Why the Fuss - CJZ Pancolar 50mm f1.8?

I have been enjoying buying cheap German and Japanese M42-mount lenses

on eBay recently, and comparing them against each other for fun. I

know that some lenses enjoy a reputation that keeps their prices

rather high - such as the Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 135mm f3.5; and the

Carl Zeiss Jena 58mm f2 Biotar. I may not particularly see what the

fuss is about, but at least I've read about here and there and I have

some understanding as to what is driving prices.

 

However, I've noticed that the CZJ Pancolar 50mm f1.8 (sometimes

described as 'Electric') seems to be going for rather a large amount

of money on eBay, and I haven't been able to find a good reason for it

by searching Google and PN, etc. I can't even find a lot of chatter

about it.

 

So, does anyone know what the deal is with this lens? A hidden

diamond? A Tomioka in disguise? Just curious, if anyone happens to know.

 

Best,

 

Wiggy

Too much attention is paid to lenses as far as I'm concerned. Photos have to be interesting. A "sharp" photograph of a boring subject is just a "sharp" boring photograph. I'm just a twenty nine cent amateur photographer but most of the photos I've taken and am impressed with came from junk cameras.

Gene, I don't disagree with you. But I also collect - it was that or rob banks. Well, sometimes I feel like I'll have to turn to robbing banks to finance my 'collection' as I laughingly call my odd pile of junk and bits and bobs.

 

But there is no denying that there is more to a lens than how sharp it is. Some give a particular 'look' to an otherwise sharply-focused photograph - just another tool to use, eh?

 

So again, I'm just curious about this particular lens and why it seems to command such a high price at the moment on eBay.

 

Best,

 

Wiggy

It's madness, isn't it ?

The original Zeiss Pancolor lens made for Exakta and others were highly regarded in terms of optical performance. Later ones just used the name. You need to distinguish the period in which the particular Pancolor was made. Later Planar lenses from Zeiss were far better performers.

Madness? Collecting? Sure! But that's the best kind.

 

I am sitting on my couch, watching HGTV with my wife and eating home-made chili (sans finger). We just got back from the "Acorn Festival" in Four Oaks, NC, where I burned three rolls of Efke KB 100 in my Canon FX. Used a FL 200, 135, 50, and 35 lens - all Canon FL, all with appropriate hoods and so on. Crazy. I've just pulled two of strips out of the soup (D76, 1+1, 8 minutes @ 72 deg F) and I've got one more to go - then I scan.

 

My wife laughs at me and I apologize for being such a geek. She laughs harder and says that I could be hanging out in bars or glued to NASCAR or a sports thing on TV, and of all possible geek hobbies, this is the least destructive she can think of. And it costs money, yet, but no more than the cigarettes I gave up a year ago come this June 12.

 

Madness? Sure is. May I have some more?

 

Best,

 

Wiggy

Vivek - how do you tell the difference between early and late? Physical appearances, serial number?

 

Thanks for the response!

 

Best,

 

Wiggy

To answer Wigwam's original question: these lenses were typically sold with cameras that were among the lowest cost in the world. The market which purchased these cameras was not really interested in spending an additional twenty or thirty dollars to get a Zeiss lens of the same f-stop as a Pentacon or Meyer lens. That means that they are fairly rare.

 

I would respectfully disagree with an earlier post suggesting that later Pancolars were inferior to later Japanese Planars. I own and use examples of both and I find that the last "MC" M42 Pancolar measures up very well against the 50/1,7 Planar and seems to have a bit less plastic. They are both exceptionally good lenses and seem to be valued about the same on the open market.

 

The fact is, most of these lenses, including the Pentacon and Meyer lenses, are better lenses than we are photographers.

As far as the USA is concerned, the Pancolar is valued because it is unknown and has 'mythic' qualities. The same thing with the 135F3.5 Sonnar and 34F2.4 Flektogon. In the UK, these lenses were widely available on the cheapest cameras - the Prakticas. The Praktica was one step above the untra-cheap and crude Zenit and every Praktica owner aspired to 'get something better when they could afford it'. All of the products from East Gertmany were very variable in quality and not very durable - this is evidenced today by the fact that almost every Praktica camera has one fault or another and many many CZJ lenses have rough focussing or malfunctioning apertures. Tha Pancolar was the top of the line lens for the Praktica, above the Domiplan (3-element), Tessar (4-element) and Pentacon (the most popular lens). There is nothing special about the Pancolar except that is has an F22 setting which many standard lenses do not. Any Super Takumar lens will easily match the sharpness of a Pancolar.

What Michael Linn said. All my lenses are way better than I am as a photographer.

 

There are a number of lenses that people will pay an absurd premium for, possibly because of rarity, and possibly because of a mythic 'magic bullet' cachet. Large format Apo-Lanthars and Goerz Trigors are other examples.

