Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Cactus peeping with Rollei Planar 1.8/50
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have a West German Rollei Planar 50 / 1.8 which came on a Singapore made Rolleiflex SL35, and a Japanese Carl Zeiss Planar T* 50 / 1.7 with CY mount. And they are wonderful lenses, although I haven't yet tried them properly on the A7II.

Looking at the excellent pictures in this thread so far, I shall have to get them tested. Wink


PostPosted: Fri Aug 09, 2019 1:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lloydy wrote:
I have a West German Rollei Planar 50 / 1.8 which came on a Singapore made Rolleiflex SL35, and a Japanese Carl Zeiss Planar T* 50 / 1.7 with CY mount. And they are wonderful lenses, although I haven't yet tried them properly on the A7II.

Looking at the excellent pictures in this thread so far, I shall have to get them tested. Wink


Which version of the 1,7 do you have?
The first (same than the rollei 1,Cool or the second with 4 rear elements (N° > 8.000.000)?


PostPosted: Fri Aug 09, 2019 5:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lloydy wrote:
I have a West German Rollei Planar 50 / 1.8 which came on a Singapore made Rolleiflex SL35, and a Japanese Carl Zeiss Planar T* 50 / 1.7 with CY mount. And they are wonderful lenses, although I haven't yet tried them properly on the A7II.

Looking at the excellent pictures in this thread so far, I shall have to get them tested. Wink


papasito wrote:
Which version of the 1,7 do you have?
The first (same than the rollei 1,8 ) or the second with 4 rear elements (N° > 8.000.000)?


Papasito, what is the source of your statement?

IMHO there is the Rollei Planar 50/1.8 which is Tronnier's Ultron with the enhanced 4 elements front group slightly modified by Zeiss and there is the Contax/Yashica Planar 50/1.7 which is also based on Tronnier's Ultron but with the enhanced 4 elements rear group.
The optical design of the 50/1.7 never changed by serial number; i.e. there is no early F1.7 version which is identical to the Rollei (Voigtlaender) F1.8 lens. Just the lens housing changed slightly over the production period, maybe the coatings as well.
Not even the Zeiss archieves know anything about that: https://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/camera-lenses/files/service/download-center/datasheets/historical-lenses/contax-yashica/datasheet-zeiss-planar-1750-en.pdf

Would be nice if you could enlighten us where your information is coming from. Thank you.


PostPosted: Fri Aug 09, 2019 11:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

papasito wrote:
Lloydy wrote:
I have a West German Rollei Planar 50 / 1.8 which came on a Singapore made Rolleiflex SL35, and a Japanese Carl Zeiss Planar T* 50 / 1.7 with CY mount. And they are wonderful lenses, although I haven't yet tried them properly on the A7II.

Looking at the excellent pictures in this thread so far, I shall have to get them tested. Wink


Which version of the 1,7 do you have?
The first (same than the rollei 1,Cool or the second with 4 rear elements (N° > 8.000.000)?


I think it is the later version, according to this -
"There are two versions of the Zeiss Planar 1.7/50 T* The later AE version introduced in the mid 70’s  will not allow program and shutter-priority with film cameras. It was made in Japan from the beginning while other C/Y lenses were manufactured in Germany  before production was moved to in Japan (als called AEJ). Unlike with the 1.4 version ninja-star-bokeh is not an issue with the 1.7/50.
The younger MM version was sold from 1984 to 2005. It can be identified by the green color of the f/16 marking. Some people report improved coatings with the MM version but I have so far not seen a test to support that."




A quick shot today.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 10, 2019 7:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

alex ph wrote:
And yes, Olivier and Y, please share your comparisons if you make them.

My humble Rollei 50s comparison is available.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 12, 2019 1:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have a complementary question to this 50mm Rollei talk. In your experience, what might be a Rollei (or CZ Planar) equivalent in the realm of 35mm focal lengh, in terms of sharpness, micro-contrast and 3D pop-up? If possible, something on the budget side, matching the average price tag of Rollei 1.8/50 which turns around 30-50 euros or $.

My suggestion, it might be Yashica ML 2.8/35. The copy I have gives sometimes very good results aesthetically compatible with Rollei.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 12, 2019 3:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

alex ph wrote:
I have a complementary question to this 50mm Rollei talk. In your experience, what might be a Rollei (or CZ Planar) equivalent in the realm of 35mm focal lengh, in terms of sharpness, micro-contrast and 3D pop-up? If possible, something on the budget side, matching the average price tag of Rollei 1.8/50 which turns around 30-50 euros or $.

My suggestion, it might be Yashica ML 2.8/35. The copy I have gives sometimes very good results aesthetically compatible with Rollei.


Having tested and compared a lot of 35mm lenses I would recommend the Minolta MD 35mm/F2.8 lens in a later 5/5 version with 49mm filter thread. It's far better than the Rollei/Voigtlaender 35mm/F2.8 one. My Yashica lens is even worse, but it's an earlier version and not the ML one.

If your budget allows, the Minolta MD 35mm/F1.8 would be even better. A stunning lens apprx. on the same level of the Voigtländer Ultron 35mm/F1.7 RF lens.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 12, 2019 6:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you, Thomas, I'll keep my eye on Minolta. The slower one. How does it compare to its predecessors, like W.Rokkor-HG? Does the earlier lens has close IQ?


PostPosted: Mon Aug 12, 2019 9:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

alex ph wrote:
Thank you, Thomas, I'll keep my eye on Minolta. The slower one. How does it compare to its predecessors, like W.Rokkor-HG? Does the earlier lens has close IQ?


Sorry Alex, I don't know how the older 7/6 versions compare as I never had one myself. Additionally they are known for mechanical problems according Artaphot/Stephan. The newer 5/5 versions are definitely the better deals and optically excellent. I think it shouldn't be too difficult to find a copy at a reasonable price.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thomas, thank you for the hint. I had a look at 35mm Minolta comparisons on Stephan's site. As far as I could conclude, the main difference (in terms of sharpness) among different versions is corner performance. While central part of the image is identical in all the cases. The same tables gave me another idea, to test more a 3.5/35-70 Minolta zoom on its wide end. It's true that the IQ is rather striking and matches very well the Rollei style.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 3:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

alex ph wrote:
Thomas, thank you for the hint. I had a look at 35mm Minolta comparisons on Stephan's site. As far as I could conclude, the main difference (in terms of sharpness) among different versions is corner performance. While central part of the image is identical in all the cases. The same tables gave me another idea, to test more a 3.5/35-70 Minolta zoom on its wide end. It's true that the IQ is rather striking and matches very well the Rollei style.


Leitz had good reasons to buy this zoom from Minolta instead of building one theirselves. It's therefore identical to the Leica Vario-Elmar-R. Certainly one of the best "normal-zooms" of that time. If you don't need a faster aperture it's indeed a good option.