Featuring the Flektogon

<p>In the responses to a couple of my recent posts several of our members asked to see a few more images from the 50mm Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon f/4. Since I'm housebound by a continuing spell of foul early-winter weather, I've taken the time to sort out a few images for a small gallery. But first, the lens.</p><div></div>

<p>This version of the Flektogon is the original zebra striped model, and was created as a wide-angle lens for the Pentacon Six medium-format SLR camera. Later versions were plain black, apparently with improved coating. In competition, the FSU created the Kiev-60, a broadly similar camera to the Pentacon Six, utilising the same P6 lens mount, along with a similar range of lenses. The Kiev 88, better known as the Hasselbladski, utilised a different lens mount again, but the later CM versions of the Kiev 88 adopted the P6 mount, thus adding quite an attractive flexibility to the system. As I have examples of both these cameras, the Flektogon gets quite a bit of use, and it's certainly up there with the better medium format wide angle lenses. I've read somewhere that the lens design was 'optimised for centre-sharpness', which is perhaps a polite way of saying that it's not so great at the edges, and wide open I'd have to agree that while the centre is very sharp, the edges are not. Stopped down to f/5.6 the situation improves rapidly and the whole frame is very crisp indeed. With a giant 86mm front element flare can be a problem, and the weight and bulk of the lens adds significantly to that of the large cameras. However, mechanically this example is silky smooth, with excellent glass; it found it's way here from a dealer in Ukraine who described it as being a little untidy, as obviously a previous owner had struggled to remove a stuck filter and, while the threads are still usable, they show the results of some mechanical indiscretions. Since this resulted in a dramatic reduction in price I wasn't too fussy, especially since Andre said he'd "Tidied it up a little bit with a marker pen". That's what I call service.</p>

<p>The construction is 7 elements in 4 groups; here's a crude graphic depiction.</p><div></div>

<p>Anyway, here are a few photographs, taken over the last couple of months. Some were taken on old Ektacolor Pro 160 at a charity garden fête featuring some rather nice vintage cars, Morris dancers and a brass band, and the others are just odds and sods from my usual haunts. The B&W is mainly Arista EDU200 developed in PMK Pyro, all scans from the Epson Perfection V700.</p><div></div>

<p>No.2</p><div></div>

<p>No.3</p><div></div>

<p>No.4</p><div></div>

<p>No.5</p><div></div>

<p>No.6</p><div></div>

<p>No.7</p><div></div>

<p>No.8</p><div></div>

<p>No.9</p><div></div>

<p>No.10</p><div></div>

<p>No.11</p><div></div>

<p>No.12</p><div></div>

And how, would you say, does this lens distinguish itself from other 50 mm lenses on 6x6 medium format?<br>That it is able to form an image was understood, needed no images to proof. As they are, the images themselves, all 700x700 pixels of them, scanned on a flatbed scanner, cannot show the personality of a lens, except maybe that of one that has an extremely strong character.<br>So can you fill us in on, or find bits to show that do show that this is a Flektogon and not any other lens (and that show that it either is a classic lens or just 'any other lens')?<br><br>Oh, and: great pictures... ;-)

<p>I don't have the skills, knowledge or expertise to differentiate one "good" lens from another, <strong>Q.G.</strong>, and I have no idea what constitutes a "classic lens"... I have other medium-format wide angle lenses I'm just as happy to use, and they produce images that look pretty much alike. After all, so much depends on the day and the light and the photographer, and that's before we get to the film and the processing and the scanning. All I try to do in these posts is describe the lens and show a few examples of photographs <em>I've</em> taken with it, and the observers can draw their own conclusions. I'd like to think that some of our members find the descriptions interesting and worthwhile and, of course, it's gratifying when someone expresses approval of the pics!</p>

Describing a lens could, and should, include describing what that "pretty much alike" means and why it would not be the same as "the same".<br>Much depends on the day, [etc.] unless the images shown are made to compare (JDM's epic series of that single water tower comes to mind), and not just to show the result of an afternoon's photographic walkabout.<br>Film? Use the same.<br>Scanning can be taken out of the comparison when scanned well enough to reveal what the lenses do, and when crops are shown that do show the differences. We are limited to 700 pixels, but we are not obliged to cram the entire image into those 700 pixels. So show 700 pixels that do reveal something about the bit of CMC that is the topic of the thread, instead of 700 pixels that don't.<br><br>As is, the observer simply cannot draw any own conclusions about this Flektogon, apart from that it forms an image that can be captured on film, scanned and posted. You mentioned something about the sharpness falling off and how it is recovered by stopping down (with the diagram, the mention of its weight and large diameter - and a bit about the mount of a number of Kiev cameras, which one could construe as being somewhat about the lens too - the full description as provided). But your images show nothing of it. Not the degree in which sharpness falls off, not the nature of the unsharpness, not how it recovers nor how the center sharpness changes when stopping down to rescue the edge and corner sharpness. Nor any of the other peculiarities that distinguishes one lens from another.<br>Missed opportunities.<br><br>A classic lens, Rick, is a lens that is still talked about because of its peculiarities. As opposed to yet another lens, that's not even remarkable because it is old.

