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

Rollei HFT 1.8 50mm Planar vs Carl Zeiss T* 1.8 50mm Planar
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 11:39 am    Post subject: Rollei HFT 1.8 50mm Planar vs Carl Zeiss T* 1.8 50mm Planar Reply with quote

Hi folks

I just picked up the Rollei HFT 1.8 50mm Planar in QBM mount and was wondering, is this the same lens design as the Zeiss lens and the difference is it was built by Rollei in Singapore under licence?

Are the two lenses comparable in performance?


PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 12:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

how could be the same performance, it is like asking if a Yashica and a Zeiss have the same performance
the Rollei that are good are labelled Zeiss and are made by Zeiss


PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 12:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's not very helpful. Yashica lenses have different optical schemes and are made with different glass to Zeiss lenses.

However, this Rollei is a 7 element design, same as Zeiss Planar and was licensed by Zeiss, same factory in Singapore made lenses labelled Zeiss as well as Rollei.

As has been discussed before, HFT coating is in effect same thing as T*, just HFT was developed by Zeiss in collaboration with Rollei to be suitable for mass production methods, which the T* process is not suited for.

So I just want to know how similar/different the Rollei and Zeiss versions of Planar are?


PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 12:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Zeiss have a 1.7 and a 1.4 version, no 1.8
Rollei labeled Zeiss was made in Germany
HFT is not the same as T*
Rollei lenses made by Zeiss have T* and are just labeled HFT for Rollei naming
you know marketing is different than reality, when Rollei was a partner of Zeiss it is normal that Zeiss say it is the same quality
like Sony who make Zeiss lenses that have Minolta formula


PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 12:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm interested in the actual differecnes between the lenses.

Rollei Planar was made in Singapore by Rollei to a design licensed by Zeiss - is the design the same as the Zeiss Planar or is it different, if different, how does it differ? The 1.8 and 1.7 quoted max apertures don't indicate much, manufacturers often bend the truth a little in this regard and Zeiss could have rounded down to get 1.7 while Rollei rounded up to get 1.8, Zeiss could well have chosen to label their piece 1.7 to differentiate it from the Rollei piece in the minds of consumers.

Zeiss themselves have said that T* and HFT are the same in effect, just they differ in the production method, HFT being a development of T* process to enable mass production. In actual use, have people discerned any difference between the two in performance?


PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 1:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have Zeiss QBM planar 50/1,8 no HFT or T* coat which has same look to that Rollei 50/1,8, some people say same with Voigtlander 50/1,8 QBM too.
I think those 3 has same formula.
Here's my 50/1,8 planar which has very ugly look
As for HFT coated Zeiss has different result compared to T*, like Ahamb said, it has more reddish than Zeiss T* (C/Y & Z series. I tested). This goes for both Zeiss 50/1,4 planar


Last edited by IAZA on Wed Nov 02, 2011 1:04 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 1:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
In actual use, have people discerned any difference between the two in performance?

Zeiss say that HFT and T* have the same performance in 99% of the situations
but I like to make pics that are in the 1% Wink


PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 1:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for the link to your samples IAZA, they make the Rollei look like a great lens, despite being in ugly condition.

If the Rollei and Zeiss are virtually the same, unless money is no issue, the Rollei has to be the better buy, cost me 30ukp in superb condition, to buy the Zeiss version would cost 3x that or more. 3x for 1% more performance? Silly decision in today's world imho. There are so many other factors that contribute to a great shot that the 1% difference in performance is one of the very last considerations to take into account.

Be interesting to compare the Rollei 1.8/50 to my Hexanon 1.7/50 which I plan to do soon.

I really think that people obsess about the name Zeiss and the T* red letters, I prefer to be objective and consider every lens on it's merits regardless of who made it. One example that springs to mind is the Flektogon 2.4/35, a friend has one and lent it to me for a weekend, I wasn't impresssed, my Panagor 2/35 is just as good, probably slightly better and my Canon FL 2.5/35 is definitely the equal of the Flek. I sold my Zeiss red MC 3.5/135 Sonnar to the same friend for 75ukp, good lens but my Hexanon 3.5/135 and 3.2/135 are just as sharp and my Pentacon 2.8/135 has better bokeh and colours, two cases where the Zeiss name didn't mean they were special lenses, very good, but I found better for a fraction of the price. Another example is my Petri 1.8/55, every bit as good as a Pancolar 1.8/50 but cost me 99p...


PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 1:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

All Rollei, Zeiss Planars 1.8/50 or Voigtlander Color-Ultron 1.8/50 share same optical scheme, which is different to CY Planar 1.7/50. But it's Zeiss developed lens licensed to Rollei. My best fast 50 wide-open.
Here is few photos with my Ultron copy.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 1:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BRunner wrote:
All Rollei, Zeiss Planars 1.8/50 or Voigtlander Color-Ultron 1.8/50 share same optical scheme, which is different to CY Planar 1.7/50. But it's Zeiss developed lens licensed to Rollei. My best fast 50 wide-open.
Here is few photos with my Ultron copy.


Thankyou, very nice samples, this lens looks very sharp indeed wide-open.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 1:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The planars made in Germany had some versions.

1- For the Contarex, 6/4, F/2.

2- For the Icarex under Ultron name. 7/6 and F/1,8

3- In Y/C 7/6 F/1,7

4. For Voigtlander QBM under Color Ultron name. 7/6 and F/1,8

5- For Rolleiflex QBM 7/6 F/1,8

6- The first planar for the Rolleiflex SL35, labeled Carl Zeiss and made in germany was a F/1,8 one.

The last had the difference that was similar in schame than the Icarex Ultron (three rear elements not four like the C/Y one)

And the list can continued.

Rino.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 1:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ian wrote:
I shoot all my landscapes fully stopped down with both my NEX-3 and EOS 10D, should I be instead using f8 or f11 to avoid diffraction?

this is what you wrote in the What are the best lenses when shooting fully stopped down? thread
it is normal that you will never see the difference between a good lens and a coke bottom Very Happy


PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 1:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I know what your thought Ian, that's why I sold my Zeiss planar HFT 50/1,4 and keep pentax 50/1,4 Wink slight different. and I need cash that time

ANd Rino... There's Carl Zeiss Ultron 50/1,8 M42 which is very Rare and sky rocket price. is it same scheme too?


PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 1:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

IAZA wrote:
ANd Rino... There's Carl Zeiss Ultron 50/1,8 M42 which is very Rare and sky rocket price. is it same scheme too?

Nope, it's slightly different:

Carl Zeiss Ultron 1.8/50 : available for Zeiss-Icon/ Voigtlander Icarex (BM and TM) and SL-706 (1968-1972) developed by Dr. Albrecht Tronnier




Color-Ultron 1.8/50 - 1970-1995 (sold as Rollei Planar for QBM as well) developed by Erhard Glatzel and Erwin Konschack



From http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Bessa_RF_histo.html


PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 2:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

poilu wrote:

like Sony who make Zeiss lenses that have Minolta formula


Umm, what? Most of the ZA lenses are schemes that have never existed with Minolta, and the ones with Minolta equivalents (e.g. 85mm f/1.4) have different optical formulas

Anyhow, from Zeiss.com:

Quote:
ZEISS lenses for Sony digital cameras are developed by lens designers at the Carl Zeiss plant in Oberkochen, Germany. This includes all required quality assurance measures (test methods, test criteria, test devices, test procedures, lens performance target values, etc.) The lenses are then made in a lens production facility jointly chosen by Sony and Carl Zeiss.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 2:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Arkku wrote:
poilu wrote:

like Sony who make Zeiss lenses that have Minolta formula


Umm, what? Most of the ZA lenses are schemes that have never existed with Minolta, and the ones with Minolta equivalents (e.g. 85mm f/1.4) have different optical formulas

Anyhow, from Zeiss.com:

Quote:
ZEISS lenses for Sony digital cameras are developed by lens designers at the Carl Zeiss plant in Oberkochen, Germany. This includes all required quality assurance measures (test methods, test criteria, test devices, test procedures, lens performance target values, etc.) The lenses are then made in a lens production facility jointly chosen by Sony and Carl Zeiss.

you must be right, I read that theory in Fred Miranda forum and it sounded logical as Minolta team have been rescued by Sony


PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 2:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://forum.mflenses.com/rollei-planar-1-8-50-if-you-have-it-keep-it-t16728,highlight,%2Brollei.html


PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 4:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

poilu wrote:
Ian wrote:
I shoot all my landscapes fully stopped down with both my NEX-3 and EOS 10D, should I be instead using f8 or f11 to avoid diffraction?

this is what you wrote in the What are the best lenses when shooting fully stopped down? thread
it is normal that you will never see the difference between a good lens and a coke bottom Very Happy


I'm sorry, but was it necessary to insult me? You took that quote completely out of context, I was talking about landscape photography, I assure you I don't always used lenses fully stopepd down. Besides, there is a lot of difference between lenses even when stopped down fully, colours, contrast, field flatness etc etc.


Last edited by iangreenhalgh1 on Sat Sep 27, 2014 4:47 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 4:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sorry if you felt insulted Ian Embarassed


PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 4:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No problem, let's all be friends!


PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 9:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

poilu wrote:

you must be right, I read that theory in Fred Miranda forum and it sounded logical as Minolta team have been rescued by Sony


Sony does sell re-branded Minolta designs themselves (in addition to new ones), but the ZA lenses are something different. (Not that Minolta would be such a bad thing; comparisons between the Minolta 85mm f/1.4 "G" and ZA 85mm f/1.4 Planar don't always go unanimously in the Planar's favour.)


PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 11:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Much Ado About Nothing
Thank you for having made me seek the exact title of this play in english
http://www.dantestella.com/zeiss/coatings.html


PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:

Rollei Planar was made in Singapore by Rollei to a design licensed by Zeiss - is the design the same as the Zeiss Planar or is it different, if different, how does it differ? The 1.8 and 1.7 quoted max apertures don't indicate much, manufacturers often bend the truth a little in this regard and Zeiss could have rounded down to get 1.7 while Rollei rounded up to get 1.8, Zeiss could well have chosen to label their piece 1.7 to differentiate it from the Rollei piece in the minds of consumers.


Planar 1.8/50 and Planar 1.7/50 are not the same lens, as it is possible to verify by comparing the optical schemes of the 1.8/50 as published by Marco Cavina:
http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/Zeiss_Contarex_prototypes/00_pag.htm
and of the 1.7/50 as available in PDF form at Zeiss under photography/service/downloads (or something like that)
both are 7/6 lenses, but the elements are differently distributed.
The Planar 1.8/50 is the older, it was designed by Erhard Glatzel as a prototype for Rolleiflex SL system and immediately adopted for the Contarex also (it was probably the last lens to enter the Contarex catalogue).
The Planar 1.7/50 is a newer design for the Contax-Yashica line, I ignore it's whereabouts.
Also (and I refer to other comments here) do not confuse Glatzel's 1.8/50 Planar with the 1.8/50 Ultron as developed by Albrecht Tronnier under Voigtlaender, then adopted by Zeiss for the Icarex line and finally transmigrated also over the Rollei SL line.

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Zeiss themselves have said that T* and HFT are the same in effect, just they differ in the production method, HFT being a development of T* process to enable mass production. In actual use, have people discerned any difference between the two in performance?


I can compare my Rollei Planar 1.4/85 with the Contax version, and the Rollei HFT version flares a bit more than the Contax. This is visible at naked eye.
Still, HFT is an excellent coating system, second only to T* and above the others, I would say.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Orio, that's useful info.

Soon I plan to do a shootout between all my 50-ish lenses, then decide which to keep, I have so many that I don't think I need them all!

Be interesting to see which ones perform the best, I have a feeling the results will not be as one would predict.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 12:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My Rollei Planar arrived this morning and it's like new, looks like it's never been used. I think I got a bargain for my 31ukp.

Just waiting for my QBM-EOS adapter to arrive now so I can try it out.