very bad lens?

David Lyga · May 2, 2016

Has anyone ever managed to get a sharp result from a Meyer Optik Domiplan 2.8/50, even stopped down? I have NOT. - David Lyga

Ian Grant · May 2, 2016

It's not possible to see through and subsequently focus my only Domiplan

Ian

railwayman3 · May 2, 2016

Had one on my first 35mm camera in the 1970's (Exa 500). It was OK-ish at the time, but, as I became more seriously interested in photography, I realised that there were much better (and more expensive) options. My late father had the Meyer 135mm (Orestor) and 30mm (Lydith) for his Exakta and these were excellent, as was the his 50mm/2.6 Tessar. Oddly enough the f/2 Pancolor was very poor at full aperture, and not up to the Tessar unless stopped down.....possibly due to poor QC in the old East Germany ?

David Lyga · May 2, 2016

I honestly do not think that it was bad QC in East Germany because they were highly capable of great optics. For some reason I think that the formula was bad, because each and every one I have tested was the same. - David Lyga

onre · May 2, 2016

I could do some test shooting tomorrow. I got a Domiplan with one of my Exaktas but haven't used it for photography at all. It is great for keeping dust from entering the body through the bayonet opening, though.

Dali · May 2, 2016

David Lyga said:
Has anyone ever managed to get a sharp result from a Meyer Optik Domiplan 2.8/50, even stopped down? I have NOT. - David Lyga

Same experience... Quickly replaced by a CZJ tessar.

railwayman3 · May 2, 2016

David Lyga said:
I honestly do not think that it was bad QC in East Germany because they were highly capable of great optics. For some reason I think that the formula was bad, because each and every one I have tested was the same. - David Lyga

I agree that there were some first-class lenses from East Germany, including the ones I mentioned and also the Flektagons and Sonnar (I have a beaultiful 135mm/f3/5 Sonnar on my desk as I type). But I've always had an impression that there was more care put into the manufacture of the more specialist lenses, such as those quoted, while the 50mm normal lenses were just turned out in bulk to meet the state quotas....IDK, just my feeling.

(There are a few interesting comments on the Domiplan (and other lenses) which comfirm your thoughts on
http://vintage-camera-lenses.com/meyer-optik-gorlitz-domiplan-50mm-2-8/ )

Ian Grant · May 2, 2016

I suspect the glass used in Domiplans, Before WWII Zeiss used new optical glass in a couple of re-designed LF Tessars, also Novars, and sold it to Leitz who used it for the Summar. It was a slightly soft glass and prone to atmospheric attack by some pollutants, it's also very prone to cleaning marks and scratches.

My Domiplan came with an Exa the lens itself was free, it looks mint like the camera, however its front surface looks like it;s been extremely finely etched. I have a pre-WWII Ikonta with a Novar and that's too soft to use for a similar reason, I've had a Tessar that was the same.

Ian

benjiboy · May 3, 2016

The Domiplan was a legendary crap lens, like the Nikkor 43 -86 zoom to be if possible avoided.

onre · May 3, 2016

Right, so I put my Domiplan on my Exakta Varex IIa and took pictures today while walking from railway station to work. Developed them using normal C41 process and scanned the negative. The film used was Agfacolor Vista 400, made in Japan.

Link to full-size scan (huge file):

https://anteek.fi/~esp/domiplan-church-huge.jpg

Aperture 5.6, focused at the round window. Rest of the gallery is here, all shot at something between 4 and 8:

https://anteek.fi/~esp/domiplan/

My verdict: not a very bad lens.

David Lyga · May 3, 2016

Not atrocious, true, but 'bad' when compared with even ordinary normals. - David Lyga

Nodda Duma · May 3, 2016

If I had one in my possession I could measure the MTF.

onre · May 3, 2016

Nodda Duma said:
If I had one in my possession I could measure the MTF.

You don't need to, someone has already done this.

http://www.exaktaphile.com/tests/tests2.html

MattKing · May 3, 2016

Every time I see this thread title I picture David talking as if to a dog: "Bad lens, very bad lens!"

onre · May 4, 2016

David Lyga said:
Not atrocious, true, but 'bad' when compared with even ordinary normals. - David Lyga

Here's another, sharper, photo taken at f/8. On the church picture I may have inadvertently moved when taking it, the position was quite uncomfortable with all the stuff I was carrying.

What do you mean by ordinary normals? Domiplan is just that, the cheapest normal lens for many DDR cameras back then. I am actually positively surprised, I'd say this is actually on par with Tessars.

Warning, huge file again.

https://anteek.fi/~esp/domiplan-tammerkoski-huge.jpg

benjiboy · May 4, 2016

Suffice it to say, if Moses had seen the Domiplan on Mount Sinai there would have been eleven commandments

benjiboy · May 4, 2016

onre said:
Right, so I put my Domiplan on my Exakta Varex IIa and took pictures today while walking from railway station to work. Developed them using normal C41 process and scanned the negative. The film used was Agfacolor Vista 400, made in Japan.

Link to full-size scan (huge file):

https://anteek.fi/~esp/domiplan-church-huge.jpg

Aperture 5.6, focused at the round window. Rest of the gallery is here, all shot at something between 4 and 8:

https://anteek.fi/~esp/domiplan/

My verdict: not a very bad lens.

Are you serious ?, look at the lack of definition in the bricks, compared with any Japanese 50mm lens made by any of the big five manufacturers this is abysmal.

onre · May 4, 2016

benjiboy said:
Are you serious ?, look at the lack of definition in the bricks, compared with any Japanese 50mm lens made by any of the big five manufacturers this is abysmal.

The original question was: "Has anyone ever managed to get a sharp result from a Meyer Optik Domiplan 2.8/50, even stopped down?"

I think I have managed that, at least with the second picture.

I have no experience with Japanese glass of '60s, so I have no idea how they perform.

darinwc · May 4, 2016

benjiboy said:
Are you serious ?, look at the lack of definition in the bricks, compared with any Japanese 50mm lens made by any of the big five manufacturers this is abysmal.

Whoosh!
Actually Zeiss lenses are the undisputed champions of defining bricks in brick walls.

David Lyga · May 4, 2016

onre, thank you for posting that picture: it is more than commendable and, honestly, I did not know that that lens was so capable.

ben, your comment about the 'Commandments' was also commendable (as was MattKing's).

Alan Johnson · May 4, 2016

The Domiplan was a triplet lens, almost the only triplet SLR lens apart from the E Ludwig Meritar,which is compared with lenses having more elements here:
http://allphotolenses.com/reviews/item/c_11.html
Most reviews of the Domiplan rate it as what might be expected from 3 elements but some problems with its mechanism are noted. IIRC my first Praktica had a Tessar, I was a big spender in those days.

very bad lens?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency