Visionar vs. Planar

[alex ph]

This week-end was rich of various Visionars proposed on German ebay. Some are gone in a rather gentle (for today) price range, at 70-90 euros. But I was able to master my GAS saying to myself: well, it's just another double Gauss, very bright and sharp, but one of many.

Could someone please have mercy to show me that my mantra was close to thruth? Those of you who shoot with Visionars also use for certain some great planars: CZJ Pancolar, Rollei Planar, Zeiss Planar, Koncia Hexanon, Yashica ML... Even if they are in 50mm standard range and the most spread Visionar focal lenghts turn around 100mm, could you please shoot the same natural scene with one of your good planars and with your Visionar?

Thank you in adavnce!

[kds315*]

[alex ph]

Thank you, Klaus! This is precisely the kind of argument I'm trying to opt for. But the curiosity is stronger. I'd really wish to see a side-by-side sample shot.

[kds315*]

[alex ph]

I see the point. And what would you say about a 1.6/50 Visionar? A strict comparison with any 1.7/50 planar sounds quite scientific.

With an around-100mm Visionar even if the comparison could not pretend to be scientific it is still very curious to see the picture character. And last but not the least, it may slower the GAS!

[newst]

Oh go ahead and buy the Visionar. Then you can eliminate the GAS, avoid all that messy, unscientific testing, and take pictures that you can post for everyone to ooh and ahhh over.

[alex ph]

Oh, Steve, that does not work like that, already tested. You get a 50mm Visionar and you say: wow, it's interesting! Then you get curious about a "classic" around-100mm Visionar and... you finish to buy it. Then you say: well, but how these great Visionars compare to so well estimated Meoptas? And then Schneider Cineluxes... Is not like that how GAS works?

[newst]

[alex ph]

I admire your deep philosophy! With some kind of lenses, or just with my first 50 lenses, I subscribe to it completely. With some others or just over 50, I feel myself trapped into a serial behaviour that I may like to avoid. I put my desire under cartesian doubt and I ask myself: is not it the same object I already have that I desire again and again? Being in possesion is a strong attraction which has not always much to do with a particular lens.

[kds315*]

Here, have a look, there are plenty projection lenses on my flickr site:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/kds315/albums

Too short Visionar lenses cannot be adapted, so do your homework before shelling out funds

Over and out

[alex ph]

Thank you for saving my 50 euros! Now I realize why I never saw reviews of 50mm Visionars. Where may I do my homework? I tried to find regular datasheets in English on projection lenses, at least something to discover the lens-to-sensor distances, but had almost nothing. Already with a 1.2/50 Bell & Howell I had an unexpected experience while the accessible shooting distance was too short. That is inspite of portrait photos made by some other members. While a 2.8/85 Porst lens works very well up to infinity. So, I will be grateful for a link to a short and clear general introduction into adaptability of projection lenses, if it exists.

Your collection of flower lens tests is splendid. I see how far curiosity and regular practice may bring! And I will surely consult your photoblog further on.

As for my initial question, I did not mean an optically equivalent comparison, I asked for a visual approximation. Hope, an illustration of two different lenses working side-by-side, possibly with a short walk correcting the difference in their focal distances is not a crime agianst reason. A look at your perfectly made close-ups gives another attempt to ask for a shot framing the same flower in a similar way with lenses of two distinct categories. Not to compare their optical geometry but to appreciate qualities of the final pictures.

[dan_]

The 60mm Visionar is the widest I could adapt to the E-mount with infinity focus. Due to the short flange distance it was not an easy adaptation - lathe work was needed. It slightly vignettes on FF at infinity, but a 3/4 crop of the initial 2/3 image removes this inconvenience.

[alex ph]

Thank you, it's a precious bit of knowledge!

[alex ph]

I finally got myself a 1.6/84 Visionar. A splendid rendering, as expected. Satisfying my curiosity, here is a side-by-side shot with Pancolar 2/50 on Exakta mount.



The rendering is quite similar, is not it? Aside the Pancolar going to yellow and the Visionar to blue, the main difference is bokeh. And maybe the Visionar has stronger microcontrast, while the Pancolar has more vivid colour rendition.

[visualopsins]

Looks like a zoom lens.

[alex ph]

Ha-ha, visualopsins, I wonder how it is possible that both Visionar and Pancolar lovers have not come yet to punish your blasphemy!

[visualopsins]

an exceptionally fine zoom lens...

[LucisPictor]