should i buy this lens?

I would say no because of this description:

I am afraid I know very little about vintage cameras / accessories and so these items are untested and being sold as found, it is possible they may only be useful for repairs / spares or parts - I will not be able to offer a refund if they are found to be not working. I will try and describe the visual condition as best I am able but am unable to offer any technical assesment of the condition I am afraid.
 
ya i looked at the completed listing and it seems that those lenses are going for 100-150$
I heard that the zeiss pancolar is pretty sharp, compared to lets say a nikon 50mm f1.8 manual prime....
 
chrismagicc said:
ya i looked at the completed listing and it seems that those lenses are going for 100-150$
I heard that the zeiss pancolar is pretty sharp, compared to lets say a nikon 50mm f1.8 manual prime....
Click to expand...

Id go with the newer Nikon lens, than an old Zeiss. Unless youre looking for a "look".
 
For that price... no. Maybe if they moved the decimal point. For that price, you could get a brand new EF 50/1.8.

M42 mount 50/1.8's are plentiful and cheap, and except for damage, they're all plenty sharp.

The OM 50/1.8's are also very cheap, and work very well.
 
I just bought a Contax Zeiss Planar T* 50mm f/1.7 in mint condition for £89.00, and it's by all accounts a better lens than the pancolar. From my experience, the Planar is amazing, much better than my Canon ef 50 1.8, Nikkor ais 50 1.4, and Olympus OM Zuiko 50 1.4. It's very sharp, much sharper than the other 3 wide open, has great colour rendition, lovely bokeh (to me), and the images really pop with it. So, I'd recommend it over the pancolar and any other 1.8 50, it's really worth it.

Max
 
While not being a better lens by all aspects, a Meyer - Pentacon electric 50 f 1.8 at a price tag of 15-30 Eur has a similar vintage image look, is a good performer, and by far a better value for money I'd say.
 
TimurCivan said:
Id go with the newer Nikon lens, than an old Zeiss. Unless youre looking for a "look".
Click to expand...

People just know the name...

And this "this lens is sharper than that lens" garbage. Any decent multicoated lens from the early 70s is outresolving DSLR sensors by a MILE in video mode.

Take a GOOD Look at the attached photo...

1972 Nikkor H-C 300mm F4.5 No sharpening or saturation adjustments have been made to this image. This lens is not one of Nikon's best at all, and is still able to out resolve the7D/550D sensor in STILLS mode, never mind video mode.

Pay attention to the glass and forget all the sharper this, sharper that talk.

(BTW, this is from a hazed lens that needs to be professionally cleaned. I also forgot to use the magnifier to check focus before shooting, so this was just focused outdoors with the LCD)
 

Attachments

  • neighbors_flowers_graded_1280.jpg
    neighbors_flowers_graded_1280.jpg
    45.6 KB · Views: 0
I'll even go you one better...

Here is a 5K still from a 1967/1968 Nikkor-S 50mm 1.4 WIDE OPEN.

This was taken in my edit room, ISO 800, not white balanced, and shot from 3ft away. Remember, the reviews on this lens are that it's "soft" wide open compared to its competition.
 

Attachments

  • Starbuckcard.jpg
    Starbuckcard.jpg
    46.4 KB · Views: 0
I have the DDR and non-electric version of that lens: a Carl Zeiss Jena "zebra" pancolar 50mm f/1.8; the price was similar: under $100 with shipping

and, even though PerroneFord advised us to stop talking about sharpness... it's the sharpest lens I have, check out my One Dollar Resolution Chart results:
http://www.similaar.com/foto/lenstests/lenstestsa.html

as someone said, for that price you could buy a brand new canon 50 1.8, which is nearly as sharp as the pancolar... but the bokeh is kind of ugly, and there's absolutely no comparison for manual focusing: the new canon has a minimal and pretty awkward focusing ring with very short throw (maybe 60º?), while the pancolar has a decent focusing ring that takes nearly a full rotation to go from closest to infinity; it makes all the difference (maybe less so if your follow focus is designed for short-throw-focus lenses)
 
I'm not saying to not TALK about sharpness. Sharpness is great. It's the obsessing over it like it's going to suddenly make everyone's videos better that's buggin me. Along with the impressions newbies get that if they don't buy the latest $1500 lens, they can't make good videos. That's the sentiment out there right now, and it needs to stop.