<p>Very nice pictures <strong>Rick</strong>. I like them all. The performance of the lens to my eyes and in my monitor seems as good as the 35mm version of the Flektogon, if not sharper and more crispy. I like your humanistic approach to lenses, as they produce perceptually enjoyable pictures. Keep them coming. Thanks for the post. sp.</p>

To my eyes and on my monitor, these images show a performance of the lens that looks pretty much alike what is seen in any photo shown on Photo.net.

<p>Thanks Rick. Your posts are very much appreciated,<br>

regardless of what some "classic" members of this<br>

forum may say...</p>

 

I made my point and was going to leave it at that, but clearly it wasn't clear enough.<br>I do appreciate Rick's posts, François. They could be even more appreciated.<br><br>Question: was the conclusion drawn from the recent "great pictures" thread really no more than that all pictures are great, period? Is this forum about creating opportunities to apply superlatives such as "great" and "much" (mostly) to image streams, or about classic manual camera gear?

<p >Yes lenses and cameras form images. And resizing them to 700 pixels probably doesn't tell us a lot about the personality of the lens, if there is such a thing.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >But here are a few things that lenses and cameras don't do; buy themselves and repair/clean/recondition themselves; acquire film and load it into themselves; go out and take pictures, great or otherwise.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Process the film or send it for processing at significant cost and trouble; acquire and learn how to use a scanner, and scan the results.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Go to the trouble of photographing themselves in an attractive and informative style; finally go to the trouble of putting a post on photo.net, with well written and researched background information and comments.</p>

<p>No, you didn't "make your point" unless it was to insist that others need to play by your rules.<br>

The conclusion most of us got from the "great" thread was that some people don't appreciate honest efforts to use old equipment, "classic" or not. I wonder if what you are insisting on would really make Rick's posts "even more appreciated." He does what he wants to do, and why not?</p>

<p>People are (were?) having fun here, but I guess there are some who think Photo.net needs less posting and fewer pictures. There are apparently too many posts here, but this kind of "appreciation" may soon cure that.</p>

<p>My feeling is still, as I have said before in this same context, that those who want a different kind of post on this site could be contribute most clearly by showing how to do it. That would set a meaningful example.</p>

 

<p>I like what you did with the square compositions. Some subjects naturally lend themselves to a square composition and others require some effort on the part of the photographer to make them work. My two 50mm wide angles for the 6X6 format are the Zenzanon 50/3.5 S and the Zenzanon 50/3.5 PS. Even though the focal length is the same when I use a 50/2.8 with a Bronice ETR, the extra 15mm of space on the 6X6 negative takes in a much larger scene overall.<br>

Asking what someone likes about using a classic piece of photo equipment is not easy to answer. Why does someone like to drive an antique car? Why does someone like to draw with pencils? The short answer is that they just like to. Other answers include reliving activities from when a person was younger, using somethng which is less expensive now than it was when it first came out, enjoying using something which is old but still produces good results. I'm sure there are more. Screen resolution is very low so you might also ask why someone would bother shooting with a Nikon D800 or a Canon D5 III in order to display an image on a screen. It is far more practical to share images like the ones shown in this forum according to the practices of the forum than to wet print hundreds or thousands of images and mail them to people. Based on that it doesn't bother me that 120 negatives are scanned on a flatbed scanner and shown at a certain resolution level. If very large prints need to be made they can either be wet printed or the negatives can be drum scanned. I once asked Gene M. whether he wet prints his images. He said he scans the negatives. I enjoy seeing his work and the work of others he has recovered just as much as if he wet printed them. </p>

The conclusion i draw from your conclusion, JDM, is that this if it were up to you, this is just one of many picture sharing forums, that just happens to favour pictures taken with old cameras, though you couldn't tell at all by looking at the pictures. Just an excuse for showing pictures.<br>Not a forum devoted to these old cameras, though a token acknowledgment of the fact that those exist is usually posted as a lead-in to yet another (banal or great - this forum is not the place to discuss that) pictures thread. It is a Classic Manual <b>Cameras</b> forum. It says so above the door. Not a pictures that could be taken with just about anything forum. To be on topic, the pictures should show something, demonstrate something about the topic of the forum. Not my rules.<br>I'm quite interested in what Carl Zeiss lenses of yesterday could do. I'm not in the least interested in yet another bunch of pictures that show motor vehicles that says absolutely nothing about the lens the thread pretends to be about.<br><br>Nor do they say anything about why people are fascinated with old gear. Just that someone finds cars interesting enough to take pictures of. I agree with you, Jeff, that it sometimes is difficult to say why someone is interested in something. And it does't matter why, as long as we can celebrate that thing we take joy in. So i like this forum. Mostly. Not when instead we get yet another long thread of pictures that are of no relevance whatsoever. Contrast these "Look, here's a camera. And now that we have that out of the way, here are 20 pictures i've taken of what else i find interesting" threads with, for instance, the threads (alas partially banned) Marc posts. A world of difference. Contrast the shelfies with yet another series of motor cycle pictures. Ditto.<br><br>It's not about printing vs scanning by the way. You can show the characteristics of a lens by showing details of a scan. The space allowed for a single image can't do that if the poster rather posts the entire image. A choice was made then not to show something about the lens, but something about motor cars, carnivals and horses<br><br>Because, i understand, JDM wants this to be, not a forum devoted to old cameras and lenses, despite what it says on top of each page (the OP "does what he wants to do, and why not?"), but to those kinds of things.