's a shame they cheaped out with the later versions by adding less aperture blades. Wish I knew someone that can mod them. Like some of those Helios 44-2 lenses that I've seen with 16 aperture blades. Thanks for the suggestions. Unfortunately here in the United States. It's not a easy lens to come by. I'll have to rely on Ebay and pay the bogus price of whatever the seller marks it up to. When knowing full well they likely paid $5 for it at a thrift store.
@@princeharbinger it's the red coating on mine, I quite like the effect occasionally, to be honest it's not really a very flarey lens for a vintage lens but it's got quite a unique flare when you do get it. I find the 1.4 takumar to have quite a lot of chromatic aberration, I'd say it's worse than the 18-55 Canon kit lens which is pretty bad, I've got the zebra pancolar aswell the earlier radioactive version and I like that lens aswell. I really rate the 55mm f2 takumar that's a really good lens and very reasonable in price but I think the best bang for buck lens is the pentacon 50 1.8 and the Meyer equivalent they're so cheap and get great results, I think being in the UK we're quite lucky as East german and Russian lenses are very easy to come by as geographically it's not very far and we have a lot of Eastern Europeans living in the UK aswell that have brought photography stuff over with them. I've been lucky that I've spotted poorly written adverts with not great photos and been able to recognise the lenses and get the kits for cheap. I'm still hunting for a cheap helios 40 and a flektogon 20mm, eventually I'll find them at the right price it's just a waiting game.
Interesting review Simon. The Pentax seems quite interesting (takumar reputation doesn’t need to be challenged) but honestly I find it ugly … and it s now very expensive. The bokeh of the Zeiss is really beautiful but I won t buy it either as I consider a vintage lens (except very fast ones) should be between 50 and 100 euros.
Thanks a lot for this interesting video, great to hear from you again, Simon. I own the CZ Flektogon for a while (use it adapted on Fuji APS-C)and paid €100 which I thought was already quite expensive, but when I looked for the Auto Takumar it sold already and still for more than €300, which I find ridiculous. As far as I can see the pentax macro sells also for around €200-300, so I feel pretty comfortable with the Flektogon and what I really love is the close focusing distance and the Bokeh, which differentiates this lens for me at least to other modern lenses I have. But I agree, it is not an „excellent“ lens one has to own 🙂
its been awhile glad seeing u again
I own the Prakticar version of this Carl Zeiss Jena 35mm f2.4 lens and I love it for its close focus macro capabilities and its beautiful rendering. So it's great for shooting flowers, leaves, mushrooms, etc. But as a landscape lens I have been disappointed, especially in high contrast areas of shade and sun. I've also found that there is a limit to what can be done in post processing with the lens - hard to get the blacks under control.
Extreamely enjoyable comparason, Simon.
Auto-Takumar produces a very interesting picture. Pentax's sharpening quality is incredible. I'm looking to buy the Pentax 35/2.8 Macro soon. But I will have to use it with adapter for Canon. Thanks again for the excellent work.
Very nice video, Simon. The Prakticar seems to give a pleasing look, but, as you, I'm not buying one (unless one turns up cheap), because my favourite 35mm lens is my Canon FD 35mm f2.0, I also have the Nikkor 35mm f2.0, and that's a really good lens too.
And the operator overall is the deciding factor. Its not just the lens but the man/woman behind the machine. Hence why your shots look very attractive and appealling as you know what your doing.
Nice video. I recently used the Flektogon 35 2.4, and my impressions are mixed. I liked its performance at close distances, including the sharpness and bokeh even wide open, I liked the micro contrast on long distance f8 shots, but I strongly disliked the bokeh at middle distances, especially when I tried it for some environmental portraiture. Quite busy and distracting sharp edged bokeh in my opinion. I did better even with an old Yashinon-R 35mm 2.8 in that department.
8:00 Holy smokes! you really got me on this comparison. Is there any lens as sharp as this Pentax with m42 mount?
Perfect timing, I just bought this lens haha. Keep up the good work!
Yeah thanks very much Simon!! I now have that Takumar and Pentax on my eBay radar, not cheap! 😱😱. Also the Flek you are using looks faulty. Mine is very good wide open
Great video as always. I have a Flektogon and enjoy its close focus and bokeh on a Fuji crop sensor. Interestingly I find the colour, particularly reds, from my copy quite saturated and bright. I've just acquired a medium format Fuji GFX and it seems to cover the sensor pretty well - looking forward to super charging the bokeh and close focus!!
