View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
alex ph
Joined: 16 Mar 2013 Posts: 1571
|
Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:10 am Post subject: Cactus peeping with Rollei Planar 1.8/50 |
|
|
alex ph wrote:
Except of large flare on Sony mirrorless, this lens is just an instrument of pure joy, close to perfection.
Taken with Nex, the lens is the older all-metal version Made in Singapore. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oldhand
Joined: 01 Apr 2013 Posts: 6006 Location: Mid North Coast NSW - Australia
|
Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oldhand wrote:
I quite agree.
One of the great lenses for me.
I have heard that it is even better than the f1.4 version of this lens, but I don't have that lens so am not certain for myself.
Tom |
|
Back to top |
|
|
alex ph
Joined: 16 Mar 2013 Posts: 1571
|
Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
alex ph wrote:
I neither have a 1.4 version. That sounds the same as for Re.Topcors where 1.8 is appreciated higher than 1.4. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oldhand
Joined: 01 Apr 2013 Posts: 6006 Location: Mid North Coast NSW - Australia
|
Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 12:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oldhand wrote:
alex ph wrote: |
I neither have a 1.4 version. That sounds the same as for Re.Topcors where 1.8 is appreciated higher than 1.4. |
Yes, very much so - in spite of the price difference.
Interestingly you might just pick up a Voigtlander 58mm f1.4 Nokton cheaper than an RE Auto Topcor 5.8cm f1.4.
It is from reports a copy of the lens design.
It certainly is a wonderful lens.
But back to the Rollei - I even read of the inferiority of the Singapore version compared to the German version.
Mine is Singapore made and is quite wonderful like yours.
Check out the detail in this wide open shot plus crop.
Tom
#1
#2
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1658
|
Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 12:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
Oldhand wrote: |
I quite agree.
One of the great lenses for me.
I have heard that it is even better than the f1.4 version of this lens, but I don't have that lens so am not certain for myself.
Tom |
Hi. High quality Lens
But the hexanon 50/1,8 is sharper wide Open and the mamiya SX 1,8/55 is sharper at F4-5,6 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oldhand
Joined: 01 Apr 2013 Posts: 6006 Location: Mid North Coast NSW - Australia
|
Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 12:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oldhand wrote:
papasito wrote: |
Oldhand wrote: |
I quite agree.
One of the great lenses for me.
I have heard that it is even better than the f1.4 version of this lens, but I don't have that lens so am not certain for myself.
Tom |
Hi. High quality Lens
But the hexanon 50/1,8 is sharper wide Open and the mamiya SX 1,8/55 is sharper at F4-5,6 |
I have not found that, but it could be so with your lenses.
It is hard to imagine more sharpness than I already have.
You are right of course - it is a great lens
Tom |
|
Back to top |
|
|
alex ph
Joined: 16 Mar 2013 Posts: 1571
|
Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 12:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
alex ph wrote:
Very well speaking illustration of the lens' capacity, Tom. As always.
I have both, Made in Germany and Made in Singapore, all-metal versions. They perform equally well, I did not find any difference in character, sharpness or colour rendition.
Papasito, the copy of Hexanon 1.8/50 I have has a weaker micro-contrast than Rollei 1.8/50. Subjectively that gives less volume and pop-up. But maybe you have a more consecutive sharpness measurement.
I've just checked "sold" prices for Nokton that I tried once and since have a secret wish to get it one day. It still turns around 450-500 euros, as 5 or 7 years ago. Sigh! I'd love it shifting down to the price range of Topcor 1.8 rather than 1.4... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Blazer0ne
Joined: 12 Sep 2018 Posts: 836
Expire: 2024-12-07
|
Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 1:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Blazer0ne wrote:
...
Last edited by Blazer0ne on Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:25 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
alex ph
Joined: 16 Mar 2013 Posts: 1571
|
Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 1:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
alex ph wrote:
Blazer0ne wrote: |
if you are willing to crack it open and clean out oil on aperture blades and optics. |
I usually avoid actions of the kind with lenses that costed me more than 20 euros. Was it an easy move to get into the lens and - especially - to reassemble it back? Did you post the process images? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1658
|
Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 1:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
Oldhand wrote: |
papasito wrote: |
Oldhand wrote: |
I quite agree.
One of the great lenses for me.
I have heard that it is even better than the f1.4 version of this lens, but I don't have that lens so am not certain for myself.
Tom |
Hi. High quality Lens
But the hexanon 50/1,8 is sharper wide Open and the mamiya SX 1,8/55 is sharper at F4-5,6 |
I have not found that, but it could be so with your lenses.
It is hard to imagine more sharpness than I already have.
