Fooled - Again!

[doubs43]

Some time back I picked up a cheap pre-set Meyer-Gorlitz Orestor 135mm f/2.8 lens in M42 mount. This is the model that has interchangeable mounts. It's the early zebra style and looks to have seen better days. Worse, the front lens element has a mottled look, almost as if the coating has been subjected to a foreign substance that has altered it. Numerous cleanings has removed probably 60% but what remains is, I'm afraid, permanent.

Until today I've pretty much ignored this lens thinking that it couldn't possibly take a decent image. I was WRONG! The two images below were taken with a Pentax *ist-DS and the Orestor at f/5.6. The top picture is the full frame picture reduced to 800 pixels wide, lightened some and sharpened. The bottom picture is a crop of the left flower at 100% and lightened only...... no sharpening.

What do you guys think?



Walker

[Peter S.]

Dear Walker,

great picture - and good lens. It seems to like the *isD...

Best regards
Peter

[herron]

Those are great! The "altered" lens doesn't seem to have any effect on the images...which I am sure you are delighted to discover (I know I would be)!

[mickeyobe]

Truly impressive.
It seems that the more some lenses are abused the better they perform.
I wonder if I could get such results if I tried sanding the coating of one of my lenses.

Mickey

[PeterW]

Hi Walker,

Those are very nice shots, and the damaged coating doesn't seem to have had much, if any, effect on performance. You may find though that you get flare if shooting against the light or with strong side light.

I've always had a high regard for most Hugo Meyer Görlitz lenses. The company was old-established and used to be considered, with Schneider, as a rival to Carl Zeiss.

I say most lenses because Meyer was persuaded by some camera makers to produce some 'budget' lenses for entry-level into SLR markets. The least loved of these were the Lydith and the Meritar. They were fine for the intended market, the amateur who never had his prints made bigger than 6x4, but when more serious amateurs tried them they were very disappointed, and this tended to tarnish Meyer's reputation. The budget Domiplan was much better, softish at the edges at full aperture but sharpening OK when stopped down. You find a lot of Domiplans on Prakticas.

Possibly the best lenses from Meyer were the Orest series, launched about 1963. The ones to look out for in particular are the 1.8/50 Oreston, the 2.8/135 Orestor, the long focus Orestegors - 4.0/300 and 5.6/500 and the 4.0/5.6 Orestegor zoom 70/210.

All the Orest series were single coated. The majority were M42 either pre-set or manual iris but they were also made with Exakta/Exa bayonet mount.

When Meyer became part of VEB Pentacon the Orest series was renamed Pentacon, and most were multi coated, usually denoted either by MC in white or by a red V. Some of the early ones were single coated, but on these the V was in white.

They were also made with Praktica electric bayonet mount for the Praktica B series cameras labelled either Pentacon or Pentacon Prakticar or just Prakticar. I haven't come across any of these with a red V, only with MC in white.

I have a 2.8/135 Orestor M42, and a 4.0/200 Orestegor, both excellent performers. I used to have a 4/300 Orestegor but I sold it. I've never had a 5.6/500 but I've seen excellent results from one.

I also have a 4-5.6/ 70-210 Pentacon Prakticar macro zoom for my Praktica BCA. When you turn to macro it automatically stops down to 6.2. This is also a first class lens IMO, and I got it very cheaply.

At the moment, Meyer Görlitz Orest series and Pentacon lenses are still cheap on Ebay and even in many dealers, but if you don't mind stopping down manually they are bargains.

It's important not to confuse Hugo Meyer, Görlitz with F.F. Meyer, nor with Carl Meyer. I know just about nothing about F.F. Meyer, but Carl Meyer lenses were, I understand, made by Drucker in Chicago and sold in the US in the 1960s as Carl Meyer by Burke & James. I don't know what the quality was like, but I've seen it described as 'good'.

PeterW

[doubs43]

Thanks, everyone. The lens really surprised me.

Peter, once again your knowledge of East German photographic equipment has taught me something valuable. I've wondered about the red and white "V" that appears on some lenses. Now I know.

I completely agree that most Hugo Meyer lenses are of excellent design and construction....... with the exceptions you list. Most independent makers offered a less expensive (I hesitate to use the word "cheap" except when it really applies) line of optics for the occasional picture taker. Serious amatures and professionals shouldn't have been surprised to find those lenses to be wanting when compared to the more expensive lenses. The Domiplan - a lens I've avoided - seems to be better than one might expect. There's a Praktica Super TL on ebay now with the original box, instructions etc. and seemingly like-new in every respect. The lens on it is a Domiplan.

The 50mm f/1.8 Oreston/Pentacon you mention really is an excellent lens. I first owned the Orestor on an Exakta RTL-1000 in late 1972 or early 1972. I was always pleased with the pictures it took. Anyone looking for an inexpensive normal M42 lens could do much worse than the Oreston or Pentacon..... both found on ebay at bargain prices. The icing on the cake is the close focusing they offer.

Walker

[SidW]

Walker, I believe it was Nikonbob who started a thread on the theme of most lenses performing equally well in everyday use. Now you show an abused lens producing excellent results. I think this example also underlines some of the difficulties I encountered when comparing the Triotar and Sonnar 135mm/4. In particular, your putting it on a DSLR bypassed the scanning process, which in my comparison resulted in very noisy Canoscan scans. Your 100% zoomed crop doesn't show any graininess at all.

[John Parry]

Peter,

Yes i'v'e got the Orestor 2.8/135 - currently resident on a Fujica AZ-1 (which I'm having trouble with). It doesn't have the M42 'Auto' capability, which makes you work a bit harder. I've got another somewhere which has that capability, but it's a bit 'hit & miss'. Also have a Pentacon 4/300. That's a monster of a lens, but because it's so fast, it can handle a 2x extender with no problems - which makes it pretty awesome.

Walker,

I'd recommend the Super TL - I have one, and my daughter has the Super TL1000. No problems with the Domiplan either (although you'll recognise its limitations if you compare it to a Tessar). I was surprised when Curt said he'd had problems with them, although as I mentioned at the time, those could have been temperature related.

Regards - John

[doubs43]

John, I agree that the Praktica Super TL is a great camera, especially for someone who wants into M42 photography without spending a fortune. The surprising thing about them to me is how pristine so many of them are. The worst comment I can make is that the plastic on the tip of the advance lever is almost always missing, broken off. Otherwise they seem to be extremely durable. The ones I own were primarily bought for the lenses that came with them: Pancolars, Orestons and Pentacons. I think the meters work in almost all of them.

The 300mm Orestegor is indeed a beast of a lens. I have mounts for the P6 and Exakta. I would like to find an M42 mount also. The lens itself is very good.

Walker

[galenk]

Along time ago in a place far far away I picked up a Yashica "J" that has many scratches on the lens and have not bothered to run film through it because I decided that there was no way it could take clear pictures.
Seeing those pics makes me think I'll give it a try..

[doubs43]

galenk said:

Along time ago in a place far far away I picked up a Yashica "J" that has many scratches on the lens and have not bothered to run film through it because I decided that there was no way it could take clear pictures.
Seeing those pics makes me think I'll give it a try..

You should give it a try. You may be pleasantly surprised by the results. About 1972 I bought a Tower rangefinder camera - a Leica clone, essentially - that had a 50mm f/2 Nikkor lens on it. The front element was horribly marked by poor cleaning technique and I didn't think it would be worth keeping. Both my father and I were surprised by the sharp, contrasy images that lens takes and that's without a hood! I still own it. It came from a pawn shop in Topeka, KS.

Walker