I have these 35mm lenses. However, one problem with these old lenses is that one lens can be different from another. I have two of the other 35mm Auto Takumar f3,5. One is noticeably sharper than the other.
Between the f2.3 Takumar and the Flektogon, the Takumar is more interesting. It's also very sharp stopped down. The Flektogon is nice though.
This just makes me want both. (I have an EF version of the sigma which stays on my 70d!)
The only Flektogon I own is the 20mm f/4. Definitely a lens with character, but the colors really are muted, and it is soft till about f/8.
Great video, well informed and lovely images. Thanks.
I've owned this lens. This is one of the best 35mm ever made.
I have the Flek 35mm 2.8 zebra which has been in the family from new. It produces adequately sharp images for wide open close-up shots but I was considering buying the 2.4. Like you I managed to borrow a copy for evaluation, the 2.4 had a marginally shallower DOF wide open, and produced less longitudinal CA, but not enough to warrant the upgrade IMO. There was however no sign of the poor image quality wide open which you experienced with your version. My gut feeling is someone has opened up your 2.4 for cleaning and got something wrong on reassembly.
Brilliant. As usual. :) Greetings from Belgium.
Simon
I have the Takumar 35mm3.5 and the Pentax 35mm2.4 autofocus lens I have been using the 35mm focal more lately on my Pentax crop sensor cameras I find I prefer 35mm the focal length to the 50mm focal length
The Pentax seems a great lens but having to deal with the aperture eccentricities would somehow be a deal breaker. Maybe that's why they're a more affordable option, despite the Pentax hype of being the best lens ever made.
I enjoyed this video and the channel. I own the older version CZJ 35, f2.8 and use it regularly. I like the click-less aperture and using it as a taking lens with an anamorphic adapter. I've taken some of my favorite photos with this lens. I just looked at a trusted eBay seller, and I'm a bit surprised to see this lens has gone up to $240.
Is it the zebra version? I have a 2.8 Zebra Flektogon, which has taken some of my favourite photos. There's no aperture switch as such though, just a button/lever, so it really does work best on an M42 film camera (otherwise you have to remember to stop it down manually).
It's easily my favourite 35mm lens though.
@@GrahamAtDesk Mine is the older silver version, serial number 589xxxx. It's been on my daily use camera for weeks. The full manual aspect is a lot of fun for me.
I love youtube for things like this
I have the Flektogon 35/2,4 but I don’t like it. I got one in a really good condition for about €50, so it was a good deal anyway. It’s an old lens with all the drawbacks an old lens has and no apparent upsides or cool charm. I totally agree with your conclusion.
Hi Simon, I've been watching your videos on vintage lenses for a while now, I personally bought Yashica Yashinon-DX45mm not long ago and been loving it so far, the fact that I'm using some kind of history to take pics and the solid and heft feeling of their construction is just something special. That said, what do you think about current new manual lenses? like the ones from 7artisans or TTartisan? How do they compare to vintage lenses? considering they're mostly priced very affordably, and "compete" (in terms of pricing and where I live) with vintage lens in both price and usage
I have a flektogon 35 2.4 auto MC zebra version in M42 mount. I haven't come across another one like mine on the net. It works fine but sure is weird
Interesting video. I have this lens and I enjoy. I also had sigma art 1.8 35 but chose flexigon. I enjoy lens for street series and abstract art. Seldom for portraits. I was recommended this lens from RUclipsr vintage optics and my friend sold me this lens. That time was coincidence.
Now I am waiting for zenitar 16m to experiment with focal lengths and aspect ratios.
What are your thoughts of ultra wide lens?
Great Video Simon, But In honestly I do not like Sigma, I have my lens line Nikkors, and Zeiss line for both my SLR, RF, and adapted for my digital line via adapters, I really love in how the Zeiss Jena line that I obtain really shows the depth, and contrast, and colors that I use in both film, and digital shooting,. As for my Nikkor line lenses which they date back from the early to mid 1960's design followed by early 1970's updated design that I lobe the quality look on the Nikkor lenses that I have too. So why should I spend even MORE money on a lens for the 21st Century that I have much better results from the late 20th century design... Again Good Video, and you did made your point... As final quote in the reason in why that you, and others are seeing very High Price on the Zeiss Jena Lens Line is that other RUclipsrs have praise these lenses and is making the Ebay sellers to Jack up the Price of the lenses, I would of know that I have 8 Zeiss lenses that I obtain for 42mm thread to Praktina Lens mount... Very Costly yes...
