Featuring the Flektogon

[marc_bergman1]

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Is there a sale on commas? I have been needing a few but wanted to wait to buy in multiples of 5 or 10.</p>

<p> </p>

[zane1664879013]

<p>Rick, what is the red car (pic #6)? It's got nice lines, reminiscent of a BMW 2002.</p>

[marc_bergman1]

<blockquote>

<p>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,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is the type of description that I as a reader find most helpful in evaluating a lens. Now how would a poster duplicate this description with a series of images? It could be done but would tax the interest of the OP and the reader. </p>

<p>I spent 20 years in a standards lab for the Department of Defense. I developed all of our automated test equipment systems. I managed to cut our evaluation times down from 1 week to less than a day.</p>

<p>Is this what we want from our posters? Do we need standardized testing? Do we need graphs? Do we need certification of our results?</p>

<p>I have been perfectly happy to see Rick's, Tony's, JDM's, and all of the other posters share their camera equipment, stories of repair, and examples of what they can do with this equipment. I appreciate seeing a part of their world whether it be car shows, seaside shots, or even water towers.</p>

<p>I would much rather see their work than an article on "The Evolution of the Hasselblad Packing Material".</p>

<p>http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/HS/HsBox2.aspx</p>

<p>You thought I was kidding, didn't you?</p>

<p> </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Yes, Marc. If the interesting bit of a lens is how it performs and how its performance changes, the pictures we need (if any) are those that demonstrate that.<br><br>And that is as easy to do, a lot easier even than finding 12 random subjects that say nothing about the lens to fill a roll of film with. I posted an example in the "great pictures" thread. Two pics that compare two lenses. Two more exposures and there would have been another comparison, at different f-stop, in the can, without even having to change anything but f-stop. Pictures that crop to bits that show the difference, so indeed do show that difference instead of insisting on showing some nice motor car or horse instead.<br>Ridiculously easy. You don't need to spend 20 years in a government funded lab to be able to conduct such fast tests.<br><br>And those things filled page after page in popular photo magazines, of which you have thousands in your collection. Interesting pictures. And on topic in this kind of forum. If they would tax the reader's interest, those magazines must have been both slow learners and slow sellers.<br>Yes, i too don't mind a bit of "here's my neighbour's cat and this is aunt Muriel eating a scone". But in addition to, not instead of.<br><br>Why do you think the articles about packing material uninteresting, Marc? You do not have an eye for nor interest in the history of industrial design, it's appearance and usability?

[chuck_foreman1]

<p>I'll come back and read all the rhetoric later. I do find it all very interesting, but now just a quick word on the camera porn and the pics. I enjoyed very much seeing this monster version of a 50mm lens. I know that it was intended initially for the Pentacon Six, but since the Kiev 88 was it? used a Hasselblad mount, I take it? , is it compatible with the Pentacon Six or are you using adapters? AS for the images I am enthralled and have a great passion for classic sport card and since you featured a god sampling of Jaguars from the SS through to the E type, I'm one happy camper. I found the " Yards " photo aesthetically pleasing and could imagine that as a final print on a wall in a gallery. AS for demonstrating the sharpness of the lens I felt that color picture of the horse especially exemplary. </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Alas, for you, Q,G,, the forum is what it is,<br /> It has at least some of the kinds of article, you seem to want, even if you don't appreciate them; but it has room for lots of other kinds of presentations as well,</p>

<p>My feeling is still, as I have said above, that those who want a different kind of post on this site could contribute most clearly by <em>showing</em> how to do it. That would set a meaningful example. I know I would really appreciate the sort of article you describe about your beloved Hasselblads and their lenses. I just don't think everybody has to do <em>as you say</em>.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

The Forum, JDM, is what we make it. And it is remade every day. Though in general it remains much the same, in some aspects it slowly drifts away from what it was supposed to be.<br>I agree that we could show how it should be by posting 'proper' threads. Or just enjoy it passively for what it once was supposed to be and was. Doesn't mean either way that we can't also point at what it is not supposed to be(come) and how it is drifting towards that.<br><br>Again you want to make it appear that this is about what <i>i</i> would want this forum to be. It's not, of course. Just as it is not a matter of what <i>you</i> would want it to be (your <i>"He does what he wants to do, and why not?"</i> would be fine if this would be your place where you can decide that topics forums are dedicated to are to be treated in that fashion). This however <i>is</i> the Classic Camera Forum, and while that allows some scope for interpretation, there are limits too. And whether you would like them to be or not, they were not set by me. Nor can they be dismissed with a "do whatever you want" by you.<br>But who knows, perhaps you can explain why we have to do what you say, and treat this as a "do whatever you want to do" forum?

