M42 135mm F3.5 battle : S-M-C Takumar vs. aus Jena DDR MC S (Carl Zeiss).
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 окт 2022
- Patreon ► www.patreon.com/user?u=57434418
Comparing Asahi Optical Co. Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 135mm F3.5 lens & Carl Zeiss aus JENA DDR MC S 135mm F3.5 lens.
Stupid Lens Experiment
In today's video we have what some consider the best 135mm F3.5 lenses in m42 screw mount. We do some comparisons and let's see which is better.
The aus JENA lens seems to be an export version of the Carl Zeiss counterpart. It is said to be the same lens, without the branding.
FR SLE EP17
Music :
Jazz In Paris
By:
Media Right Productions 
Наука
In the picture with the wine bottle, the less sharp imaging from Pentax is actually more pleasant to the eye and more natural looking. In the picture with the book text the Jena wins due to better sharpness and contrast. So for normal usage a less sharp lens may be better sometimes. Jena lenses require more maintenance for their mechanics like re-greasing and still won't work as smoothly as Pentax lenses. Some Jena 135mm lenses like 135mm f3.5 zebra and older are overengineered and difficult to repair.
Very good observation.
Such a comprehensive comparison!!!
Thanks for an excellent review.
Nice video! I'm a Takumar fanboy because of the build quality, but I have to agree that the Jena also is a great lens
Hi! About adaptability of the SMC Takumar m42 to sony e. How do you solve the problem? BCan you use the regular m42-nex adaptors???
Most modern m42-NEX(E) adapters are made to use with the SMC Takumars. Mainly, the issue is with M42-Canon EF adapters.
I have the takumar and I am quite happy with it, even if the Jena is a touch better. I guessed all correctly besides the palm tree :)
I have both lenses, both are excellent, especially in black and white
Interesting.
In Germany the Jena is around 40 to 70 Euros in good condition, theTakumar starts at 90 up to 150
Very interesting. We should move to Germany!
Tested loads of 135mm lenses on a full frame camera. There are lenses that have some better corner performance at wider aperture, but in terms of overall IQ, it usually ended first place. Slightly better than Leica Elmar even. Some people claim the Sonnar 135/4 is even better. I still have to try that one.
Fringing and colour aberrations make the aus Jena a much better choice
I have an old zebra version. I love how sharp it is wide open and the colors. It also works well for macro: either as a tube lens or with extension tubes. Would like to compare it with the later version if I can pick one up cheap.
It is a wonderful lens.
Hello from Berlin,
thanks for this video! I am not very surprised. I've had a lot of different 135mm lenses in my life. Lot of different brands. After nearly 40 years of experience in photography (only analog, never went into digital), I kept the Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 4,0 /135 chrome version and I use it instantly. A couple of days ago, I made a comparison between the Jena MC 3,5/135 (your version) and the much older Jena 4/135...... well, the older chrome version is much, much better. Check it out if you're interested. Sorry for my bad english and greetings from Germany, Berlin! Denis
Only CZJ ones have very tight focus mechanism even after re-greasing, just the threads are tight and not well machined, I inspected visually, there were bumps in the thread of the late 135mm f/3.5 MC. Also the CZJ 135mm f3.5 zebra and f4 have variable minimum aperture depending on the distance we focus at which makes focusing mechanism even tighter when focusing at the minimum aperture as the aperture ring is automatically driven from f3.5 or f/4 to f/4.5 by the focus ring while we focus from minimum distance to infinity.
Any way optically CZJ are very good. I recently bought a very rare CZJ 135mm f4 but not chrome, it's something between the chrome f4 and the f3.5 zebra version, shaped like zebra but without the stripes, not many were made. There are no screws at the back of that lens which keeps me puzzled as I would like to take it apart and re-grease it as I did with the other versions but have no idea how to do it since I see no screws on it.
@@andyboa8107 I have cleaned and lubricated my Zeiss Jena Sonnar 4,0 /135 chrome by myself...also all the other versions I had before. Sold all of them except the chrome version.
I used very, very soft grease and it works like new. It also don't has the compensating aperture like yours, because it is a preset aperture. My Zeiss Flektogon has the compensation aperture that you mentioned. But it works buttery smooth after cleaning and lubrication. Unfortunately I never opened your version of the Jena 4/135 black ..... So I can't give you an information how to open it... Sorry. Greetings from Berlin
hi how it is compared with nikkor 105 mm 2.5
@@myblueandme it's much cheaper and focuses closer
@@andyboa8107 great thanks
Great review. Which focal reducer did you use?
Lens Turbo II
@@FocalReduced thank you!
Regarding the fact that lenses with Carl Zeiss Jena on it are more expensive than the same lenses only with "aus Jena" on it is quiet odd. Because the "aus Jena" lenses were all marked as top quality so they went into export to West Germany etc. while the not-perfect ones were sold as "Carl Zeiss Jena" in the GDR and soviet union.
So from a quality standpoint the "aus Jena" lenses should have perfect quality and thereforce should be more expensive than the CZJ ones with little flaws that weren't good enough for export. But, to be honest, I also like CZJ on my lenses and avoid the "aus Jena", it's a matter of pride. But most CZJ are very affordable after all, so I think it's OK.
Interesting. Didn't know that.
What about Jupiter 37A or 37AM?
Sorry, we never had our hands on one, but it looks like a great lens.
when i compared my Jupiter 37A with the Takumar, Jupiter turned out a bit sharper..
The SMC is better built but for IC the Jena is the winner here.
Jena handke fringing slightly better
on aps c?
ceiss noch klar e als takumar