You are right of course - it is a great lens
Tom |
My copy of the planar should be a bad cleaned or so. IT seems that I'm the only one whose Mamiya SX at F/4-5,6 is sharper than the rollei's planar 1,8.
Tom, do you have both? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Blazer0ne
Joined: 12 Sep 2018 Posts: 836
Expire: 2024-12-07
|
Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Blazer0ne wrote:
...
Last edited by Blazer0ne on Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:20 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tb_a
Joined: 26 Jan 2010 Posts: 3678 Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 4:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tb_a wrote:
Oldhand wrote: |
But back to the Rollei - I even read of the inferiority of the Singapore version compared to the German version.
Mine is Singapore made and is quite wonderful like yours. |
That's a fairy tale. There is no difference. In terms of coatings the contrary is the case because some of the early German versions are only MC coated whereas all Singapore versions are HFT coated, irrespective of their markings.
I've got 2 Voigtlaender branded ones from Singapore in M42. Same optics but better versatility due to M42 mount. _________________ Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
alex ph
Joined: 16 Mar 2013 Posts: 1571
|
Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
alex ph wrote:
Blazer0ne wrote: |
I started with the 58 1.8, which was the best deal, and after working on it felt confident to move to another lens only because the aperture and focus mechanics were similar across the lineup of RE Auto. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Olivier
Joined: 18 Feb 2009 Posts: 5077 Location: France
Expire: 2015-08-06
|
Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Olivier wrote:
Well, i have to get it out of my shelf and test it.
I'll try it and the Planar 1.7/50. _________________ Olivier - Moderator
Dslr : Olympus Pen E-P2 - Fujifilm X-Pro2 - Canon 5D MkII.
SLr and MF lenses : for feedback and helping people, cameras and lenses I own : full list here http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic,p,1442740.html#1442740 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
y
Joined: 11 Aug 2013 Posts: 304 Location: EU
|
Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
y wrote:
Oldhand wrote: |
alex ph wrote: |
I neither have a 1.4 version. That sounds the same as for Re.Topcors where 1.8 is appreciated higher than 1.4. |
Yes, very much so - in spite of the price difference.
Interestingly you might just pick up a Voigtlander 58mm f1.4 Nokton cheaper than an RE Auto Topcor 5.8cm f1.4. |
Noktons cheaper than Topcors?! "Sold" ebay listings show prices over $300. You can get a Topcor for less than $200 (I got mine for $180 with a nice Super D).
Personally, I like 58/1.4 more than 1.8. It simply feels better.
As for Rollei Planars 50s - I own both in their rubberized HFT version. No direct comparison done yet. However, unlike the 1.4, the 1.8 has no aperture stop between wide-open and f/2.8. That's irritating. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kiddo
Joined: 29 Jun 2018 Posts: 1101
|
Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kiddo wrote:
I don't think it's fare to compare 1.4 and 1.8 50's as they have been designed differently most of them. It's true that such a very sharp lens it's a benefit in some cases ,but not all of them, like portraits ,where I do prefer softish look with less dof of course . Saying this ,I love my topcor 1.4 so do I like more 1.4 planar than the 1.7,probably it's a matter of taste and interest of each one, besides the subject we shoot. I've heard many people comparing 1.8 to 1.4 50's and all agree that most 1.8 are sharper ,but that's normal ,as of there's design. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
memetph
Joined: 01 Dec 2013 Posts: 942 Location: Poland
|
Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 1:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
memetph wrote:
Some remarks after reading the former posts .
I have 4 different versions of this Planar ( Ultron) 50 f1.8 and had even more in my hands.
The «German versîon » is not better than the Singapour ones .
The mecanical quality of this lens is poor ( far from a Pentax lens of that time).
It needs very often an internal cleaning (haze) and a focusing relub.
There are variations between samples ( time+quality issues?)
One of my favorite 50mm though a distracting bokeh . |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oldhand
Joined: 01 Apr 2013 Posts: 6006 Location: Mid North Coast NSW - Australia
|
Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 6:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oldhand wrote:
papasito wrote: |
Oldhand wrote: |
papasito wrote: |
Oldhand wrote: |
I quite agree.
One of the great lenses for me.
I have heard that it is even better than the f1.4 version of this lens, but I don't have that lens so am not certain for myself.
Tom |
Hi. High quality Lens
But the hexanon 50/1,8 is sharper wide Open and the mamiya SX 1,8/55 is sharper at F4-5,6 |
I have not found that, but it could be so with your lenses.
It is hard to imagine more sharpness than I already have.
You are right of course - it is a great lens
Tom |
My copy of the planar should be a bad cleaned or so. IT seems that I'm the only one whose Mamiya SX at F/4-5,6 is sharper than the rollei's planar 1,8.
