 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / UK Photography / July 2010Zeiss Jena lenses
I have the opportunity to obtain a Zeiss Jena 70-300 lens to fit Canon FD. Whilst I am drooling at the name Zeiss, can anyone confirm or deny the meaning of Jena and whether they are the real deal, Zeiss lenses of the quality we'd expect from the name? Cheers, Rich >I have the opportunity to obtain a Zeiss Jena 70-300 lens to fit Canon FD. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Rich With regard to the Canon FD period, my memory of Jena after the name Zeiss was that you were getting a soviet quality offering with dodgy QA. Make sure you can return it. (I had very good results from a Canon FD 300 f5.6. Built heavily and delivered high contrast detailed images.)  SignatureM Stewart Milton Keynes, UK -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> I have the opportunity to obtain a Zeiss Jena 70-300 lens to fit >> Canon FD. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > M Stewart > Milton Keynes, UK Carl Zeiss Jena came from East Germany, from the factory the Soviets managed to, er, acquire after the war. Entirely separate from Carl Zeiss thereafter, they stayed with older designs. That's where Prakticas came from. Better than the Russian versions, but not as good as CZ. I wouldn't turn my nose up at them, though, especially not for the presumably few quid you paid. >>> I have the opportunity to obtain a Zeiss Jena 70-300 lens to fit >>> Canon FD. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >nose up at them, though, especially not for the presumably few quid you >paid. And to make it worse there was a flood of cheap and nasty Japanese lenses around in the 80s that carries the "Carl Zeiss Jena" name. They were generally much worse optically than the "real" CZJ lenses, had no connection with CZJ other than the label, and were sold under all sorts of other names as well. They have "Made in Japan" written on them and are probably best avoided. SignatureJohn Bean >With regard to the Canon FD period, my memory of Jena after the name Zeiss >was that you were getting a soviet quality offering with dodgy QA. Make >sure you can return it. The Carl Zeiss Jena lenses that were actually made in East Germany were very good indeed. I have a 20mm f/2.8 Carl Zeiss Jena lens which is optically superb - far superior to the much lauded Nikkor. The brand name was unfortunately applied by the UK importer to some Japanese junk lenses (made by Sigma) and it was those lenses that gave the brand a bad name. > >With regard to the Canon FD period, my memory of Jena after the name > >Zeiss was that you were getting a soviet quality offering with dodgy QA. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > were very good indeed. I have a 20mm f/2.8 Carl Zeiss Jena lens which > is optically superb - far superior to the much lauded Nikkor. They made some excellent lenses for Medium Format too, especially the justly renowned 180mm f2.8 Sonnar, and also the 50mm f4 Flektogon. > The brand name was unfortunately applied by the UK importer to some > Japanese junk lenses (made by Sigma) and it was those lenses that gave > the brand a bad name. Yes, an unfortunate example of milking the name to its ultimate detriment. A practice that could perhaps be called "Ford-ing" these days. ;-) Peter >I have the opportunity to obtain a Zeiss Jena 70-300 lens to fit Canon FD. > >Whilst I am drooling at the name Zeiss, can anyone confirm or deny the >meaning of Jena and whether they are the real deal, Zeiss lenses of the >quality we'd expect from the name? Beware! The Carl Zeiss Jena brand was applied to some cheap and very nasty Japanese-made lenses whose optical design had nothing whatsoever to do with Zeiss. That's because CZ Scientific Instruments, the UK importer of Carl Zeiss Jena was also the UK importer of Sigma lenses, and had the rights to the Carl Zeiss Jena brand name in the UK. So the 70-300mm is a cheap and very nasty Sigma zoom with the Carl Zeiss Jena name on it. Best avoided. [History: Carl Zeiss was based in Jena until the end of WW2. Jena found itself in the Soviet occupied zone of Germany, soon to become the German Democratic Republic - East Germany. Many Carl Zeiss technicians fled to the west and re-established the Carl Zeiss company at Oberkochen, but some remained at Jena. A small number transferred to the USSR with the Contax production line which was moved to Kiev. Until the 1990s, the two Carl Zeiss companies operated separately under agreements about usage of the brand names. Following the unification of Germany, the Carl Zeiss Jena brand became defunct and the remains of that company operate under the new brand Jenoptik.] >>I have the opportunity to obtain a Zeiss Jena 70-300 lens to fit Canon FD. >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >unification of Germany, the Carl Zeiss Jena brand became defunct and >the remains of that company operate under the new brand Jenoptik.] My apologies for bumping up an old thread or even " hi-jacking " it . People do Google things and these forums do come up in results . Not all the Sigma made Carl Zeiss Jena branded lenses are cheap and nasty , though Sigma has had QA issues in the past . http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=zh-TW&u=http://blog.yam.com/mar cogogo999/article/20138295&ei=OsLqS6mgLoansQb8hK2JDw&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result &resnum=4&ved=0CDIQ7gEwAzgK&prev=/search?q=CARL+ZEISS+JENA+75+-+200MM+F3.8&start =10&hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&sa=N&rls=en This is a very good report on the Sigma 75 - 200 mm F3.8 Fixed Aperture Zoom - as you can see it bettered the M42 Carl Zeiss 135 mm F3.5 lens once stopped down a couple of stops . The grammar and translation is a bit hard to follow , but you can get the gist of it . Some pictures taken with it on Monday 12/07/10 @ 400 ASA on a " boat anchor " of a camera , according to Ken Rockwell . http://www.flickr.com/photos/norbet/4789828730/sizes/l/in/photostream/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/norbet/4790117400/sizes/l/in/photostream/ There are issues with Sigma lenses not communicating properly with Nikon cameras and over exposing. I'd the EV dialled down to 0.3 , obviously this wasn't enough . http://www.flickr.com/photos/norbet/4791024125/sizes/l/in/photostream/ A night shot taken by a Flickr Member with a CZJ branded Sigma 75 - 200 mm F3.8 http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewmymind/2671003661/sizes/z/in/photostream/ There are Auto Focus issues , if the focus distance window has been left in the macro mode , it won't AF , you have to leave the distance window at about 50 ' , then it'll auto focus reasonably well , though I admit I did have quite a few failures too that were trashed . I prefer to use the AF targets on the screen but it may be better to set the camera to closest object AF and hope for the best ? . http://www.flickr.com/photos/norbet/4700156774/sizes/l/in/photostream/ If you're shooting close , you have to set the EV to 0.0 or more ; otherwise it'll under expose . If you set the camera to MF ( this may be a Nikon issue ? ) , the camera and lens will insist on auto focussing ....grrr ! At the end of the day , you're trying to marry up late 80's technology with 90's Nikon F5 film technology and / or early noughties Nikon Digital technology ; and the Sigma chipping isn't always compatible / future proof . I believe this is a issue for Canon users too , with error messages . I'm reasonably happy as I only paid GBP £40 for it and the lens is pretty sharp , the alternative is plasticy slower Nikkor Consumer zooms , not all of them have had good reviews OR going manual focus with say a Series E 70 - 150 mm , Nikkor 80 - 200 mm F4 , Tamron SP 70 - 210 mm F3.5 etc , changing the focussing screen to split image and only being able to shoot in Aperture Priority / Manual mode . You'd also run into fill in flash issues too , unless you paid for the lens to be chipped with a CPU off a old scrapper lens . Hope this is informative . Thanks all. Seems a minefield so I decided to avoid it and got a Canon FD 70-210 f/4 instead. For good or bad I know where I am with the Canon. Cheers SignatureReplace .invalid with .com to email. > Thanks all. Seems a minefield so I decided to avoid it and got a Canon > FD 70-210 f/4 instead. For good or bad I know where I am with the Canon. For FD lenses, you can get some real bargains on ebay. If you follow a lot of auctions, for the same item, 1 can sell at £75, the other at £25. I bought a 50mm f1.4 for a ridiculously cheap £15 just over a year ago, when they were regularly selling for £50+. Just keep a watch on different lenses for a few weeks, and a bargain will appear. Alan. SignatureTo reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'. > For FD lenses, you can get some real bargains on ebay. > If you follow a lot of auctions, for the same item, 1 can sell at £75, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > different lenses for a few weeks, and a bargain will appear. > Alan. Well quite. I have recently picked up a T90 + 85mm f/1.8, a 28mm f/2.8 and 50mm f/1.8 for pocket money. Now I have the 70-210mm f/4. Would like a very long lens or tele converter for wildlife shots and maybe a wider lens for punchy landscapes, both of which are still pricey, but it's amazing how cheaply one can pick up what was state of the art when I first took up photography. Rich SignatureReplace .invalid with .com to email. >Well quite. I have recently picked up a T90 + 85mm f/1.8, a 28mm f/2.8 >and 50mm f/1.8 for pocket money. Now I have the 70-210mm f/4. Would like >a very long lens or tele converter for wildlife shots and maybe a wider >lens for punchy landscapes, both of which are still pricey, but it's >amazing how cheaply one can pick up what was state of the art when I >first took up photography. The T90 is a fine camera, a true electronic system camera, comparable with the contemporary EOS models but much better made and obviously with manual focusing. Make sure that you release the T90's shutter several times a month, preferably several times a week. The T90 has a weakness in the shutter mechanism that normally only manifests itself if the camera is stored for months on end without the shutter being used. There no available spares for T90 shutters other than from parts bodies - broken cameras. The most common reason for a T90 being scrapped is a failed shutter, so there are very few spare shutters available. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.