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

Pancolars vs Rollei Planar (1.8/50)
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Mar 20, 2019 8:13 pm    Post subject: Pancolars vs Rollei Planar (1.8/50) Reply with quote
Peeking at your neighbour's windows in the evening is a good way to check sharpness, colour rendition and CA of your lenses.

In fact, my gaze is not that indiscreet, unfortunately, as the windows are distant and belonging to an office building. But that does not change the nature of the lenses check.



It is a quick and rather speaking (about details) comparison of three great lenses, two CZJ Pancolars of different age and a Rollei Planar. All three shots are taken on Sony A7 at f2.8, with auto WB settings of out-of camera jpg. I tried also to shoot the scene w/o but it is not that obvious to focus well, the results seem less homogenious. An f2.8 is a better option in such light (or better to say dark) conditions. I took 100% crops without any post-processing. I decided to not readjust the brightness, thinking the way the camera reads each lens is part of its character.



Please don't forget to click on the picture to see the difference at 100% scale.

Here you may notice what is already well known about colour rendition of earlier vs later Pancolar: zebra is warmer. What is less evident is a load of purple CA my Rollei Planar gives even at f2.8. It is especially well seen when you look at the TV-antenna, the bar on the right top of the building and certainly the light edges. Hm, this is what I did not notice that much before.

As for sharpness and microcontrast, that is another story. Rollei Planar clearly gives the most detailed picture. Zebra Pancolar is not only warmer but also has a less pronounced microcontrast and larger halos on the light edges.

But what is astonishingly pleasing is the balance between the non-existent CAs, very good sharpness and a very convincing microcontrast of the late Pancolar. It gives the picture a modern and in the same time very natural look. I now understand that Pancolar with PB Praktica mount are not only rarer but also better corrected. That does not forgive their sensibly higher prices, as compared to their M42 brothers. But it confirms improvements that the lens knew in its evolution.

I am very glad to have all the three lenses. Learning how to use them best and which one to use in different light situations.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 20, 2019 11:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Like 1

Surprising the chromatc aberration in the rollei. The contrast issue would be expected as coatings have improved dramatically since the zebra era.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2019 6:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Rollei Planar is known for having nasty CA. I got two copies which show some traces even at f/4. The C/Y Planar got also higher CA than Pancolar.

It seems the optical design was balanced towards sharpness at expense of aberrations.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2019 6:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
optically there are two diffrent Pancolars Zebra .


PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2019 11:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Very good job. thanks.


First. The zebra is 6/4 or 6/5 scheme? Both were made in zebra line.

Second: It should be nice to see the rendering of the MC Pancolar in M 42 version in the test.

Third: Good to compare:

Zebra 6/4, Zebra 6/5, Pancolar red MC (radiactive) in M42, White MC (no radiactive) in M42 and the Prakticar version.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2019 12:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
papasito wrote:
Zebra 6/4, Zebra 6/5, Pancolar red MC (radiactive) in M42, White MC (no radiactive) in M42 and the Prakticar version.

AFAIK, there is no MC version using thoriated glass.

* Flexon/Pancolar 50/2 - the original 6/4 version
* Pancolar "Zebra" 50/1.8 - early 6/4 Zebra; 8-bladed aperture; thoriated glass; s/n <= 8552600
* Pancolar "Zebra" 50/1.8 - late Zebra recalculated 6/5; 6-bladed aperture; not thoriated anymore
* Pancolar MC 50/1.8 - the same 6/5 except coatings
* CZJ Prakticar 50/1.8 - still the same 6/5 with minor coating improvements


PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2019 1:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
y wrote:
papasito wrote:
Zebra 6/4, Zebra 6/5, Pancolar red MC (radiactive) in M42, White MC (no radiactive) in M42 and the Prakticar version.

AFAIK, there is no MC version using thoriated glass.

* Flexon/Pancolar 50/2 - the original 6/4 version
* Pancolar "Zebra" 50/1.8 - early 6/4 Zebra; 8-bladed aperture; thoriated glass; s/n <= 8552600
* Pancolar "Zebra" 50/1.8 - late Zebra recalculated 6/5; 6-bladed aperture; not thoriated anymore
* Pancolar MC 50/1.8 - the same 6/5 except coatings
* CZJ Prakticar 50/1.8 - still the same 6/5 with minor coating improvements


Yes, it exists. I had it and have puted under UV light with my Super Takumar 7 elements.

The colour of the glass affected was dark green/brown.

It was the MC red version.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2019 3:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you for your appreciation and comments, guys!

My zebra Pancolar must be a newer 6/5 one, it has serial number 8726... and six aperture blades. So the difference with the Prakticar MC version may consist in coating only?

Papasito, that sounds a perfect plan, to compare several Pancolars in a raw. Though I will need considerably more funds and time to collect the whole list you suggest!

Still there were some more Pancolars tests of the kind made by the forum members that are revealing and look consistent with my short overview here, for example this one.

As for the radioactive Pancolars, I also saw many times the info relayed by Y, about the s/n <= 8552600 as a clear indication of glass with thorium. The red MC normally looks more modern, beyond the era when radioactive glass was used. It could be really useful to precise and check the sources of information on that concern.

I have a question based on those assumptions. As for 2/50 Pancolars, are they also considered radioactive if the s/n is <= 8552600?


PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
alex ph wrote:
Thank you for your appreciation and comments, guys!

My zebra Pancolar must be a newer 6/5 one, it has serial number 8726... and six aperture blades. So the difference with the Prakticar MC version may consist in coating only?

Papasito, that sounds a perfect plan, to compare several Pancolars in a raw. Though I will need considerably more funds and time to collect the whole list you suggest!