Tom, do you have both? |
No, not any more.
I sold the Mamiya during a time of rationalising my nifty fifties.
Probably should have kept it, but already had too many.
Mamiya was a good lens for sure
Tom |
|
Back to top |
|
|
alex ph
Joined: 16 Mar 2013 Posts: 1571
|
Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
alex ph wrote:
It's interesting at which point OOF appreciation may differ in our views. I never found the lens' bokeh distracting or nervous.
And then thanks to a high micro-contrast this lens renders really well glass and glossy surfaces, I'd say on par with Re.Topcors
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
alex ph
Joined: 16 Mar 2013 Posts: 1571
|
Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
alex ph wrote:
And yes, Olivier and Y, please share your comparisons if you make them. I am really interested to see how this Rollei stands with Planar 1.7/50 on one side and 1.4 Rollei on the other.
It's true that technically these lenses may differ. But what we get and often search for at the end is not the glass count but picture. Precise tests of technically close lenses exposed here, especially of the 1.4/50 ones, showed very well at which point they are similar in rendering. So, "imprecise" comparisons may give a stimulating idea which picture properties to expect from various lenses. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
blotafton
Joined: 08 Aug 2013 Posts: 1534 Location: Sweden
|
Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
blotafton wrote:
Great lens, I like the Singapore version a bit more than the German one, that has slightly stiff focus.
According to Flickr my best photo ever was taken with the Planar made in Germany.
The bokeh is smooth up close but if you want a really creamy look a bit further out you might want a Rokkor 55mm 1.7 or a Zenitar 50mm 1.7. But these doesn't have as much micro contrast. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Olivier
Joined: 18 Feb 2009 Posts: 5077 Location: France
Expire: 2015-08-06
|
Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 9:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Olivier wrote:
alex ph wrote: |
And yes, Olivier and Y, please share your comparisons if you make them. I am really interested to see how this Rollei stands with Planar 1.7/50 on one side and 1.4 Rollei on the other.
It's true that technically these lenses may differ. But what we get and often search for at the end is not the glass count but picture. Precise tests of technically close lenses exposed here, especially of the 1.4/50 ones, showed very well at which point they are similar in rendering. So, "imprecise" comparisons may give a stimulating idea which picture properties to expect from various lenses. |
Alex, I was speaking about the Rollei planar 1.8/50. _________________ Olivier - Moderator
Dslr : Olympus Pen E-P2 - Fujifilm X-Pro2 - Canon 5D MkII.
SLr and MF lenses : for feedback and helping people, cameras and lenses I own : full list here http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic,p,1442740.html#1442740 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
alex ph
Joined: 16 Mar 2013 Posts: 1571
|
Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 9:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
alex ph wrote:
Olivier, I thought that you wished to test Rollei together with Carl Zeiss 1.7/50.
Strangely enough, there is no direct comparison online, even if there are several discussions around that question, including this forum: on lens design, coating, lens history and its variations. But no side-by-side images.
Any illustruted test would really be welcome! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Olivier
Joined: 18 Feb 2009 Posts: 5077 Location: France
Expire: 2015-08-06
|
Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Olivier wrote:
alex ph wrote: |
Olivier, I thought that you wished to test Rollei together with Carl Zeiss 1.7/50.
Strangely enough, there is no direct comparison online, even if there are several discussions around that question, including this forum: on lens design, coating, lens history and its variations. But no side-by-side images.
Any illustruted test would really be welcome! |
Yes Alex, I wish to test Rollei 1.8/50 and Carl Zeiss 1.7/50. I meant that I don't have the 1.4/50. _________________ Olivier - Moderator
Dslr : Olympus Pen E-P2 - Fujifilm X-Pro2 - Canon 5D MkII.
SLr and MF lenses : for feedback and helping people, cameras and lenses I own : full list here http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic,p,1442740.html#1442740 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1658
|
Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 10:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
Olivier wrote: |
alex ph wrote: |
Olivier, I thought that you wished to test Rollei together with Carl Zeiss 1.7/50.
Strangely enough, there is no direct comparison online, even if there are several discussions around that question, including this forum: on lens design, coating, lens history and its variations. But no side-by-side images.
Any illustruted test would really be welcome! |
Yes Alex, I wish to test Rollei 1.8/50 and Carl Zeiss 1.7/50. I meant that I don't have the 1.4/50. |
The C/Y planar 1,7/50 (1st. Version) should be in the same League than the rollei.
But the second version of the planar 1,7/50 (N° 8.xxx.xxx) with different scheme seems to be the sharper of the three |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|