CZJ Biometar 80/2,8 MC vs Zenzanon 150/3,5 MC - quality of bokeh

transporti686 · Jan 22, 2013

Hi everyone,

I want to know your opinions about quality of bokeh for CZJ Biometar 80/2,8 MC vs. Zenzanon 150/3,5 MC, both fitted on 6x4,5 cameras?

Thank you very much.

Mustafa Umut Sarac · Jan 23, 2013

For Biometar gallery :

In my opinion , there is no better lens than Zeiss at MF in the world

http://www.flickr.com/groups/pentaconsix/discuss/72157622385499359/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/schoeband/sets/72157616035170934/detail/

transporti686 · Jan 23, 2013

Mustafa Umut Sarac said:
For Biometar gallery :

In my opinion , there is no better lens than Zeiss at MF in the world

http://www.flickr.com/groups/pentaconsix/discuss/72157622385499359/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/schoeband/sets/72157616035170934/detail/

Thank you.

I saw rating for some medium format lenses in this file (check this link http://free.art.pl/fotografie/johnston/LensBokehRatings.pdf). Rating for Bronica Zenzanon S 150/3,5 is 9 from 10, which is outstanding, exceptional, capable of great beuty bokeh, but I dont know if lens formula for Zenzanon 150/3,5 MC (6x4,5 format lens) is same as Zenzanon S 150/3,5 (6x6 format lens). I think, that lens formulas are different.

transporti686 · Jan 23, 2013

one picture from bronica zenzanon 150/3,5 MC

see link http://www.flickr.com/photos/karolzdyb/6486201025/in/photostream

Mustafa Umut Sarac · Jan 23, 2013

I dont like japanese lenses whoever reports whatever. In 25 years , I only saw few good japanese lens shots and they were taken with exceptionally beatiful women. As you see at your Zenzanon picture , lens is very weak performer , nothing special even good . Zenzanon , who gives that name to a product ? I use zeiss and leitz and I am happy.

AaTen · Jan 23, 2013

hehe i have a Seagull 203 6x6 folder that uses a HAIOU 111-2 lens
and thats excellent, it was made by Carl Zeiss Jena ;-) So never try to
judge a lens by its name ;-)

Mustafa Umut Sarac · Jan 23, 2013

transporti686 · Jan 24, 2013

Mustafa Umut Sarac said:
I dont like japanese lenses whoever reports whatever. In 25 years , I only saw few good japanese lens shots and they were taken with exceptionally beatiful women. As you see at your Zenzanon picture , lens is very weak performer , nothing special even good . Zenzanon , who gives that name to a product ? I use zeiss and leitz and I am happy.

Picture is not mine. I own CZJ Flektogon 50/4 MC and CZJ Biometar 80/2,8 MC with Mamiya 645. I dont use Biometar at f-number range between 2,8-5,6, because I need higher DOF for landscape. Bronica ETRS with Zenzanon 150/3,5 MC is my new toy and I want to try shooting some portraits with Zenzanon or Biometar.

kanzlr · Jan 24, 2013

150/3.5 will have shallower depth of field and different angle of view...hard to compare.

Noble · Jan 24, 2013

Mustafa Umut Sarac said:
I dont like japanese lenses whoever reports whatever. In 25 years , I only saw few good japanese lens shots and they were taken with exceptionally beatiful women. As you see at your Zenzanon picture , lens is very weak performer , nothing special even good . Zenzanon , who gives that name to a product ? I use zeiss and leitz and I am happy.

It's been a long time since I've heard such an over the top and biased assessment of a lens or lens line. I've shot both Zeiss and Bronica and I can tell you that while there are differences there is no way someone can tell from a single 800x600 scanned in picture on the internet that a lens is a "weak performer." I assume you were just being sarcastic and it didn't translate well over the internet.

kanzlr said:
150/3.5 will have shallower depth of field and different angle of view...hard to compare.

