Jump to content

Triotar 135mm or Pentovar 120mm?


Recommended Posts

Hello,

 

I currently have been using a Pentovar Variofocal on my Pentaflex AK16 and am pretty happy with the results so far, however, I have the opportunity to purchase a very nice condition Triotar 135mm. I have done a little research on the net and most everyone states that the Triotar is a great lens.

 

What I was hoping from the other members are suggestions, should I get the Triotar? Will the images be appreciably better than the Pentovar I have been using? If the difference is negligible I would rather use the money to shoot and develop some film instead.

 

Bearing in mind my last Pentovar got a bent blade and the repair was really annoying, hence the reason I went out and bought another. Will the Triotar outlast the Pentovar? How often will I get the chance to buy a Triotar with a Pentaflex mount?

 

I posted this on manual focus, but then it occurred to be that they are predominantly still camera.

 

I am conflicted.....

 

cheers, Gareth

Edited by Gareth Blackstock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

It’s an indescreet comparison. A Triotar is a three-elements lens, a triplet. The Pentovar is a much more complicated retrofocal and varifocal system, therefore something quite different what regards depth of field, resolving power, contrast. If you can catch a coated Triotar, do it. You will be rewarded with an honest and lightweight lens. The main issue with triplets is that they cannot be corrected for the entire colours spectrum. In general, they’re well balanced from green through red, not for the short-wavelengths end. By cutting ultraviolet, violet, and blue with a yellow filter you relieve a triplet from these compromising parts, if the object allows it. In black-and-white photography and cinematography triplets rule. For a colour movie you’d be better off with lenses that have four elments or more. A tele-Tessar would bring a lot of snap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Hi Gareth,

 

Pretty much any prime lens should be better than a 1960s era zoom. Triplets are simple, but quite effective lenses. At f/4 the Triotar is also a stop faster than the zoom at 120mm.

 

Does the Pentovar zoom have a built-in doubler to achieve the f/5.6 30-120 range? If so, that's another factor that would probably contribute to reducing its image quality.

 

Did you try to repair the faulty iris in your first Pentovar yourself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gday,

Thanks for the feedback Simon, some interesting info there, I do after all have around 1000ft of b&w to use at a later date. I did not know about the effects on colour a 3element lens would have, thanks for telling me that, methinks I should perhaps learn a wee bit more about lenses... Now I am leaning towards getting one...

Dom, you are right, a prime would be the better bet, but for the pentaflex and it's unique mount and scarcity of adaptors, lenses available to me are limited, not an overly bad thing considering the standard lenses for the pentaflex are Carl Zeiss. I did some research before buying the camera and accepted the lack of lens choice as acceptable.

I have a 12.5mm and 25mm prime, the 50mm seems to go for over $1300, the 80mm goes for around $500 if you can find one. Half of me wants to grab lenses that suit as they come along in case I never see one again, and the other half thinks to just focus on getting the best from what I have.

Regarding the pentovar I attempted to fix, one of the diaphragm blades got bent slightly, so I solved the problem that started with a stiff diaphragm before jamming entirely, and discovered a knackered lenses deep inside. Good thing is I have a spare emaculate front element. Maybe I'll buy the triotar and have the pentovar as a back up...

 

Great food for thought guys,

Cheers

Edited by Gareth Blackstock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

Well, I already owned and used a K3 and I was quite happy with the results and enjoyed using the camera, however, I did want to pick up a powered 16mm kit, winding up every 30 odd seconds was going to annoy.

 

I saw a Pentaflex kit come available locally for $180 if I remember correctly, and after a bit of research I thought it would be a bargain at that price. There were a few extra factors, the benefit of buying a non-rare obscure kit, it will be cheaper, but parts and lenses potentially harder to find, but should be cheaper when they do appear. Also, repair work is harder to find with obscure gear, but as it is East German, one can repair it with a hammer and crescent wrench!

 

Also, the standard lenses are high quality and mostly affordable, and as an old industry told me years ago, "it's not the box that counts so much, it the lens in front and the person looking through the view finder" And I find the camera to be quite well built. Also, I like to tinker, and as I can rarely afford to bugger things up, a well built solid camera fits the bill.

 

One has to bear in mind that the Australian market is quite small, we do not get the choices of Europe and North America, and while it is true postage rates are mostly affordable, as I should for interest and not money, several thousand on a kit is hard to justify when I have a young child, mortgage, and wooden house...

 

All in all, I think the Pentaflex is under valued as a 16mm camera, and because of that I had a hard time finding any information about it, so thats why I translated all the manuals I could find and added what I did to the camera to my website, so future film makers who are curious about getting one, either for budget, access, or even curiosity, can easily find the right info and not be bogged down by negative anecdotes.

 

As an aside, the magazine film path is quite convoluted, but I developed an easy cheat, not I can load magazines faster than my K3...

 

Sorry for the long answer, short version?

 

It was cheap. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

The Aufnahmekamera 16 has an odd film locating distance, namely minus one. That is the distance between the optical axis and the perforation hole on the claw at the end of its stroke. We count from there in the two directions.

 

Not to upset anybody or anything, it is about perforation deviations cancellation. If camera and projector locate the film in the same hole relative to the optical axis, cancellation can take place. Image steadiness will be best then. The Arriflex 16 ST locates plus one and hence fits the old Bell & Howell Filmo projectors. Many 16mm film cameras locate in the +3 position and so go together with a lot of projectors and some printers. Naturally, on continuous printing the precision of a camera original is lost to a slight non-uniform unsteadiness on prints, a sort of vertical softness. There was never a 16mm projector that locates minus one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Gday, Simon I think you might have mistaken me for someone who might understand what you just said.... Is there a "dummy's version"

 

No. If one projects films, image steadiness is an issue. It’s one of the four basic technical tasks to be performed in cinematography. To put it as simple as possible, the claw should leave the film in the same place with the camera, the printer, and the projector.

 

I congratulate you on the lens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...