There is not much to find about this lens in the internet. I got it from a photo friend and converted it to an EOS mount by using M42 belllows and an M42-EOS-adapter.
It works pretty well like this but, of course, it cannot be used like a new lens. Handling is slow and you need to be careful to focus correctly. Anyway, it’s fun to use such a lens on a modern DSLR body.
The images it produces are, due to the lack of coating, low in contrast but they show a nice “glow” at the highlights. Contrast is corrected easily in post production but that glow cannot as easily be produced if you want it, it’s a character of the lens. Old Leica lenses also are famous for such a glow and they have a huge fan comuunitiy exactly because of that.
Another photo friend of mine, from Budejky, Czech Republic, wrote: “Double-anastigmat and f/4.5… well, with the exception of super-exotic designs there are only 2 possibilities: it could be double-gauss lens or dialyte (currently better known as helioplan). I know Goertz used dialyte design under name “Dogmar”.
Anyway, both double-gauss and dialyte have 6 inner air-glass surfaces. That’s too much for uncoated lens – according to many collectors 2 inner air-glass surfaces produce good contrast (protar, dagor, ernon), 4 air-glass surfaces produce acceptable contrast (e.g. triplets, hektors, heliars, or early sonnars) and 6 air-glass surfaces are on the low side (double-gauss, dialytes – dogmar, helioplan, veraplan, unofocal…, planars) […] old uncoated Helioplan – I think it will produce very similar images to your Goertz lens.”
Thanks “no-X” for that explanation.
Here are some (older) images I have taken with this lens on the EOS 5D:
If anybody knows more about this lens, please send me an email. I’d be grateful for any imformation.
This week I present the last Takumar lens of my collection. I used to have some more but sold the others – something that I regularly do in order to pay for new gear.😉
This Takumar 3.5/135 looks like a typical Super-Takumar lens and offers the built and handling quality that each of this series provides. Focus is smooth, the lens feels well constructed and manufactured. You never get the impression that it might let you down.
It’s optical performance is being discussed a lot in all those internet boards and forums. Some say it’s a great lens, others complain about certain flaws. Often a bad bokeh is mentioned. I cannot agree to that. OK, I do have lenses that generate a much smoother bokeh, but the Tak 135 has yet to disappoint me.
This image shows that even with nasty twigs in the ooF areas the lens behaves well. Bokeh highlights, though, could be rendered a bit more pleasant, I’ll grant you that.
Sharpness and contrast are very good – this is kind of characteristic for Takumars.
With a maximum aperture of f/3.5 this 135mm lens is not really fast, but it’s not far away from the widely spread 2.8/135 lenses and the f/3.5 makes this lens a little more affordable. This Takumar is an underrated lens. You can find it for rather little money regularly. Thus it’s a fantasic lens for those who want to start a collection or those who want to try shooting with a 135mm lens, as long as you can cope with the minimum focus distance of 1.5 metres. The M42-screwmount is easily adapted to EOS, Sigma, Pentax or Olympus DSLRs.
After a bad week with bronchitis and conjunctivitis, I now – finally – can add a new lens report to this blog. This time it’s about the Super-Tak 2.8/105.
The second Takumar lens in this blog. Takumars are generally very good. I hardly know bad models and still they are rather affordable, unless you want to buy one of the really rare ones. This 105mm lens is already one of the more expensive lenses and a precious one it is.
It works adapted to an APS-EOS, a fullframe EOS and a Sigma DSLR, thus I can use this lens on all of my digital SLR cameras. Even on my dad’s Fuji S2 Pro it can be used, but you won’t get focus on infinity on a body with Nikon mount. (Well, you can, but then you need to use an adapter with a correction lens.)
One great think about the Takumars is their great built. As long as they are in decent condition they really feel good in your hands. There are different versions of this lens, but in order to find information about these Pentax lens predecessors, I’d recommend the Taunusreiter pages – an excellent source!
This Takumar is a really nice lens. It’s sharp and can resolve some fine details. There is no distortion visible and vignetting is very low even wide open. The bokeh it produces is velvety, but can get a little grumpy with complicated structures such as twigs and branches in the out-of-focus areas. And it neither is the best lens to render those smoothly shaped bokeh highlights, the Tak 105 clearly shows a ring. It is, however, much better than most other lenses. Colour rendition is very pleasant and neutral. If f/2.8 is fast enough for you, there is not much left to be wanted.