Yup. Pretty much. I read the question a couple of days ago and I didn't even understand why it was being asked.

kanzlr · Jan 24, 2013

Oh I think it has to do with gearheadism..."I want the lens with the best bokeh!" instead of formulating a photographic vision and aquiring the tools needed to fulfill it

1. define the mission
2. get the tools needed

it is vital to do it in that order, if you want to get to results

Slixtiesix · Jan 25, 2013

As Kanzlr said, hard to compare. You should better compare a Kaleinar 150/2,8 to the Zenzanon lens or a Zenzanon 80/2,8 to the Biotar, otherwise it will pretty much be a 80mm vs 150mm bokeh comparison, less to the say that the 80mm are Planar-types while the 150mm lenses (I assume) are Sonnar-types.

transporti686 · Jan 25, 2013

OK, you are right. Different lenses - hard to compare.

What do you mean about Zenzanon 150/3,5 MC and Biometar 80/2,8 MC for portrait work? I tend to Zenzanon for this work.

Slixtiesix · Jan 25, 2013

I don´t know the particular Bronica lens, but for medium format portraits (head and shoulder or facial) I would recommend a 150mm over an 80mm. The 80mm is better suited for full length body shots. Tight facial portraits done with an 80mm will in most cases look distorted. It may still be okay for head and shoulder shots though.
In any case, and I say that as a great fan of Zeiss lenses, I would prefer a portrait made with a Zenzanon lens that has ideal proportions over any distorted portrait made with a Zeiss lens of too short a focal length for the purpose.

Regarding the bokeh of the East German mf lenses (especially Biometar 80 and 120, Sonnar 180) I must say that these are sublime. The only lenses that are close are the 2000-Series Hasselblad lenses (110/2, 150/2,8), but these are much more expensive than the East German lenses. I had a look on pictures made with the mentioned Bronica lens on Flickr and they look nice too!

transporti686 · Jan 25, 2013

Thank you.

Yes, I don`t want to use this lens for close up portraits, minimal focusing distance (1,5 m) is too far for this work.

Noble · Jan 25, 2013

transporti686 said:
Thank you.

Yes, I don`t want to use this lens for close up portraits, minimal focusing distance (1,5 m) is too far for this work.

Extension tubes.

transporti686, as others have noted it would be a lot more helpful to know what exactly it is you intend to do with the lens instead of everyone just guessing. Someone already pointed out the error of comparing an 80mm lens of any type to a 150mm lens. But the other thing is you are discussing two different lenses for two entirely different systems. A better course of action is to figure out your needs and then pick the system that best fits your needs. No system is going to be the best at everything. You may pick what you think is the system with the lens that has the best bokeh but it may be a pain in the butt in other areas. I find getting a camera, lens, and film that you will actually shoot, comfortably, is a better strategy. You will shoot more and have more keepers.

Anyway maybe the Bronica 150 3.5 MC is a sleeper hit. I own a Bronica and the 150mm PE is the lens everyone seems to clamor for in that line. I got a 150mm 4.0 MC years ago. It's not supposed to be that good. I never upgraded it to the 3.5 MC nor the PE version because I switched over to the Rollei 6008 Integral system. I have never done a head to head test between my 150mm 4.0 MC and my Rollei 150mm 4.0 Sonnar. The Sonnar has built in automatic metering, apertures, and shutter speeds. It's just a faster easier camera/lens to work with.

So tell the forum what exactly it is you want to do and I'm sure someone can point you in the right direction.

Felinik · Feb 14, 2013

kanzlr said:
Oh I think it has to do with gearheadism..."I want the lens with the best bokeh!" instead of formulating a photographic vision and aquiring the tools needed to fulfill it

1. define the mission
2. get the tools needed

it is vital to do it in that order, if you want to get to results

Word!

In addition:

2.1 check the current toolbox if there's anything that can be used to achieve the mission by modifying the mission a few percents.

CZJ Biometar 80/2,8 MC vs Zenzanon 150/3,5 MC - quality of bokeh

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency