CZ 35/2.4

Is this a desirable lens?

It's M42 fit and he wants £100.

link

Mike

An East German 35mm lens? No, not worth £100 IMHO. £10 tops!

However, sometimes these things gain a reputation that is not really deserved, so maybe people are paying more for them.

The SMC Takumar or Super Takumar 35mm f3.5 would be a far better lens, again IMHO.

That's what I thought too - that he was being optimistic and trading on the Zeiss bit of the name. Still I wondered if anyone here was lusting

It's refreshing to see that John is capable of talking complete cobblers, like the rest of us, occasionally.
His loyalty and enthusiasn for all things Pentax, sometimes has me wondering if he is a shareholder in the company!

The carl Zeiss Jena 35mm f2.4 is a fantastic lens. It, the CZJ 135 F3.5 and the CZJ 20mm f2.8, form the holy trinity of Zeiss jena lenses. All are of the very highest optical quality. They have been tested and reviewd countless times. Their quality is well documented. All three always fetch high prices on ebay. This does not happen for nothing. No lens can gain the reputation these ones enjoy, without it being deserved.

I love the 35 f2.4. One of it's many virtues, is that it can focus down to less than 0.2 of a meter, making it very useful for close ups. In fact, all those CZJ lenses focus much closer than other's similar lenses.

I can see their quality for myself, but if that's not enough, I have an Amateur Photographer test report from the seventies, that confirms the fact.

Another opinion, so you now have the choice of two diametrically opposed ones!

I deny talking complete cobblers though, on the grounds that no-one is perfect....

My recollection was that these were competent but not particularly desirable lenses and I was there in the 70s.

But then I don't get all this stuff about how good older lenses are. Some are, some aren't but I would hope design and coatings has advanced a bit in 40 years.

mike

I do think some lenses get the opposite problem. Take the M 40-80mm which is a perfectly acceptable zoom (better than many following it) but never seems hugely sought after as it has some rotten reviews over on the other site. When you actually read them you find people are marking it down because of the twin zoom rings or the way in which the Macro function works, rather than talking about flaws in performance!

Supposed to be quite good but CZJ lenses are overpriced nowdays
and 35-70mm zooms are often as good.

Some Russian lenses such as the Jupiter 135's (11A and 37A)
are absolute crackers and still available for about £20

Algy

This lens regularly goes for high prices. Never tested one, but it is well respected. Prices are relative, for some who doesn't use wide primes much, like me, the decent ones are almost always too expensive. I'd like to get teles and super teles, but because I can't afford them, they are also obscenely expensive.

AF lenses tend to always loose value, except for the better ones, which either hold very well or in the case of Pentax, actually getting expensive (because we are starved for lenses). MF lenses are either very cheap, or due to rarity, fame, quality have a very strange price landscape.

I wouldn't say its worth £10, but personally I wouldn't give £100 either.
A SMC-M 35mm F2.8 would be ~50 cheaper, a Super Tak 35mm F2 ~£30 cheaper. If you want such a prime, check the IQ difference and see if its worth it.

I have the Meyer Lydith 30mm F3.5 and its a cracking lens which I invariable neglect to take with me because I dont make an effort with wide primes. I got together with a camera and a CZJ 135mm zebra, so it ended up being under the usual market price. It is much cheaper than the CZJ.

What you don't want to do is buy CZ lenses made in Japan, they are apparently much worth the CZJ.

I have a CZJ 35/2.4.

In use it produces rich colours, even on the K200, but is it worth £100?

No way, they seem very over priced at the moment. I wouldn't pay more than £30, but I already have one along with a 135mm and 50mm Ziess stable.

The good point about them is they're lovely on a Spotmatic.

I've had three copies of the Flektogon 35 and sold them all on eBay for prices between £120-160, so I'd say that £100 is cheap but not *that* cheap.

They are superb lenses, better than any other 35mm I'd tried until the DA35 came along (including various Takumar incarnations and the Samsung-branded FA35/2). I sold my last one once I realised that despite its many excellent qualities it would never displace the DA35 and I try to avoid duplicating focal lengths.

If it's better than the 35/f2 then it is superb as the 35/f2 is my favourite lens by a country mile.

I preferred it to the 35/2 in terms of image, but of course the 35/2 has the advantages of AF and an extra half a stop of speed. The differences between them at mid-aperture are non-existent IMO, but the Flek was always just so freakishly sharp wide open and had very pleasant bokeh for a wide(ish) lens.

Give it a whirl! If you buy it for £100 and don't like it then you'll get your money back (probably a little more) no problem.

The one caveat I'd give with all CZJ lenses is that they're not as nicely made as Takumars. They're certainly rugged, but they lack the finesse of the Pentax lenses and aren't quite as enjoyable to use (again IMO). Check that the aperture closes to all positions and is snappy when the rear pin is pushed in - if not then the blades need cleaning and that's a royal pain...

another thumbs up for the CZJ 35 f/2.4, you'll never catch me parting with mine unless the price gets to the point where I can swap it for an FA31 limited or a DA35 macro.

I wouldn't even think of buying it. I have no use for it; M42 is for me a PITA and anyway I have the 35/f2 (and a 30/1.4) and I recall the reviews which were not all that good.

As I said earlier I am unconvinced about this enthusiasm for older lenses. Some may well be good but for example my M 135/3.5 is endearing but I wouldn't want to rely on it like I would with the 35/f2.

But I realise I am rather luddite in this.

Mike