ManWearPants
Senior Member
betta01 said:I am not a Zeiss basher but so far I have not really see the 'magic' in it, maybe one fine day I will.
Regarding 'CARL ZEISS JENA DDR FLEKTOGON 2.4/35MM, a magic lens' this I totally do not understand, if that photo is representative of Zeiss lens 'magic' then I will give it a :thumbsd: and avoid buying Zeiss lens at all cost![]()
That's ok. Lens signature is like abstract art. Some people see the magic, some people don't. Zeiss rendering has been the subject of debate too many times. So no point re-igniting it here. In fact, when I started comparing the IQ, I didn't even like it. That is until I bought myself an inexpensive Contax 50/1.7. The signature of Zeiss caught on and led me on. So maybe it is an acquired taste

I am guilty of posting snapshots to show that I am using a particular lens sometimes. This thread is to gather common minds among the community. We share, post, discuss, learn and shoot some more. Pardon us for the mediocre post sometimes. We do keep better ones for self appreciation

Carl Zeiss Jena are very old lenses manufactured in East Germany. The pancolor 80/1.8 has been regarded by some to be one of the best portrait lens. The flektogens, IMO (no research done), are the predecessors to today's Zeiss 21, 25. I am quite sure enthusiasm got the better of him posting this image. Which is why I stated on the very first post of this thread to post some comments to explain your image. Anyway, it is good to hear critics. Gentlemen, the challenge has been thrown and benchmark raised.

Last edited: