Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/12/18

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] ZEISS BIOTAR 58/2 TEST --> To Marc J. Small
From: robertmeier at usjet.net (Robert Meier)
Date: Thu Dec 18 19:16:59 2008
References: <7FED1040-7983-4ACB-8037-A10CA1DAF9A3@telefonica.net><20081217045522.8089B7DF34@barracuda.rutabaga.org> <83F09D71-CC98-48ED-9465-EDD4E41569F8@telefonica.net> <E0ABCE65A08044FFA208D23788533BE0@robertbxucevjs> <5293660B-4C9D-4E3D-8A56-94529D31A456@telefonica.net>

No, cosmetically is what I meant -- that is, it looks just like the  
50/2.8 Tessar.

On Dec 18, 2008, at 5:06 PM, Lluis Ripoll wrote:

> Yes Robert, but at least cosmetically the lens is quite different  
> from the Tessar 2,8/50
>
> Saludos cordiales
> Lluis
>
>
> El 18/12/2008, a las 1:22, Robert Meier escribi?:
>
>> I know that lens!  it's the 50/2.8 Tessar I had on my first SLR,  
>> the Praktica FX-3.   Semi-automatic, which meant I had to reopen  
>> the diaphragm after each shot if I wanted to see through the lens  
>> at f2.8.   It was a good, slow, but good, lens.
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lluis Ripoll"  
>> <luisripoll@telefonica.net>
>> To: "Leica Users Group" <lug@leica-users.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:24 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Leica] ZEISS BIOTAR 58/2 TEST --> To Marc J. Small
>>
>>
>> Hi Marc,
>>
>> It is not a secret, the PENTACON is the model F, S/N 186012 the lens
>> is marked JENA S/N 5505038. Here you can see the camera:
>>
>> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8395836
>>
>> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8395835
>>
>> as you can see it is very good condition and I've liked very much  
>> have
>> the opportunity to have this camera and this lens, my next test will
>> be in color.
>>
>> About your statement I should say that I've read it somewhere on  
>> Photo
>> Net I think..., the Max Berek is a very good one too.
>>
>> I'll be delighted to share and discuss experiences with other users,
>> yes, the lens is the same for Praktica, I've read on the I. Matanle
>> book that Praktica was the successor brand name of the Pentacon.
>>
>> Thanks for looking and your interesting historicall comments
>>
>> Saludos cordiales
>> Lluis
>>
>>
>> El 17/12/2008, a las 5:43, Marc James Small escribi?:
>>
>>> At 07:55 PM 12/16/2008, Lluis Ripoll wrote:
>>> >I've got a new camera too, a Pentacon with a Zeiss Jena Biotar  
>>> 58/2,
>>> >this is a nice lens, probably not si smooth as some Leica  
>>> glasses but
>>> >it has a nice rendition and transition from focus to non focus  
>>> areas,
>>> >as Dr.. Marc J. Small says "he never founded a bad Zeiss lens",  
>>> I was
>>> >quite influenced to try this once I've read his book, it is a cheap
>>> >and amazing camera.
>>>
>>> Hmm.  Luis, could you be so kind as to send the model number of  
>>> the Pentacon camera and its serial number, together with that of  
>>> the  lens? Private e-mail, if you prefer.  I will share this with  
>>> others  but only in sanitized format with your name not  
>>> included.  There is  a very active Zeiss Ikon Collectors' Group  
>>> and a Praktica Users'  Group where such cameras and lenses are  
>>> actively discussed.
>>>
>>> All of the Praktica breed of cameras are grand picture-takers  
>>> albeit  some are, I admit, a bit quirky.  And the 2/5.8cm Biotar,  
>>> later the  2/58mm Biotar, is a most fascinating lens, having been  
>>> calculated by  the mavens of Jena when they were first  
>>> recognizing the impact that  coating would have on optical  
>>> performance.  It first was designed in  1939, incidentally, as  
>>> part of a project from the odd-ball Noble  owners of KW, and this  
>>> also resulted in the M42 mount.  The lens  survives in production  
>>> today in a Post-Soviet form used on Zenit  SLR's, made by the KMZ  
>>> works nearby to Moscow.  A continuous  production for a  
>>> photographic lens for almost seventy years mst set  some sort of  
>>> a record.
>>>
>>> I would retract a flat statement that "I never met a Zeiss lens  
>>> I  didn't like", as I have met some which I found, well, not of  
>>> the  first water. Allow me to amend this statement to one which  
>>> Max  Berek would applaud, that I have never met a Zeiss lens not  
>>> fully  capable of great use. Almost all are cutting edge but,  
>>> then, some  of them pushed too hard, though they are still  
>>> capable opticks.
>>>
>>> Marc
>>>
>>>
>>> msmall@aya.yale.edu
>>> Cha robh b?s fir gun ghr?s fir!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Leica Users Group.
>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information



Replies: Reply from luisripoll at telefonica.net (Lluis Ripoll) ([Leica] ZEISS BIOTAR 58/2 TEST --> To Marc J. Small)
In reply to: Message from luisripoll at telefonica.net (Lluis Ripoll) ([Leica] ZEISS BIOTAR 58/2 TEST)
Message from marcsmall at comcast.net (Marc James Small) ([Leica] ZEISS BIOTAR 58/2 TEST)
Message from luisripoll at telefonica.net (Lluis Ripoll) ([Leica] ZEISS BIOTAR 58/2 TEST --> To Marc J. Small)
Message from robertmeier at usjet.net (Robert Meier) ([Leica] ZEISS BIOTAR 58/2 TEST --> To Marc J. Small)
Message from luisripoll at telefonica.net (Lluis Ripoll) ([Leica] ZEISS BIOTAR 58/2 TEST --> To Marc J. Small)