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

Planar or Summicron?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Sep 11, 2014 9:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
mo wrote:
Don't confuse the two Lloydy,you'll break your teeth. Very Happy

Using a lens is about the enjoyment it gives,the wonder of how it will treat the image,the challenge of capturing the image,mastering the camera and the lens to acheive the look you want....by intention not mistake... Very Happy It takes time and effort, trial and error,I would try both lenses,if you have the funds for both go for it.


+1 on the bold type
OH


PostPosted: Thu Sep 11, 2014 11:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
calvin83 wrote:
My friend go for a Zeiss Planar HFT 50/1.4 .


+1

I have both.. Rollei and Contax version. I can't tell you why, but I love the HFT much more. I guess Calvin is right about the more natural color (less saturated than Contax) and that's the reason.. I never thought about.


iangreenhalgh1 wrote:

Konica Hexanon 1.7/50 first version


as much as I like Hexanons, but this 1.7/50 was one of the most boring lens to me. I really tried my best to like this Hexanon and had at least 8 copies (different versions).. I never liked it.

Two cheap lenses which surprised and impressed me are Ricoh Auto Rikenon 1.4/55 and Cosinon 1.7/50.. my Planar may be the technical better lens, but those both lenses are sharp enough and can make a lot fun if used right.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 11, 2014 11:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oldhand wrote:
mo wrote:
Don't confuse the two Lloydy,you'll break your teeth. Very Happy

Using a lens is about the enjoyment it gives,the wonder of how it will treat the image,the challenge of capturing the image,mastering the camera and the lens to acheive the look you want....by intention not mistake... Very Happy It takes time and effort, trial and error,I would try both lenses,if you have the funds for both go for it.


+1 on the bold type
OH


Dear Mo,
Can I use your quote as my signature in pentax forums? Smile


PostPosted: Thu Sep 11, 2014 12:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oldhand wrote:
mo wrote:
Don't confuse the two Lloydy,you'll break your teeth. Very Happy

Using a lens is about the enjoyment it gives,the wonder of how it will treat the image,the challenge of capturing the image,mastering the camera and the lens to acheive the look you want....by intention not mistake... Very Happy It takes time and effort, trial and error,I would try both lenses,if you have the funds for both go for it.


+1 on the bold type
OH


+1 totally agree


PostPosted: Thu Sep 11, 2014 2:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
dan_ wrote:
Few years ago, when I faced the same choice, I've chosen the first version of the Summicron R. The way it renders the image was more on my taste than the other options. I liked it more then the newer (and sharper) versions of the Summicron R, too. As you have already had one, you know what I mean. I don't have the Planar but the Summicron does it's job so nicely well most of the time that I don't feel like needing another 50mm. I have (and play with) a lot of other 50 mm lenses but when I only need to take one with me it always is the Cron.
Probably the Planar owners feel the same about their lens.
Both lenses are very nice, none will disappoint you, chose the one that renders nicer to your eyes.

If I was in your situation, with a stolen Cron, I'd get the Planar for a change and sell it latter if I feel that the Cron rendering was better.


maybe this is the better suggestion so far...

let see what I can find


PostPosted: Fri Sep 12, 2014 1:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sure Hoan,you can use the smiley as well.. Laughing Thanks for the compliment. Embarassed


PostPosted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 9:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Finally I've decided to stay with my Minolta 50.17, is pretty sharp (at least sharper than the contax zeiss 50/1.7 at wide apertures) and can take this pic:





and I've also ordered the Zenitar M2S, it was so cheap...

both was suggested by Ian Very Happy


PostPosted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 9:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Rick1779 wrote:
Finally I've decided to stay with my Minolta 50.17, is pretty sharp (at least sharper than the contax zeiss 50/1.7 at wide apertures) and can take this pic:





and I've also ordered the Zenitar M2S, it was so cheap...

both was suggested by Ian Very Happy

The difference of many modern double Gauss 50s are small. If you say these two photos are taken with a planar, most people might not discover they are takn with a rokkor. Wink


PostPosted: Wed Jun 10, 2015 1:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hi Guys, you can answer way this lenses is naked?




PostPosted: Wed Jun 10, 2015 2:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Fun thread !