Wiggy,

 

I picked up a nice user Practika FX with the Meyer-Optic Gorlitz 58mm f/1,9 lens at a flea market 2 weeks ago for $20. Not only is the lens a very good performer but I love the camera with it's "TLR" type viewfinder and "thwump" of the cloth focal plane shutter.

 

I too have been watching eBay for other interesting M42 lenses and have been quite surprised at how much some are going for. So, I watch and see. Think I may pick up a Pentax Super-Takamar 50/1,4 one of these days as it's supposed to be a classic one. Do I need it? Of course not! I have a G2 45 Planar that is simply amazing. As is my 50/1,4 Contax SLR Planar. Not to mention my 50/2 Summitar, 40/1,4 Nokton, and even my 50/2 Jupiter-8. And today, after a LOT of tweaking and screwing around, I just got a Shanghai-copy rangefinder with 50/3,5 Elmar-copy working---and the first couple rolls are great! So, another normal lens to have fun with.

 

I could not agree with you more---different lenses definitely have different personalities. And when they can be had for fairly cheap it's even more rewarding to try them out and see how they perform----not just for sharpness but for all their other qualities.

 

So, hope you and I do not end up outbidding each other too much on eBay for those M42's!<div></div>

What I found out about those older CZJ lenses,they all show good workmanship and funktion. Especially the stuff made in the late fifties/early sixties is a joy to use.Smooth working elements and

a high number of aperture blades that create the creamy,highly praised "bokeh" on the background lights are probably the main points.

The latter ones,especially the "zebra" designs show great variety in quality.

At least one point in discussion is often forgotten:

As fifty years old cameras need CLA,also lenses earn a certain degree of maintenance,as to chance of grease,and cleaning from haze and funghus.Then they should last forever.

Probably the main factor in posessing and using these lenses has to

do with the expertship and professionality ,that the name Carl Zeiss and relatives is promising.

It once sure was true,today more modern designs may have overtaken

performancewise but,as children of the MechanicalAge,we all are,leave

us our toys.

Good light Georg

Go to a bootsale and you can pick up many old cameras at bargain prices.The problem with Ebay is that it attracts all the people who are ACTUALLY LOOKING for that item and hence the cost can be higher than normal!

 

If you go to a shop you can get many older cameras relatively cheaply now.

Thank you for all the responses! It would appear then, that the Pancolar is a good lens - perhaps over-rated, perhaps not. But for one reason or another, it is hot right now, and the news that it may not be worth it is hanging fire.

 

Yes, it is true, there are a lot of us out there collecting and using the old lenses and cameras as well. I've got a pretty good collection of Japanese glass, and have recently been looking at the various German lenses, even though many of them are purely manual stop-down.

 

As to the suggestion that I shop locally - I'm sure it is a good idea if you live in a metropolitan area. I live in the backwoods of North Carolina, USA, an hour's drive from even a small city (Raleigh). There is not even a place to buy 120 film between here and there. Garages sales (our version of a 'boot sale' I guess) consist of nothing more than a cardboard box full of smelly used clothes. All old cameras and lenses seem to have long since been disposed of, unless you're a fan of the infamous 'Time-Life' 35mm camera. I always get a chuckle when someone suggests that I just pop 'round to the shops and have a look at the latest digital camera or such. No high street near here, mate.

 

Best,

 

Wiggy

If you look at the specs of the Pentacon 50mm f1.8 lens vs. the Pancolar 50mm f1.8, I think there is really little difference. Wonder if the comrade workers made more on the Pancolar line?

 

http://www.praktica-users.com/lens/mlenses/czjpan1.8_50.html

 

http://www.praktica-users.com/lens/mlenses/morp1.8_50.html

I don't happen to have ever owned a Pancolar (which I think was marked "Flexon" when mounted for Praktina IIa's). From what I have read, it was considered when new to be a significant improvement on the previous 58/2.0 Biotar design. It was more advanced at least in the sense of managing to get the focal length down to 50 from 58mm and still fit it in front of the mirror.

Rich makes a good point--some of the older Biotar lenses do not fit on later screw mount cameras because the lense juts out too far at the back. This is true,for example, when trying to mount an 50's version of the M42 Biotar on a Praktica L series, Ricoh Singlex TLS, and Hanimex 35 SL.

As far as I and some friends of mine in the UK are concerned the new fuss about the best CZJ lenses has come ery recently with the introduction of the new unexpensive Bessaflex TM body. Carl Zeiss Jena lenses together with a Voigtlander Bessaflex TM body are amazing value for money. You can get a top very reliable system for peanuts, so why go for the CZJ 50mm f2.8 Tessar lens when the costs of the CZJ Pancolar is just a question of few more pounds? (especially when you are used to Nikon, Canon, etc. prices?)

