Meyer Domiplan on Vivitar 2x on Praktica Nova?

[gatorgums]

Would this screw mount combo even be worth trying?

I like the 100mm length it gives but maybe it would be so bad results that it

would not be worth it...

 

here it is:<div></div>

[gatorgums]

thanks in advance for response(s).

[kelly_flanigan1]

With the same lens with an Exakta mount I got decent results. The lens was abit of a dog <b>without</b> the 2x convertor. This was a 1960's 2x cambridge camera 2 element 9 dollar manual Exakta convertor; and an auto diaphrame meyer Domiplan 50mm F2.8 lens in Exakta mount. Over sveral lens tests and actual shooting; the combo was sharper than the 50mm lens alone; blowing away the dogma that 2x convertors always worsen the performance. Having tested many lense; this combo thru me for a loop. It worth a try with your combo; no bets on he same results as mine. If I can unearth the early 1970's test results I will post them.

[kelly_flanigan1]

The Domiplan of mine was a favorite for shooting constellations for teaching astro stuff to kids. Using the old GAF 500 slide film one could expose for 15 to 30 seconds and get a good shot. My Domiplan wide open at F2.8 was really soft; it gave a nice LARGE size star for the brighter stars on the slide film; that made the star patterns "jump out". A Summicron or Nikkor at F2 or F2.8 gave a techically better shot; with smaller stars on film; since they are better corrected lenses. The Domiplan is a triplet lens; only 3 elements. A triplet at f2.8 is about the limit speed of a triplet. In practice a tripet is very sensitive to tolerances; thus some folks probably have way better Domiplans than others. With a west German triplet on a Graphic 35 rangefinder from 1955; mine has a totally killer sharpness at F11; something my Domiplan never could do. Miy domiplan was such a dog that often one could tell its flaws with a 5x7 print. Hopefully yours is better.

[nickc1]

Compared to a modern setup this is not going to give you the higheset quality - there have been advances in design over the last 40 years or so. However what you have here is exactly the set up that a beginner might have had in the mid sixties, so go ahead and use it - you may be surprised, and you should produce pictures of at least the quality the manufacturer of your camera might have expected it to produce then.

[patrick j dempsey]

Mike, if you scrounge around you might run into an actual 100mm lens in M42 that would give you better results than the extension tube. Ive seen boxes of Pentax stuff in photostores just abandoned by their owners like kittens.

[gatorgums]

Thanks for all of your comments.

I'll give this some considerable thought based on all of this.

[john_robison3]

Concerning Patrick's comment; please direct me to those stores with Pentax stuff, there sure ain't any I've seen here in the northwest US, leastwise at bargain prices. The camera stores around here, whats left of them anyway, act like their used film gear is gold plated.

[john_robison3]

Mike, in regard to this setup, the aperture would be 5.6 with the 2X, a bit slow. As an alternative you might want to consider the 135 f3.5 super takumar. They seem to be plentiful with ebay offerings ending for about $30~50, many include the case and proper hood for that price.

[kelly_flanigan1]

The real pickle is a slower lens; the effective 100mm f5.6 will be harder to focus. Back at an air show in the mid 1960's I tried my Vivitar 135mm F2.8; a 105mm F2.5 Nikkor on a F; and the 50mm f2.8 domiplan with 2x cambridge convertor. This was all infinity focused stuff. The 2x combo and the Nikkor were sharper than the vivitar; this is when the discovery was found. Before discounting the combo a real world test should be tried. The dogma preached always is that a convertor is worse. What matters really is your combo's performance; not dogma. A real test will reduce the emotion and holds great weight; compared to another persons lens and a different convertor. Your combo is not all that strange; here it was sucessfully used for a decade or two when I still used Exakta. <BR><BR>Eevn if your combo works ok optically; you are still about 2 stops slower than a F2.8 prime lens of say 100 or 135mm. The focusing ability drops alot at f5.6 compared to f2.8. Just shoot a roll of film and see how the combo works.

[gatorgums]

Well thats true; the slower speed is a pitfall but i had planned to use the lens outside on sunny days and then to use 400 film.

