I'm not familiar with M42 lenses or their EOS adapters but it appears
that lens may protrude a far piece into the mirror chamber. If you use
it on the 5D be sure there's no conflict with its very large mirror.
Chuck Norcutt
On 12/7/2010 12:30 AM, Moose wrote:
> 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/
|