<p>I'm a new m42 nut with a Canon 10D, and have found the above discussion very helpful indeed. Thank you. </p>

<p>Just tested my "new" Pancolar 50mm 1.8 zebra (yellowed glass, some fungus inside and on back element, stiff focus) with a Helios 58m 44-2 (single 0 serial # FWIW) and a SMC Pentax 55mm 2.0.<br>

They all had their strengths but the pancolar was the sharpest, seemed to have the most pleasing bokeh and just had that certain <em>something</em>. The Helios was quite sharp too and the more modern coating on the Pentax lead to better color rendering (but with camera RAW not a big issue). Best $40 lens I ever bought. I'm in love!<br>

I should say that my test shots were all between wide open and one stop down from wide open. I'm sure things would even out after a few more stops down. All great lenses and cheap!</p>

<p>I just registered to disagree with some people.</p>

<p>While I may not be very much into techical aspects of a certain lens, like some people around here, I can tell you my experience with the pancolar. (Red "MC" one)</p>

<p>My first 50 was EF 50 1.8, and it was a good lens for the money. Later I acquired SMC takumar 50 1.4, Helios 58/2 (five different versions) yashica 50 1.9. Those were all good fifties, but when I got the pancolar all the others just collected dust and were sold. Pancolar may not be the sharpest, or have the most pleasing bokeh..but over all it was best 50 I ever used. Great micro contrast, very good sharpness wide open, slightly nervous bokeh, but I like that. Plus there is the great focus ring and ability to focus down to 0.35m, and thats just great for normal lens. I just love the way it renders images. Ive also shot Rokkor 50 1.4 extensively.<br>

Later I acquired Yashica ML 50 1.4 which i love just as much, but never could replace one with another. One should definitely try it before listening to everybody else, you might fall in love like I did.</p>

 

<p>I just registered to disagree with some people.</p>

<p>While I may not be very much into techical aspects of a certain lens, like some people around here, I can tell you my experience with the pancolar. (Red "MC" one)</p>

<p>My first 50 was EF 50 1.8, and it was a good lens for the money. Later I acquired SMC takumar 50 1.4, Helios 58/2 (five different versions) yashica 50 1.9. Those were all good fifties, but when I got the pancolar all the others just collected dust and were sold. Pancolar may not be the sharpest, or have the most pleasing bokeh..but over all it was best 50 I ever used. Great micro contrast, very good sharpness wide open, slightly nervous bokeh, but I like that. Plus there is the great focus ring and ability to focus down to 0.35m, and thats just great for normal lens. I just love the way it renders images. Ive also shot Rokkor 50 1.4 extensively.<br>

Later I acquired Yashica ML 50 1.4 which i love just as much, but never could replace one with another. One should definitely try it before listening to everybody else, you might fall in love like I did.</p>

<div></div>

<p>As with all older lenses, you maybe should judge performance with care.<br>

At f5,6 or f8, a Pancolor on an Exacta (or a Pancolor Electric an a M42 body) can deliver good to perfect results. At f1,8 a Pancolor is a good portrait lens. Not tac sharp but with a creamy bokeh.<br>

I only use film (B&W mainly) but after developping and processing the images with a good scanner, prints to size A3 or bigger are no problem with a Pancolor.<br>

To compare, not to judge:<br>

At f1,8 to f2,8, a modern lens (e.g. Nikon AFD f1,8) is sharper. Not as soft as the Pancolor. However, the out of focus of the Pancolor looks better due to its lens construction and semi round diafragma blades.<br>

At f8 or f11, the performance of the Pancolor is often better than the modern compettitors.<br>

And by the way, who uses his lens at 1,8? I mostly use my lenses at f4 to f8. So who cares. I don't, I just enjoy it!</p>

 

As far as the USA is concerned, the Pancolar is valued because it is unknown and has 'mythic' qualities. The same thing with the 135F3.5 Sonnar and 34F2.4 Flektogon. In the UK, these lenses were widely available on the cheapest cameras - the Prakticas. The Praktica was one step above the untra-cheap and crude Zenit and every Praktica owner aspired to 'get something better when they could afford it'. All of the products from East Gertmany were very variable in quality and not very durable - this is evidenced today by the fact that almost every Praktica camera has one fault or another and many many CZJ lenses have rough focussing or malfunctioning apertures. Tha Pancolar was the top of the line lens for the Praktica, above the Domiplan (3-element), Tessar (4-element) and Pentacon (the most popular lens). There is nothing special about the Pancolar except that is has an F22 setting which many standard lenses do not. Any Super Takumar lens will easily match the sharpness of a Pancolar.

 

I have an 85mm Pancolar lens that I use on an old Pentax M42-mount camera, and I love this lens. It is really, really amazing.

This is a post from 2005 OP not seen since 2007 - last response prior to this 2012.