[chansonbleu]

<p>Thanks for the images and write up on the Flektogon. I had one with an Exakta 66 (new version) years ago. The Curtagon 60mm was the wide angle alternative for the system. Very expensive, and not all that wide. Found the Flektagon a bit heavy for the camera and the images it produced had less contrast then those produced by the80mm Xenotar normal lens. Still a good lens for the price.</p>

<p>I think this is what QG was looking for.<br>

http://www.kievaholic.com/LensTestsWide/index.html</p>

[evan_dong1]

<p>Beside Kevin In's website, several members of the Kiev Report Forum met up in New Jersey several years and we concluded a Mother of All Lens Test. Rick Denney has the film results and many of the former CZJ lenses mounted either on Hartblei 88C<br>

mthat had the ability to use Hasselblad backs was used. I brought out my 503CW and my assortment of newer Zeiss optics.</p>

<p>The 50mm Flektogon has variations in its sampling, meaning it was NOT optimized prior to our te4sting. Nevertheless the 50mm Flektogon held its own in the 50mm to 60mm focal length. In the 50mm category it was best by the newer 50mm CF FLE. I t was a slightly better than the pre-FLE version lens. I also had a Zeiss 50mm F2.8 F that was used in the test. Only difference was the choice of a Hartblei body and a Hasselblad 503CW. The same Hasselblad back was switch between the two cameras when we did the test. The older CZJ Olympia 180mm Sonnar in a custom Hasselbad 2000 series mount was compared my newer Hasselblad 180mm F4.0.<br>

For the test results, here is the hyperlink. Very interesting results and a good time had by all!<br>

http://www.rickdenney.com/mother_lens_test.htm</p>

<p>Evan</p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>Simply amazing:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But who knows, perhaps you can explain why we have to do what you [meaning JDM] say</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Never said it was, I simply suggested that the posters could decide for themselves, something you are strangely reluctant for them to do. Nice try, though, but this becomes familiar from schoolyard days.<br>

I think it's sufficiently on record again that you are not the arbiter here.</p>

<p> </p>

[rick_drawbridge]

<p>Great stuff! Though the riding of hobby horses and the grinding of axes gets a little tiresome... Thanks, <strong>Evan</strong> and <strong>Steve</strong>, the two sites are mandatory reading for those interested in the Kiev cameras, and got me interested in the marque a couple of years back. While I'm not a great scrutineer of lens tests or a dedicated pixel-peeper, it's always interesting to see the figures. Relating the figures to the production of the kind of images one aspires to is often a completely different matter, of course, but therein lies the charm of photography.</p>

<p>Thanks, <strong>John</strong>, I guess you're acknowledging that posts on this forum don't have to be masterpieces of detail and analysis, and its always my intention to produce something mildly informative and visually attractive. <strong>QG</strong>, while I suspect we've heard it all before, I respect your right to express your opinions, but I always fear that this constant return to an old theme might eventually disenchant other forum members. Thanks, <strong>JDM</strong>; I enjoy your joustings with a old protagonist, providing they don't provoke further declamations.<br /> <br /> <strong>Chuck</strong>, the Kiev-60 and the Kiev-88CM both have the Pentacon Six mount, so no adapters are necessary. Nice to meet another Jaguar fan! <strong>Zane</strong>, I can't tell you the name of the red car; it's an oddball variant from the BMC stables, somewhere along the Singer/Riley(etc.) lines. And thank you <strong>François</strong>, <strong>SP</strong> and <strong>Marc</strong> for your comments.</p>

<p> </p>

[ian_gordon_bilson]

<p>The RED CAR ? I'm pretty sure it is a Rootes Group Sunbeam Alpine (not the convertibles, of the previous generation,of which I have owned 3 over the years ).</p>

[rick_drawbridge]

<p><strong>Jeff</strong>, I overlooked your comments regarding (particularly) the Bronica lenses when responding above. The 50mm Nikkor-H f/3.5 for the Bronica S/S2 seems to be among my favourites, along with the 40mm Zenzanon MC f/4 for the ETRs. For years my most-used MF wide-angle lens was the 45mm SMC Pentax f/4 for the Pentax 67, and it's one I return to constantly. As for square images, the challenges of square composition sort of grows on one, and I've noticed that younger viewers accustomed to wide-screen everything find them fascinating. I attach a pic from the Pentax 45mm; it's quite some lens.</p>

<p><strong>Ian</strong>, I believe you're right about the red car. Did Rootes get engulfed by the BMC?</p><div></div>

[q.g._de_bakker]

What is simply amazing, JDM, is that you think that this is a forum where everyone can do what he or she likes, and try to pass the topic it was devoted to and trying to stick to that as something i invented and try to impose on everyone.<br>Just stop that nonsense, and admit that it is possible (as demonstrated too often) to get off topic in CMC.<br>This <b>is</b> the CMC forum, not that do-whatever-you-like forum you mistake it for.<br><br>Rick, this is not an old theme.<br>It was first offered up for discussion a number of days ago. And that because it was about time it was, with this "here's a token image of a camera or lens, and here are a series of completely unrelated images i hope you find great" thing getting far too big.<br>Why don't you try to show what the lens does and how it differs from other lenses in your images?<br><br>Steve, yes. If Rick posts a thread about a lens, he should make it so it indeed is about the lens. He could have done something like what is shown on the site you link to (not that difficult). He could keep it even simpler. But it should have been about the lens.<br>It would be completely inane if we have threads here about bits of equipment, posted by people who have and use that equipment, posted by people who say something about that equipment, and then have to try find somewhere else on the internet that explains what that poster means, because he/she rather posts a string of pictures about flowers, motor cars, people dressing up, horses, etc. that do anything but illustrate what the poster claims about the subject of his/her posts.<br>Yet is has to come to this.

