Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Contax Planar & Sony Planar, a comparison of bokeh.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Mar 07, 2010 8:01 am    Post subject: Contax Planar & Sony Planar, a comparison of bokeh. Reply with quote
Hello all. Some of you may have read my previous thread asking about others experience with some of the various variety of 85/1.4 Planars.

http://forum.mflenses.com/lots-of-planar-85-1-4s-out-there-opinions-t25233.html

My point was that I'd noticed a difference between the ZK I had and the ZA I now have. I missed the 'dreamy' result of shooting the 6 element formula wide open vs the smooth and clear result from the newer 8 element calculation.

So, I went back a little further and sourced a Contax Planar (6 elements, very similar to the ZK - see no-X great post in the previous thread) and with the help of David Llato's (www.leitax.com) kit, I converted it to M42 and mounted it via a James Lao chipped M42-A mount adapter to my A900.

I was immediately returned to my expectations, but now that I had both lenses (for a while) I decided to do some quick tests to look closer in direct comparison.

The thrust here is bokeh. That was my whole reason for re-buying an older Planar when the new one was technically already so strong. Correspondingly, these images were taken to demonstrate to myself the differences between the two lenses while shooting the same scenes.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shots were hand held and cross compared during the process to get good, similar samples. Shots are straight from the camera, taken RAW, no PP, other than to resize. In the end, I think it's possible to demonstrate the difference.

Contax on left, Sony on right.






Contax top, Sony bottom.







Dry facts -

ZA has distinct contrast and focal plane wide open.
CY has hazy, diffused appearance, overtaking plane of focus while wide open.

ZA has distinct green and red-violet fringe
CY has diffused purple fringe.

ZA circles of confusion tend to be evenly lit. Without lit borders, their overlapping goes largely un-noticed.
CY circles of confusion appear more strongly lit to their edges. Visible over-lapping.

Subjective take -

ZA has a bit more pop with stronger contrast on focus plane.
CY has a gentle, dreamy rendering of its subject

ZA CA's more apparent wide open as they are more concentrated and bright.
CY diffusion and base color of CA's renders them less obtrusive.

ZA indistinct circles overlap resulting a smooth, fluid out-of-focus (oof) appearance. Combined with strong focal plane contrast accentuates 'pop'.
CY mild Nisen (two-line) bokeh creates mild highlights which layer and appear more textured. Edge lighting plays off diffusion of lit areas to produce a 'dreamy' veil.

Note, after F2, the CY and ZA look much more similar and are both very sharp. But lenses are like people, seem conformed and well adjusted, but only when they open up are their true personalities known.

I wont comment to tell you which bokeh is better - to me it is an entirely subjective matter. I only present this to you for your own interest.

It seems in the end, one could own each Planar for various reasons, each is useful enough on its own to warrant keeping both. That said, I know for my uses, the Contax is more attractive and succeeds in filling the void left after the sale of my earlier ZK and I can't afford to keep both.

Thanks for reading, hope you were entertained. Some more pics demonstrating each lens being empowered by its characteristics to follow.

Kelly.


PostPosted: Sun Mar 07, 2010 8:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
These shots feature full PP, but show how each lens' traits can enhance. For fun, I'll leave the identity of the lens unspoken. Feel free to guess, explain if desired. If you know, don't spoil the fun Wink

K.





PostPosted: Sun Mar 07, 2010 8:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Kelly,

Great comparison!! Unfortunately for me it will have to be the C/Y version for my 5DMkII. Not enough $$$ to buy another set with Sony Wink


PostPosted: Sun Mar 07, 2010 8:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
wilson.c wrote:
Kelly,

Great comparison!! Unfortunately for me it will have to be the C/Y version for my 5DMkII. Not enough $$$ to buy another set with Sony Wink


Thanks Wilson, glad you enjoyed it. Not so unfortunate I think, I prefer the Contax myself. It's nice to be able to choose I guess Smile

Kelly.


PostPosted: Sun Mar 07, 2010 8:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The SONY Planar looks almost like Samyang 85/1.4 in bokeh department. That's interesting, as I have both the Contax version and the Samyang, and I like the Zeiss better picture-wise.


PostPosted: Sun Mar 07, 2010 10:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Aside from good/not good, or like/don't like, the ZA does not draw like a classic Zeiss lens. It looks different. Some people may like it better actually, especially those who are used to Canon's tele lenses drawing. But I doubt that those who like Zeiss drawing, would prefer it over the classic Planar.


PostPosted: Sun Mar 07, 2010 10:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
those samples shows some differences but I am sure in a contra light portrait, the beauty of the planar will be more evident


PostPosted: Sun Mar 07, 2010 11:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I read all and can't spot a major difference between the two. I stick to old Zeiss lenses Cool


PostPosted: Sun Mar 07, 2010 11:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'd prefer C/Y level of CA + ZA bokeh.

thePiRaTE!!: Could we expect a comparision with the modern Zeiss DSLR model? Very Happy Very Happy


PostPosted: Sun Mar 07, 2010 1:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
no-X wrote:
I'd prefer C/Y level of CA + ZA bokeh.


Try the Samyang, bokeh seems similar to the ZA lens


PostPosted: Sun Mar 07, 2010 5:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nice presentation Kelly.
My preference based on this comparison is for the Contax. Although I must admit in a Portrait setting using either lens would give very similar results.
Here is a C/Y P85 from yesterday. Slightly missed focus. Still waiting for my new focus screen.
With a calm background as this sample has. I don't think that one would be able to tell which lens was used.


PostPosted: Sun Mar 07, 2010 5:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I guess I would prefer the Sony version, I have to admit.

But it's not important for me, since I have found my portrait lenses in the Jupiter-9 and the Nikkor 1.8/85.
And if I was to spent serious money, I would go for the amazing Carl Zeiss Planar T* 1.4/85 ZE or a Carl Zeiss Hasselblad Planar 2.8/80 that fascinated me when I was shooting with it.


PostPosted: Sun Mar 07, 2010 6:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks all for looking, glad it was of interest.

poilu wrote:
those samples shows some differences but I am sure in a contra light portrait, the beauty of the planar will be more evident


Contax handles highlights with that gentle diffusion, ZA smooths them off. Different looks, but I agree. In this situation (contra lit subject), the older 6/5 formula is more desirable. Subjective opinion of course Smile


no-X wrote:
I'd prefer C/Y level of CA + ZA bokeh.

thePiRaTE!!: Could we expect a comparision with the modern Zeiss DSLR model? Very Happy Very Happy


Thanks for your thoughts - and very much again for contribution to the previous thread. It helped convince me that the Contax was the way to go for me.

As for testing the Z series here - unlikely, as it would mean also a conversion to use on my A900. I'll have only to my recollections to draw from and the images I produced with it on my Pentax K20 to refer to for comparison. I can offer that my memory is quite clear on it, and it (not surprisingly) is very similar to the C/Y. It had the same diffusive qualities wide open which attracted me to it to begin with. The coatings on the Z series were perhaps more similar to the ZA. I do note that in straight sunlight, the C/Y is less resistant to flare and loses contrast compared to the ZA.

If one could choose, I think the Z would probably entertain those in favor of the traditional Zeiss look while providing the high caliber of modern T* coating (and a warranty!).

Again, its unlikely I'll be able to put my experience to the test on this, but take it for what it is worth Wink


F16SUNSHINE wrote:
Nice presentation Kelly.
My preference based on this comparison is for the Contax. Although I must admit in a Portrait setting using either lens would give very similar results.
Here is a C/Y P85 from yesterday. Slightly missed focus. Still waiting for my new focus screen.
With a calm background as this sample has. I don't think that one would be able to tell which lens was used.


Thanks Andy. I agree, in the end both make fine portrait lenses, and also as you say, the appropriate background would elicit more of the individual character of either lens. Portrait here looks very nice of course! At this size, its not really possible to see how focus was missed. Classic fast 85 look to the transition between model and background.

Kelly.

ps, I have both lenses for a while until the ZA sells (anyone want to buy?) so I can try something specific in anyone has a request.


PostPosted: Sun Mar 07, 2010 10:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
thePiRaTE!! wrote:

If one could choose, I think the Z would probably entertain those in favor of the traditional Zeiss look while providing the high caliber of modern T* coating (and a warranty!).


With Contax lenses, you are the warranty. Which means that unless you are incredibly uncaring, or want to deliberately damage them, they will not break. My Planar 2/135 fell on the ground from my camera (about 1.80 m height). Most any other lenses would have break. My lens just developed a dent on the filter ring. I still have it and works perfectly. I never heard of a Contax lens' iris that did break on it's own (like it happens with Jena lenses). I never heard of things such as element separation in a Contax lens.
If you just take a minimum care, a Contax lens will last your lifetime. And same goes for Leica R lenses.


PostPosted: Sun Mar 07, 2010 11:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
If you just take a minimum care, a Contax lens will last your lifetime. And same goes for Leica R lenses.


So true Orio. That's why I like them. Something I can not say about my new ZM lenses Crying or Very sad


PostPosted: Sun Mar 07, 2010 11:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
In my view - Cosina lenses give 'plastic-bag' colour rendition ..

What I really missing on Cosina's lenses is BLACK COLOUR -

this is the KEY colour which creates outlines clearly VISIBLE..

tf


PostPosted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 1:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
...
If you just take a minimum care, a Contax lens will last your lifetime. And same goes for Leica R lenses.


Its an interesting point you make about the durability of the Contax stuff. Only from images I didn't get impressed by their appearance at first, but it is a pleasure to use, a high quality build. Having one in my hand now I do trust it will last ages - so unlike much of the typical consumer items out there.

K.

Last edited by thePiRaTE!! on Mon Mar 08, 2010 3:29 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 1:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Great, informative post. Enjoy seeing the wonderful qualities of the Contax 85 Planar in comparison to this newer design.

What I'm also curious about is how the Contax line compares to the new ZE/ZF lenses. I wouldn't want to lose any of the character the original lenses have.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1