Zeiss Flektogon 2.8 35mm Zebra
Ok - so I recently acquired a 35mm Flektogon.
Problem is that I'm used to the build quality of Takumars, and this doesn't seem quite there in terms of build.
But, optically my lens appears to be really nice - or at least most of the time.
Why do I say most of the time?
Well I noticed something weird the other day.
Weird flaring - now - I am a newb, and rather than using this Flek on an old film camera, I've been using on a micro 4 thirds.
The aperture ring also seems to be a little bit loose - it doesn't have the same kind of satisfying and unmistakeable click you get on the Taks.
So, I'm wondering how loose the aperture ring should be - and should it be nice and tight like on the Taks.
If so - how do I tighten it up to what it should be?
The flaring may just be my use of the lens - I've read elsewhere that the Fleks are a bit susceptible to flaring, and so how the lens currently "feels" may have nothing to do with the flares.
In addition to the slightly soft click of the aperture ring, and it's slightly loose and rattly feel - the focus ring also travels a little bit strangely.
As the Taks are the only thing I can compare to, and all of those that I have, have a really nice, consistent, tight focus, the Flek feels a bit weird - along most of the length of travel of the focussing ring, it is quite smooth and tight, but at a few points along the way, it sort of feels as though the lens "skips" slightly. It's hard to describe, but it feels a bit like at a couple of points the focussing skips - it's not completely smooth linear travel like the Taks.
So, anyone got any clues as to what's up (if indeed anything!!!) with my lens, and what I might do to fix it (if anything!!!).
Any help is really appreciated!
I've got one of those lenses and the way you describe the mechanical aspects stacks up with mine 100%. When you compare the action of the focussing ring, aperture ring and blades with those of Takumars, you're comparing what IMHO sets the standard to something that isn't remotely in the same league. The Zeiss is (I'm open to correction here) of GDR origin (and we all know that countries with 'Democratic' in their name invariably aren't!) and the quality of most Eastern bloc goods of that era was at best inconsistent and at worst awful. That said, the mechanics of my Flektogon are so abysmal that I've never tried it. It would need a full CLA to be of any use. They do have their followers and even if the optical quality doesn't match what you'd expect of a Takumar, the character may have its own appeal. Whether it's worth spending money on, I don't know, but personally I'd put the money towards a Takumar.
Much obliged Steve - so it may well be that I actually have an excellent example of the lens then?
Then again, maybe not lol.
Thanks for the reply though - it would be great to get a bit of a consensus on this lens so I know what I'm dealing with.
To be honest I know next to nothing about lenses - but my friend who found out about my new Micro 4 3rds suggested Takumar to me - I acquired 4 lenses in quick succession - a 35mm 3.5f, a 135mm 3.5f, a 200mm 4f and recently I picked up a 58mm 1.8f.
The Flek is the latest addition, but in it's current "feel", it's nowhere near the build of the Taks.
Still - it seems to do some really nice things on the few occasions I've tried to use it (if my eyesight enables me to get stuff in focus correctly lol) - hence why I'm prepared to give it a go.
I have a flektogon, built for my Werramatic, so I don't have an aperture ring as the aperture ring is built into the camera, as far as being smooth in focusing it is fine, and opitcally it is fine, It may have been made in the GDR, but it is a Zeiss lens, and you won't go far wrong with the glass, it all depends on how the lens has been looked after, get one that was cared for and it is a very good lens indeed, and still features in the Zeiss line up, or did until recently, but get an old lens that has been abused and you will get a problem,the lens could be upwards of 50 40 to 50 years old, grease can thicken,Etc, I can't compare mine to a takumer as I have never used them, but I can compare them to other German lenses and they are, to my mind, fine lenses
Here's another thing I spotted - I was taking some shots indoors of family but also facing a bright window partially covered by vertical blinds.
On reviewing the shots later on my computer I noticed some weird "ghosting" of what I assume were the bright gaps between blinds, layered on top of the subject - ie my partner and her baby niece.
Is this sort of thing typical with this lens, and if so, what can be done to limit it from happening again?
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Well, you are sort of mixing apples and oranges there.
First of all stop - clicks: Pentax lenses all have a little ball and a spring that lets you feel those beautyfull "tacks" anytime you move half a stop...
Most other older lenses do not have such device, and the movement of the f-stops ring is continous: an advantage i.e for videos, or if you feel like you need that third of a stop less/more.
The focusing issue should be related to fat got sticky or little points of dirt in the focusing helicoid... some gym should help, a good cleaning could solve...
About flares... well, you cannot compare such lens with most modern ones, nor with such lenses as takumars, that always shined for their coatings and have a more modern design of lenses and groups. So the simple answer about this is: lens hood!
How do you like the rendition of the lens, yourself?
I think it's an interesting lens.
I completely prefer the feel of the Takumars, but, this Flek is good optically, if a little strange.
I'm not so familiar with it to say if it's brilliant or not.
I'm not quite sure if really like it or not either, or would want to trade it for something else I'm likely to prefer more - say a 50mm 1.4 Tak.
The lens I tend to use most just now is the 58mm 1.8 Takumar SMC.
It's a nice lens but I haven't quite worked out how to use it yet.
I also have the 35mm 3.5 Takumar which I prefer the feel of to the Flek - but again, it may be that I just haven't given it enough time yet.
So - a hood would likely solve the issue of my "ghosting" vertical window blinds?
I'll need to see if I have anything I can try with it.
Originally Posted by subharmonic
let's say it could help, direct light into an uncoated lens is the mother of any flare...
Why did you buy this lens if you have a Takumar? Why would you use this lens if you have a Takumar unless you wanted flare and ghosting?