Still there were some more Pancolars tests of the kind made by the forum members that are revealing and look consistent with my short overview here, for example this one.

As for the radioactive Pancolars, I also saw many times the info relayed by Y, about the s/n <= 8552600 as a clear indication of glass with thorium. The red MC normally looks more modern, beyond the era when radioactive glass was used. It could be really useful to precise and check the sources of information on that concern.

I have a question based on those assumptions. As for 2/50 Pancolars, are they also considered radioactive if the s/n is <= 8552600?


The 50/2 is relatively slow so it didn't need a "special" type of glass. When increasing its speed to f/1.8 they needed better glass in early 60's. The common case was using "thoriated" glass for this. Later it was possible to get rid of this "special" glass via a recalculation using newer conventional glass.

"Modernity" of Pancolar version doesn't matter much. VEB Pentacon released the thoriated Prakticar 50/1.4 in 1979.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 3:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
alex ph wrote:
Thank you for your appreciation and comments, guys!

My zebra Pancolar must be a newer 6/5 one, it has serial number 8726... and six aperture blades. So the difference with the Prakticar MC version may consist in coating only?

Papasito, that sounds a perfect plan, to compare several Pancolars in a raw. Though I will need considerably more funds and time to collect the whole list you suggest!

Still there were some more Pancolars tests of the kind made by the forum members that are revealing and look consistent with my short overview here, for example this one.

As for the radioactive Pancolars, I also saw many times the info relayed by Y, about the s/n <= 8552600 as a clear indication of glass with thorium. The red MC normally looks more modern, beyond the era when radioactive glass was used. It could be really useful to precise and check the sources of information on that concern.

I have a question based on those assumptions. As for 2/50 Pancolars, are they also considered radioactive if the s/n is <= 8552600?


There is also the yellow tinging that can be found in thorium glass lenses as well; I've got two early Pancolar 50/1.8s with thorium glass and they are distinctly yellow. Another one I have about a few 100,000 serial numbers above the thorium ones is of a different glass and there are also physcial differences in the construction: IIRC the thorium ones are actually longer - I'll compare later, but I definitely remember a difference in size between the two models even though they are both technically "zebra"...


PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 3:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
So thorium glass on left, later model 9xxx series on right





Unfortunately my later one needs a CLA as the aperture is stuck open, but optically it looks unused...

I do have a thorium element copy going spare if anyone's interested - downside of it is that it's got a tiny (and I d mean tiny) bit of fungus on the very edge of the front element, but that doesn't interfere with anything. The copy I use is the one above, which is optically excellent but the aperture is a bit on the slow side.. (plus it has the mythical "1" stamp on it as well. Very Happy )


PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gott23 wrote:
So thorium glass on left, later model 9xxx series on right

Nice picture. It clearly shows the different optical design used - check the IR mark on the distance scale.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
y wrote:
Gott23 wrote:
So thorium glass on left, later model 9xxx series on right

Nice picture. It clearly shows the different optical design used - check the IR mark on the distance scale.


and also given that the thorium one has a filter on it, so it's a considerable difference.. I didn';t really notice it since the later one is out of action and been wrapped up in storage pretty much since it arrived, it was only when casing them and had both in my hands I thought something was different..


PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gott23 wrote:
So thorium glass on left, later model 9xxx series on right







That's interesting Gott. Thanks for sharing. I knew the 1.4's glass contained Thorium, and thus is not much larger than the 1.8. But didn't know there was a 1.8 that contained it too. God, soon we can talk about which lenses did not receive Thorium from the 1950s - '70s!


PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gott23 wrote:
So thorium glass on left, later model 9xxx series on right







That's interesting Gott. Thanks for sharing. I knew the 1.4's glass contained Thorium, and thus is not much larger than the 1.8. But didn't know there was a 1.8 that contained it too. God, soon we can talk about which lenses did not receive Thorium from the 1950s - '70s!


PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gott23 wrote:
So thorium glass on left, later model 9xxx series on right







That's interesting Gott. Thanks for sharing. I knew the 1.4's glass contained Thorium, and thus is not much larger than the 1.8. But didn't know there was a 1.8 that contained it too. God, soon we can talk about which lenses did not receive Thorium from the 1950s - '70s!


PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Very interesting fellows, thanks for your contributions and illustrations!

So, you presume even MC recalculated version may be radioactive? Really curious to see a comparison of a thoriated and a non-thoriated MC Pancolars. Papasito, would you offer us such an opportunity?


PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 5:53 pm    Post subject: Re: Pancolars vs Rollei Planar (1.8/50) Reply with quote
alex ph wrote:

.......Here you may notice what is already well known about colour rendition of earlier vs later Pancolar: zebra is warmer. What is less evident is a load of purple CA my Rollei Planar gives even at f2.8. It is especially well seen when you look at the TV-antenna, the bar on the right top of the building and certainly the light edges. Hm, this is what I did not notice that much before.

As for sharpness and microcontrast, that is another story. Rollei Planar clearly gives the most detailed picture. Zebra Pancolar is not only warmer but also has a less pronounced microcontrast and larger halos on the light edges.

But what is astonishingly pleasing is the balance between the non-existent CAs, very good sharpness and a very convincing microcontrast of the late Pancolar. It gives the picture a modern and in the same time very natural look....


Personally, I like the slightly warmer interior lighting shown by the Rollei though the CA is not nice. Could it be that the exposure is held back slightly on the Rollei, thus rendering the interior lighting warmer than the Prakticar? I use an M42 50/1.8 MC Pancolar with red serial number. It has very accurate colour rendering, rather like the Prakticar shown here. Maybe, marginally warmer.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1