 

I was just curious to see what the combo would bring.

The m42 135 tak would be great and it is sharp. The only negative is it is just a bit too long for a walk around lens.

 

The other thing is i think it has a min focus distance of about 2 meters? 6 feet?

Thats' quite a ways, really.

 

I once had a 85 smc pentax but it was a barker.

I couldn't believe they could make such a lousy lens.

No contrast or rendition.

Got rid of it.

But thats about the right length, 85mm.

Oh for one of those big gun 85s with the large apertures!

Have to keep drinking beer for now though.

[john_robison3]

Mike, surprised to hear of your experience with the SMC 85 tak. There had to be something wrong with your sample for it preform so badly. I think that all the major companies in the 70s had an 85 in their lineup, and Pentax would not let a poor design go to market. The 135 super tak focuses to 5 ft., not real close. Of course any lens still focuses to the same distance with a 2X, so that, a 50mm that focuses to 18in. will become, with a 2X, a 100mm that focuses to 18in. I do think Kellys right though, the only way to really determine how that combo will do is to load up some film and check it out. At 5.6 wide open it might make a nice smooth soft portrait lens.

[kelly_flanigan1]

With 100mm to 135mm lenses on slrs and rangefinders, most all brands I have used work well; even the lesser brand names. With this focal length in the 35mm format; the angular coverage is not huge; even a 3 to 4 element lens many times works ok. The focal length is not long enough so that special ED glass is needed; thus the normal lower cost glass familys work well. Thus performance is usually very decent with a 100 to 135mm lens on a 35mm camera; even if its a 1/2 century old lens. A lessor lens might require being stopped down more for decent performance; say to F5.6 to F8. A great lens might have the good performance towards the faster fstops. There were zillions of M42 mount lenses made; search on ebay for M42; M42 pentax; m42 telephoto etc.

[JDMvW]

Contrary to much popular opinion, the East German lenses were often of superb quality, sometimes still as good as modern lenses (see Keppler at Popular Photography on the f/2 Biotar).

 

However, if there was ever a lens to justify the idea that Eastern stuff was pretty much junk, it was the Meyer Domiplan. It was an extremely cheap and cheaply made lens, sold as standard on Prakticas, etc. at the worst point of their whole post war history. Frankly, I am surprised that your Domiplan works at all; of many I have bought over the years on collectible DDR cameras, most have failed automatic diaphragm mechanisms. Only the Exakta mount ones seem a little more reliable, but the M42s are 90% crap. Even when it's working, "soft" is a generous description of this lens. If you want an interesting "soft" lens for portraiture, try finding an old Spiratone Portragon, I think it was called. Some of the best portrait lenses ever made were 75-90mm Zeiss Jena lenses, especially the Biotar 75mm f/1.5

[david_m]

"Contrary to much popular opinion, the East German lenses were often of superb quality"

 

The caveat here is the terrible quality control so you never know IF you will get a good eaxmple. Many East German lenses were very poorly built and the lubricants used were definitely sub-standard. Compare the focussing of any CZJ Pancolar or Tessar today to a Pentax Super Takumar. There is no comparison.

[JDMvW]

I think David M would be more correct speaking of the Soviet-made lenses, but aside from the awful period of the 60s, quality and quality control on DDR lenses was not that bad or uneven. The early postwar lenses were made under horrible conditions, but similar problems with lubricants etc. were true even of the prewar Contax cameras and lenses. Pentax, of course, made some spectacular glass, but on occasion so did the old Erneman Tower plant. Frankly, I have a lot of CZJ lenses, as well as a few Takumars, and post-1970 CZJ, Meyer, or Pentacon lenses work as smoothly as Nikkors, Takumars, or whatever. Pre-1960, especially late 40s and early 50s, lenses do sometimes get stiff, but careful cleaning, sometimes even just a drop of naptha (careful, mind) will loosen up the lens when old lubricant or dust has made it stiff. Early production in the DDR had to make do with the equivalent of yak hair and so on.