Thanks for your superb channel. Love your images and your taste in lenses is equally sublime ... Shooting a classic lens like this with a crop sensor or in crop mode doesn't really do justice to it. The center will lose resolution (1/1.5) while cropping the edges (over half the image) takes away most of the character which is most pronounced at the edges. The pop is also reduced for the same reason. You can, of course, create great images, but you are not really using this lens to its maximum effectiveness, especially for art photographs where character is tantamount.
ps - I notice that you value MFD and sometimes use extension tubes to achieve this. Another (and more flexible) option is to use a helicoid adapter instead of a extension tube and thereby you will not lose infinity focus. For m42 you can use an m42-md adapter + md to e-mount (of whatever you use) helicoid. Alternatively, instead of the helicoid adapter, you can use a tilt-shift adapter (fotodiox makes excellent ones). I actually bought my Helios 40 (new from Russia) with a legacy m42 mount (rather than e-mount which is also an option) so that I could use either helicoid or tilt-shift adapter with it. In a similar fashion, you can also use an m39-m42 helicoid to which you can add a m42-emount adapter to improve the MFD of rangefinder (m39) lenses dramatically. Really no weight/size penalty of other disadvantage to this approach.
Many thanks for this. Interestingly, I have a M42 helicoid adapter but I've never used it with "conventional" lenses, only projector lenses, so I must try it, on your advice.
The reason why I choose Carl Zeiss... It covers Full Frame where the 3 other options don't.
I thought Pentax was affordable and a good bang for the buck but some of their binoculars set the reference standard.
Thanks for a very interesting video.
I would love to have one Zeiss lens
regarding the takumar - mark holtze has a vid on it and shows how you can remove the front element for closer focusing.
ruclips.net/video/_AlI_sYH-2k/видео.html
you are welcome. thank mark not me as i'm sure he thanked the person who told him as well. thank you for the vid its good to see you're back at it!
Hi.
I bought an Electric Flektogon MC 35/2,4 a few years ago for 112€. The 35/2,8 for an equivalent of 100€ and I am quite satisfied.
For your same reasons, I am absolutely not interested to buy now a Takumar 35mm/2,3 for about 400€...crazy. For the same amount of money I bought a modern 35/1,8
I remember that when COVID-19 started somebody (Brian) said that people would start to undersell their old lenses. After a few months I commented that instead it looked like prices doubled.
I suggest you get rid of your Prakticar copy.
Great video as always.
Some would rather start a collection of Cooke or Baltar. Not to mind, it's almost cheaper... :)
Any comments on Fujinon's M42 lenses? (Thanks)
Hi, I have a M42 Fujinon 55mm f1.8, and I like it lot - the colours and the bokeh. You have to file down a metal "pillar" on the rear of the lens to use it on a normal M42 adapter, but that's not too difficult with a small hacksaw. Here's my small album of photos with the lens: www.flickr.com/photos/95859572@N06/albums/72157667140004384/
I've read that the EBC Fujinon 50mm f1.4 is an excellent lens, but I've never used one personally.
Dear Sir,
Could you help me with the fact that I want to buy a lens for the Fuji GF X system, the character of which is similar to the Fuji X system 35 f1.4 r.
1930 cas lens design very special character.
What seems very similar to me is the Zeiss sonar 50 mm 1.5
Thank you
Bes regards
Hi, I’m very sorry but I don’t know either of these lenses personally (only what I see online) so I can’t help. Kind regards, Simon
i dont believe the Carl Zeiss Jena 35mm f2.4 Flektogon and the Prakticar are the same because i bought the practica with the view to repair my flektagon and found the internals to be completely different nothing was interchangeable...
A good video, but not really a fair comparison. It is obvious that a modern design from a well respected manufacturer will perform in a superior fashion to a lens that first appeared in 1949/50!!. There are still some of us however, who use these lenses on the cameras for which they were designed, and who appreciate their pictorial performance, and who are not interested in pixel peeping.
Overall, and I emphasise that word, they bring a quality to an image that modern lenses, such as your digital Pentax lens, cannot.
