Difference between Zeiss Prakticar & Flektogon

J

jag0

New member
So I've been doing some reading on lenses and such trying to learn as much as I can. I'm trying to determine what's the difference between the Zeiss Prakticar & Zeiss Flektogon? Which (if any) would be the better buy, and lastly, is a 20mm 2.8 Zeiss Prakticar lens REALLY worth $500??

I'd also LOVE to see some samples of shot on both.

Thanks
 
Practika is a kind of camera, not a Zeiss lens design. Zeiss lenses for Praktica mount are "Zeiss Jena" lenses, and while they are usually pretty good opitcally, these must not be confused with "real" Zeiss lenses. The Flektogon designates a design type, typically on wider lenses, you can find 50mm fleks on medium format cameras, but on 35mm film you'll find 35mm, 20mm, maybe a few other flek designs - the flek design, if it had an equivalent in "real" Zeiss lenses would probably the "Distagon" design.

I wouldn't spend $500 for any Zeiss Jena lens...that's a serious waste. $500 can get you a very good lens - if you want a 20mm f/2.8, the modern Canon EOS version costs less than $500, there's a Sigma 20mm f/1.8 for a little more, or if you're into manual focus lenses, check out an Olympus OM mt 20mm - but don't spend $500 on a Zeiss Jena lens, if you read up on that lens in particular (20mm flek), the Zeiss Jena 20mm f/4 flek is significantly better all around than the f/2.8 version which is pricey more for its scarcity than its image quality.

I've seen some good stuff with Zeiss Jena medium format primes, designed for the Pentacon Six cameras - but all in all you're still talking about east-german made lenses that aren't as good as West German or Japanese Zeiss, and truthfully if they didn't bear an element of the Zeiss name, they would sell at Jupiter lens prices -- they just aren't real Zeiss, there's no backdoor into owning real Zeiss lenses. If you want Zeiss, either buy the ZE/ZF mount versions or the Contax or Rollei SL35 versions (much cheaper, but less modern coatings - the optical designs are very, very similar - probably 95%+ percent the same as the ZE/ZF mounts).

Again, none of this is to say that Zeiss Jena lenses aren't totally adequate - they're just not really worth a premium, they can be unique too, but I feel like a lot of sellers and folks on the 'net sort of mislead folks who want "real" Zeiss into thinking that Zeiss Jena's are the same caliber - and they're not.
 
Ahh... Thanks SO much for the help. Very good info and prevented this n00b and hopefully others from potentially throwing away good money. I'm curious to know what other good substitutes there are for a 20mm fast lens. Reason being, it'll be used on a 60 which means the 20mm will be more or less a 35mm?
 
I wouldn't call them "real" zeiss, it's just "Zeiss Oberkochen", while the other one is "Carl Zeiss Jena"

the original Zeiss factory was located in Jena, which became part of the communist side of germany when the country was divided; thus the company became "Zeiss Jena", while many engineers fled to the capitalist side and started shop in Oberkochen, thus "Carl Zeiss Oberkochen"

it is true that the zeiss lenses you can buy today have more in common with the Zeiss Oberkochen ones, but I'm not totally sure CZO lenses from the 70s and 80s are definitely better than their CZJ counterparts

I have two jena lenses that are absolutely awesome (pancolar 50 and sonnar 135), but I was not impressed by a biometar 80, and felt utterly dissapointed by a flektogon 35 (though maybe it was a faulty unit)

EDIT: by the way: none of these vintage lenses cost me more than $150!! if you have the money and want something better, my leitz elmarit-R 35mm is great, worlds better than the flektogon I tested; it should cost around $400-$500
as with all used lenses, choose well where you buy, most ebay units have minor scratches or cleaning marks, some have even bigger faults; none of the ones I got is absolutely perfect, but they are optically fine; you can see my tests here:
http://www.similaar.com/foto/lenstests/lenstestsa.html

if you're looking for a 20, it's not easy... 35mm yes, but below that it quickly becomes too expensive; I'd go for the modern canon 17-40L, which is about the price range you were considering, and also a great lens for stills (autofocus), and will become a very fine ultra-wide zoom if you upgrade to full-frame; at f/4, it's a bit slow, thogh... if that's a concern and you're staying at 1.6 crop, the tamron 17-50 f/2.8 without VC will do too
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top