Here are some shots, taken with the EOS 5D:
And some images taken with the Sigma SD10:
And finally some taken with the EOS 300D:
Canon includes a software when they sell their DSLRs. It’s called Digital Photo Professional and after some versions it has grown up and become a serisous RAW developing application. Now, they have finished the tutorials for the latest edition (v3.8). Enjoy!
This lens is not really a lens that one would use on a DSLR. It was used on Agfa Standard cameras between 1926-31 to shoot on 6×9 film. I have deactivated the internal shutter and adapted the lens to EOS-mount by fixing it to a tube taken from an Olympus-mount SUN 135mm lens (with removed internal elements) and an OM-EOS-adapter. In order to achieve infinity focus (and not beyond!) I had to add a 12mm OM macro tube. This construction perhaps looks a bit strange but it works.
I have found the old medium format lens at the Solms Camera Show near “Leica-City” Wetzlar that I have attended regularly for some years now. Since I know that those old lenses can create very interesting images and effects when used with a sensor (more about this here), I wanted to try this Agfa on my EOS cams. Well, how does it perform? About as I have expected.
This lens does not have the extreme resolution of a modern top-class prime but since only a very small part of th original image circle is used, the lens performs similarly throughout the whole frame when used on a DSLR, esp. when use on the 300D I took the photos on this post with. There is no loss towards the corners whatsoever.
Contrast and saturation are reduced compared to a modern lens and since there is not coating on the elements it is easy to generate flare which again reduces image contrast. A low saturation is not a bad thing, unless you want those Japanese style images that hum with colours and low contrast can be adjusted easily in post-processing. Under an overcast sky or in shadows this lens does not reproduce deep blacks and bright whites, a behaviour that suddenly changes as soon as the sun comes out. Then you get high contrast, but – as said before – you have keep an eye on possible flare.
The Anastigmat renders out-of-focus areas nicely but has problems with bokeh highlights which sometimes seem to be of doughnut shape. Areas in focus are pretty nice and definitely sharp enough for general use.
OK, here it starts…
This week I will shoot with the Zeiss Biotar 2/58, a lens that I just have converted to EOS mount using a LeicaR-EOS-adapter, some superglue and EasyTac. It worked well. Please, don’t hit me for transferring this lens into the digital age!😉 I have hardly shot with the Exakta Varex that had this lens mounted.
It’s a very nice lens. My Flickr contact Alf Sigaro shows the lens diagram. It’s a 6 element design but my copy does not have the famous T-coating, so reflections can be a problem when the lens is used wide open and with some light from the side. For the same reason there are some coma effects and halos visible towards the edge of the image frame. A good hood helps, though. I use a vented hood for a rangefinder Summicron or one of these classic conical ones.
Distortion is nicely low and the bokeh is very interesting, really “characteristic” I’d say. It’s one of those lenses that seem to have their own “personality” which you need to understand in order to use properly. The close-up functionality of this lens is not that good, it only focuses down to about 90cm; you could, fo course, always work with close-up lenses or other additional equipment. This Biotar is not made for all scenarios and certainly not suitable to produce that neutral style of modern AF lenses, but if you find an approach to this lens, it can give you some fascinating shots.
This lens is nicely built and provides a pleasant feeling of solidity – quite typical for the “early” Carl Zeiss Jena lenses. The Biotar 2/58 series was built between 1946 and 1960 in different versions. My copy offers apertures from f/2 to f/22, some copies only go to f/16 (which is not really a problem, is it?). Haptics are great, there is just one problematic issue: with some lenses the focus ring does not turn smoothly any more which is due to a stiff volution. My copy also suffers a little from that, but it’s not too bad, it’s still well usable.
Since the EXA mount gets into the way of the EOS 5D mirror, I shoot this lens on a crop (1.6x) DSLR. My 40D is mainly “reserved” for my AF lenses, so the EOS 300D will be the “weapon of choice”.
This Biotar doesn’t go where my Leica Summicron 2/50 resides at: the top. But it is a fine lens, capable of producing nicely rendered and very special images, if you know how to use it. And it really shines on smaller, e.g. APS-sized sensors.