[starshooter]

<p>Yummey lens.</p>

[evan_dong1]

<p>I recall seeing many 50mm Flektogon, 120mm Biometar, and 180mm Sonnar being converted for the Hasselblad 2000 series and sold by one of the best camera reseller, Ken Hansen. He was taking orders if people wanted a similar converted lens. Professional Camera Repair also converted lens for various camera system.</p>

<p>One of my friend worked with a machine shop to modify the CZJ 180mm Sonnar for his Bronica S2A. There is machine shop based in Hong Kong that sells modified lenses on occasion on eBay too.</p>

<p>I use my CZJ Pentacpn 6 optics on my Exakta Mk3 and my former Hartblei 866MLU. Good inexpensive lens that will not disappoint. Of course the newer Zeiss counterpart is the one to beat..</p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>Always nice to learn more about the Flektogon. I've never owned or used one (Don't even have a Kiev), but the results look top notch. Most of my medium format gear is Mamiya so I haven't really explored other medium format gear (except for a Rolleicord, Yashica D, and a Fuji GS645 S). Thanks for an informative post.</p>

[James G. Dainis]

<I>Note from Moderator</I><P>

 

Q.G. de Bakker,<BR>

 

I think eight posts expressing your dissatisfaction with this thread is enough. You don't dictate what can and cannot be posted. In another thread I warned that I would not tolerate personal attacks on other posters. Maybe you missed that. I intend to keep this a friendly, helpful and informative forum.

[evan_dong1]

<p>Mike,<br>

If you shoot with a Mamiya 645, then there are adapters that would allow you to mount the P-6 optics on it.<br>

To be fair, the only optic I would use on the Mamiya 645 would be the 180mm Sonnar..<br>

The Flektogon lens you could, but why bother since the 55mm wide angel for it is very good.</p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>Thanks, Evan. I do have the 55mm and really like it. I also have the 35mm as well. I was aware of the adapters, but of course haven't needed one yet. The 180mm Sonnar would be something to think about, though, if I ever come across one.</p>

[rick_drawbridge]

<p>Thanks, <strong>Evan</strong>, when I initiate a thread it's always in the hope that other members will add flesh to the bones, and you've done just that. I don't really think you <em>need</em> a Flektogon, <strong>Mike</strong>, with that fine Mamiya kit... But then, who ever bought a lens because they <em>needed</em> it? Yummy indeed, <strong>Wayne</strong>,and thanks, <strong>James</strong>...</p>

[User_502260]

<p>Rick, now I'm jealous. My widest lens for 6X7 is my 50/4.5 Zenzanon for the GS-1. I don't think anything wider was made for it. I'll mention, or repeat, something having to do with what this thread has become. I don't remember any contributors who have shown CMCs with photos and who have claimed that the accompanying photos were good or bad. In any case I enjoy seeing them. To me, talkng about charts and graphs for a particular lens or camera without seeing any photos taken with it is not that interesting. </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Now that that's out of the way, here is a contemporary review of Pentacon 6 lenses.</p>

<p>I warn you it's very highly compressed but still readable.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>And here is my own personal history in this area. I first got the P-6 mount Mir 26B 45mm f/3.5 because I could actually find one, and it was (relatively) cheap. My experience was well in line with the tests on the specialist Kiev, etc. sites linked to above.<br /> <br /> The MIR 26B has a mixed reputation. While mine was just adequate on the 6cm format, I found it hopelessly soft when adapted to 35mm. So I looked around and finally got a very nice Flektogon 50mm $/4.<br /> The latter is not only superb on the 6cmm format, but is still a nice (if incredibly huge) 50mm lens on a 35mm sensor.</p>

<p>Here are the two lenses.</p><div></div>

[chauncey_walden]

<p>Interesting, JDM, that probably due to sample variation my 45 Mir tested better than the 50 Flektagon I tested it against on a Pentacon 6. I now use the 45 Mir, the 80 Biometar, the 180 Sonnar, and the fantastic 300 f/4 MC Sonnar (sometimes even with a high quality doubler) with an adapter on a Mamiya 645. The long lenses with extension tubes are even good for macros at a distance. Somewhere I'm sure I have the test negs from the 45 vs 50. If I can find them maybe I can scan them and post the differences I saw.</p>