Shooters don't need to feel like they are somehow less able or less capable because they can't purchase $1k+ glass for their $800 camera. It's the same sentiment that you can't make a decent movie unless you shoot on film, or 4K. It's ridiculous and entirely the wrong message to be sending to people who may not know better.
 
I totally agree. Let's stop pixel peeping. All these economic vintage lenses that are discussed here or in other threads outperform in most cases the sensors for stills; let alone video. Slight variations in sharpness and test charts performance may have almost no meaning for shooting 1920x1080 video. So you don't need to spend a fortune to get a cult Zeiss lens to shoot good video or stills. And you can always resell a lens later if you want to upgrade.
 
ok, then we agree: a sharper lens won't make your videos suddenly better, it will most likely do the opposite, because you'll get more aliasing and moire; then, if you can control those issues, your videos can LOOK better, but still won't BE much better, that will depend on how good you are as a creator

still, if at hand, get better (and sharper) lenses (but don't get crazy about it)
 
If problems can be mitigated, then yes, better, sharper, glass can certainly make your videos look better. Frankly, the kit lenses on these DSLRs a good performers for still photos (at 5K), they are fairly contrasty and well designed. But they are built to an inexpensive price and feel like it. And they are nearly impossible to use a follow focus with. And they are slow.

However, since many owners will, and should, be shooting at F4-F8 most of the time, this should not prove to be a major impediment to most new shooters. Yes, it's nice to augment with a couple of nice lenses in the F1.8/F2.0 range, but honestly, that's about all one should need to shoot most shorts.
 
I'm not crazy about sharpness/performance coming out of these lenses at all. i was just curious because i like reading up about this stuff.
Almost all my videos, which i am very happy with, have been shot with the kit 18-55mm and my nikon 50mm f1.4....
a nice 35mm prime or 24mm would be nice to compliment my others, thats all!
ideally i would like to get the sigma 10-20 or canon 11-22, but they are expensive and I am a student still....
 
TimurCivan said:
i say get th newer glas because its more about matching color, and having an unbiased color tone to the footage that will cut with other lenses.

having a grab bag of 6 different low cost sharp, mid 70's lenses is great, but each one has a different color pallet, and getting matching footage is going to be a pain.
Click to expand...

If you pay attention to my comments you'll see that I am quite careful in saying this is why I am building a set of cohesive Nikon Primes. All similar vintage. I want that consistent look lens to lens.

Unfortunately, you are correct in that having a grab bag full of assorted primes isn't going to help things. However, for those trying to do a cohesive set, whether that be Nikon, Pentax Takumar, or Fujinon EBC, or whatever it is, THAT is the way to go. Once you have a built set, venturing out is fine. Or if you find yourself just needed a common interview lens or wide lens that doesn't need to match anything else, then that's also fine.

I'm just not thrilled with the feel of new AF glass. Even L glass. I LOVE finding those old, long-throw manual lenses that the photogs hate because they take too long to focus on. That's perfect for our needs. 300-330 degrees rotation.. Yes PLEASE!

So for those out there looking to shoot movies on these lenses, try to build a cohesive set. I am trying to build my set of Nikons in pre-AI lenses. I like them best, though optically they aren't the best available. That's ok with me. I've got enough "sharp" glass for my needs.
 
PerroneFord said:
I LOVE finding those old, long-throw manual lenses that the photogs hate because they take too long to focus on. That's perfect for our needs. 300-330 degrees rotation.. Yes PLEASE!
Click to expand...

I don't think this gets the attention it deserves in Vintage Glass threads. I immediately noticed the crazy long focus throw when I started picking up lenses that are older than me. I can barely keep myself still thinking about putting a Follow Focus on it (almost done building my own), especially with some that are f2.8 and faster. I mean, basically all the photography knowledge I've gained is from being taught on old glass, since we shot film and worked in the darkroom 80 hours a week. But just being able to marry HDSLR video with these wonderful old lenses...

Makes me :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top