On 12/4/2010 5:24 PM, AS wrote:
> Today I picked up a Zeiss Jena Tessar 50mm F2.8 from a local guy. While this
> is a fairly common lens, I believe the variation I have is from a very early
> period. I have not found one with the same markings or barrel online. This is
> a preset, all alum, and M42 lens.
As promised, pics of mine.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Tech/Misc&image=_MG_2474rotcria.jpg>
-
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Tech/Misc&image=_MG_2475cria.jpg>
The optics themselves take u only about 1/3 of the length and even less of the
bulk of the assembly. They are deeply
recessed, like the 50/3.5 macro.
On 12/5/2010 6:10 AM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> In asked AS why he would use the CZJ 50/2.8 in preference to the probably
> better corrected, multi-coated and much brighter Zuiko MIJ 50/1.8. The
> preset feature may be a good answer. :-)
It certainly is easier to use than a lens like the 50/1.8 MF Zuiko. Very speedy
to go from wide for focus to stopped
down for exposure. No click counting.
There are a couple of other reasons I can imagine, but not document at the
moment.
1. As a non symmetrical design, unlike all the 50 mm non-macro Zuikos, and
indeed pretty much all fast normal lenses of
the last umpteen years, it should have different OOF image characteristics,
perhaps less busy/edgy than the 50/1.8 with
close subject and distant background.
2. Like most pre auto diaphragm lenses, it has many blades, 14, I think, so OOF
highlights are round, not pentagonal,
hexagonal, etc.
3. Tessar images are reputed to have a different sort of sharpness and
contrast, subtle, but important to some for a
certain 'look'.
I did take some shots with it some years ago on the 300D. I think I kept notes,
but don't know where they are. And the
APS-C sensor only uses part of the frame the lens was designed for. The set I
do know for sure were taken with it aren't
really suited to answering 1 & 2 above, and I have only a comparison shot from
the Canon 24-85 zoom, not anything like a
Zuiko 50. I do have other shots with the 50/1.4, but of totally different
subjects.
Although I have a more usable M42 mount film camera than the Praktiflex, a very
nice, recently CLAed Fujica AT605N, I've
never taken any film images with this lens. It has a metal protrusion behind
the mount extending well back of the rear
element, that you can see in the first link above. As a result, it doesn't
clear the mirror on many SLRs and won't fit
into an OM mount adapter with correction lens.
The idea of using it on the 5D has floated through my mind from time to time.
Perhaps now, with it sitting here on an
M42=>EF adapter, that might happen.
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
