Quality of Carl Zeiss Jena Lenses

[michael_milne]

I'm considering the purchase of a 300mm Carl Zeiss Jena. I could

not find MTF tests on Carl Zeiss Jena lenses, and found little

discussion of their quality in the archives.

 

Has anyone used these? Can anyone point me towards some lense test

data? Other than sharpness, I'm particuliarly interested in

learning how easily they flare, and if they have adequate contrast.

Are all these lenses multi-coated. I know this doesn't make much of

a difference--I'm just curious. Oh, I shoot mainly landscapes, so I

am not concerned with how they perform wide open.

 

Any info would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

[jsbc]

I have an MC one in Hasselblad mount. There is some flare, and the image is not as sharp as a 300mm for 135 (although I believe this is in part due to mirror shake, as my tripod may not be sturdy enough to handle a medium format for long-distance). Use the hood.

 

Otherwise the lens is quite servicable. Anyway, this is the cheapest way for me to get 300mm for the Hasselblad. I don't know how other 300mm for medium format compare.

[richard baznik]

The best source of information I know on Zeiss lenses is Marc James Small <msmall@roanoke.infi.net>. You can also consult Barringer and Small, "The Zeiss Compendium." I can tell you that the 1940s vintage 135mm LTM Zeiss Jena lens I have is superb, though the high-carbon steel used for the barrel is no longer bright and shiny.

[thomas_diekwisch1]

I have found it to be a very good lens. It has served me better than my Rollei-made 5.6/250mm Sonnar. The neat thing about it is its 4.0 opening. Even though slightly less superb at 4.0, this aperture is ideal for focusing and good enough for the occasional shot. This lens doesn't compare to my 4.0/300mm Schneider APO Tele-Xenar though. For a good comparison see http://www.pentaconsix.btinternet.co.uk/240_300mm.htm which also shows that this is a very good lens.

[dale_dickerson2]

I have the f4/300 CZJ non MC with CZJ made hood. It is a sharp lenses and good color and contrast. It is heavy. I do mean heavy. It needs a solid tripod to give its best performance. Stopped down you should be very very happy with this lens.

 

I have always used the hood and not had flare problems.

 

the only lens I can compare it with is the 5.6/250 HFT Sonnar for Rollei slx/6000 cameras. The hft gives a better color and contrast, but not sharper results. (remember the 250mm is f5.6 and the Czj 300mm is one stop down at 5.6 so not totally fair to comment)

[michael_milne]

Thanks everyone. Keep 'em coming. These lenses sure are intriguing. I went ahead and got it from Adorama, and will have it by the end of the week. I'll have 14 days to test it, and determine if it suits my needs. Maybe I'll rent a Pentax 300mm to compare it with.

 

It's for my Pentax 67, and has already been converted. The thing that I sold me, though, was the fact that it had a lens collar--the pentax 200mm or 300mm does not.

[h._p.]

The 300mm was, so far as I know, unique in that it was made available as a dual mount lens for both the Pentacon 6 range and, by attaching the appropriate extension piece, either the Exacta bayonet or Praktica screw mount. Mine had the screw fitting and it worked amazingly well on both my Pentacon 6TL and on a Pentax.

 

But boy, is it heavy!

[jsbc]

Just a correction to my earlier post (way up at the front). Not a major problem, but I just want to set the record right. I mentioned there is some flare. Looking at the old slides again, it is not so much flare as some loss of contrast (still servicable) when shooting at F4 and at infinity. Stopped down it is much better.

 

The important point is to use a hood and a sturdy tripod.