I thought there was something not right about the quality of your photos Simon so I recreated one. I did the test and got very different results, for some reason my posts on here are auto deleted. I've posted my results on the social media platform that begins with an I and has square photos my id is Warwickshire wanderer but with an underscore between the two words. Maybe this message will get past the RUclips bots.
Many thanks for posting your test - your lens is indeed much sharper wide open than the lens I borrowed. The lens I used sharpened up nicely stopped down, but not wide open, like your Flektogon.
@@Simonsutak I'm quite happy to lend you my copy for a couple of weeks if you want to give it a go.
@@ttlreviews That would be great and very kind - I'd really like to try the lens. I'll post a new video on the results. If you could email me about this: Simons.utak1@gmail.com
@@Simonsutak hi simon, I've sent you an email now, you might want to check your spam though because some email accounts don't seem to like my address, thanks Darren.
@@Simonsutak Thanks for your great work! I have all the Carl Zeiss Jena lens, and what you have is a VEB Pentacon copy, probably a diferent design than the original flektagon, there's also a Carl Zeiss Jena 28mm with the same build quality, that is actually a pentacon 29mm redesign.
pentaxs best lens i would say its FDA* 50mm 1.4， but you could say 35/2.8 has the unique spec，only 1:1 35mm macro till this day（tokina‘s 35mm macro is the same formula due to share patent）
Strange. I had borrowed this lens and closeups vere much sharper and cleaner. Maybe your version is broken?
Yep I took photos and have posted them online of the front of a lens wide open the same as Simon did and my results were hugely different. There must be an issue with his lens or the prakticar version is different and much poorer quality.
Is Prakticar actually Flektogon?
Nice voice. Love from Morocco
The Schneider Kreuznach Curtagon Electric 35mm easily beats the Flektogon. The Schneider Kreuznach Tele-Zenar Electric 135mm is even better than the 35mm. These were two of Schneider's last photo lenses and benefit from more modern design. The 135 is stupidly cheap in my opinion because it's rare. These two Schneiders are great and the 135mm is a really great lens. I much prefer the 20mm Flektogon to the 35 which I think is overrated.
I was out today with the Schneider and some extension tubes. It blows the Flek out the water. One f the best vintage 35s ever.
Your results are not surprising as lens technology has improved over the decades, although it may not always be used. I have had various Zeiss lenses over the (many) years and most of them were top-notch - at least at the time. Perhaps a bit of the "Helios mythology" has invaded the brand; the notion that an old lens is automatically better than a new one, even when it demonstrably isn't. Of course sometimes the characteristic 'flaws' in an old lens are what we are looking for, especially in artistic photography.
I tested my czj copy of the flektogon and have posted my results online. I took an identical photo to Simon wide open of the front of a lens and my results are vastly different so either he had a duff copy or the prakticar lens is different from the czj. In my tests the czj has excellent sharpness wide open over much of the frame and still good sharpness at the edges.
Mine prakticar is way more sharp wide open!
so which was your favourite
I use the Sigma the most - by a considerable margin. But I’m not keen on it’s wide open bokeh. So for bokeh my favourite is the Takumar. The lens I admire the most is the Pentax 35mm Limited, it is an optical gem. I borrowed but have not bought the CZJ. Very good lens but the fact I haven’t bought one (at current prices) tells you my feelings for this lens!
@@Simonsutak hi thanks for the reply how about the CARL ZEISS JENA 35MM it meant to be very gd , but the new sigma 56 too meant to be excellent
@@hamzatatta952 By CZJ above, I meant the 35mm Flektogon.
@@Simonsutak Carl ziess jena
The Sigma Bokeh is harsh. Nothing I would ever use.
Intteresting, i just got flektogon for around 30 dollars, guess i was lucky ^^
Could you keep it quiet about how good the Pentax glass is please, we don't want the prices to go up!
Too late...
This Zeiss is rather soft on FF edge, even stopped down to f5.6. Canon nFD 35/2.8 perform much better on FF edge
@10:56 for 16 pound in my country I buy bread that last me 3 months
There is no review of the Takumar 35 as indicated in the title
No, not a full review, just a brief comparison. Maybe I'll do a review in 2023.
Zeiss Jena is pre ww2 designs lol.
ƤＲＯ𝓂Ｏ𝕤ᗰ 🌹
This is not a review but a waste of time.
Would it be a review, it would not compare two lenses that cover full format to two crop lenses. Also it would not praise the shit bukeh of one and at the same time ignore that the other one was thinkered with.