I've just acquired a West Germany Carl Zeiss Planar 1.8/50 HFT and 1.4/50 HFT...
I've yet to try them....

@ Klaus
member should know you became wise only after acquiring a zillion lenses Wink


PostPosted: Wed Jun 10, 2015 3:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I recently acquired the 1.8/50 and 1.4/50 HFT Planars too. I'm looking forward to comparing them to my Jena MC Pancolars 1.8/50 and 1.4/50


PostPosted: Wed Jun 10, 2015 3:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Most interesting as the Pancolar 1.4 is uncommon...
Looking forward to see it !


Here are good words for the Planar HFT 1.4/50
http://captjack.exaktaphile.com/rollei/Rolleilenses.htm


PostPosted: Wed Jun 10, 2015 4:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Jena lenses are late Prakticar bayonet models, they aren't actually labelled Pancolars, but that is what they are. The 1.8 is actually much less common than the 1.4. I'll include the Pentacon 1.8/50 Prakticar in the test too.


PostPosted: Wed Jun 10, 2015 8:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I recently acquired the 1.8/50 and 1.4/50 HFT Planars too. I'm looking forward to comparing them to my Jena MC Pancolars 1.8/50 and 1.4/50

I will be careful. Your opinion will be interesting. In my tests, the HFT 50/1.4 was indistinguishable in all hits to Canon FD 50 /1.4. The Zeiss 50/1.8 against Minolta MC 55/1.7 PF offered differences between them, but neither was a clear winner. None beat to Hexanon AR 50/1.7 in sharpness (or perceived sharpness) at f2.8.

Happy shots!


PostPosted: Wed Jun 10, 2015 9:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
calvin83 wrote:

The difference of many modern double Gauss 50s are small. If you say these two photos are taken with a planar, most people might not discover they are takn with a rokkor. Wink


I would even go further. Most people would not be able to find out the real lens behind a picture if not known in advance. In other words: If you state that a picture has been captured by a 2.000 $ lens most people would say that this is a wonderful lens, even if in reality it was only a 20 $ lens. That's psychology. Wink


PostPosted: Wed Jun 10, 2015 2:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:

I would even go further. Most people would not be able to find out the real lens behind a picture if not known in advance. In other words: If you state that a picture has been captured by a 2.000 $ lens most people would say that this is a wonderful lens, even if in reality it was only a 20 $ lens. That's psychology. Wink


this is also how wine tasting goes Smile https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/quilted-science/201002/does-price-tag-have-taste


PostPosted: Wed Jun 10, 2015 2:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
enzodm wrote:
tb_a wrote:

I would even go further. Most people would not be able to find out the real lens behind a picture if not known in advance. In other words: If you state that a picture has been captured by a 2.000 $ lens most people would say that this is a wonderful lens, even if in reality it was only a 20 $ lens. That's psychology. Wink


this is also how wine tasting goes Smile https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/quilted-science/201002/does-price-tag-have-taste


I know that very well, as I love very good and not necessarily expensive wines. Especially in your country you get very good ones for little money! Wink
Same is true for almost everything and it's also an old marketing strategy or let's better say trick.
Like the China produced original designer polo shirts all coming out of one production lane and at the end just different brand tags are affixed which generate different prices for the identical product. I am not talking about the fakes!
Same story with some German produced cars out of the same famous holding belonging to an Austrian family. Just a different brand on the almost same car result in a far higher price. Wink
Or the HIFI cable trick in the audio appliances industry... and so forth....


PostPosted: Wed Jun 10, 2015 3:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
memetph wrote:
About Rollei ,many people say that the Rollei Planar HfT 50 1.8 also sold under Voigtländer Ultron is the best Planar of those times , better than the C/Y. Difficult to judge such statements. This lens is not difficult to find.

From my very limited perspective I would agree with that. I had two 1.8/50 mm Planars, both in in Rollei QBM mount. One with Carl Zeiss label and one with Rollei. Both were pretty much on par and very nice when used wide open. I also have a 1.7/50 Planar in C/Y. On an APS-C mirrorless I liked the 1.8/50 mms more in terms of wide open sharpeness and contrast.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2