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

Rollei HFT Planar 50/1.8 vs 50/1.4
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Aug 10, 2019 7:02 am    Post subject: Rollei HFT Planar 50/1.8 vs 50/1.4 Reply with quote

Infinity scene test

A7, ISO 100, normalized WB, tripod + remote

Full res: 50/1.8
Full res: 50/1.4

Surprisingly, the f/1.4 version is a bit wider than the f/1.8. Other than that, it's very subjective. The f/1.8 seems to be a bit sharper but suffers from more aberrations.

I couldn't think of any other suitable test scenario, so any ideas are welcomed.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 10, 2019 10:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you for the test.
The light did change a bit to give 50/1.4 slight advantage in contrast.

Still, I think in "wide open vs wide open" category 50/1.4 is marginally sharper in the center and loses to 50/1.8 by a significant margin closer to the corners.

Is the second shot in 50/1.4 gallery at F1.8 or at F2?


Last edited by aidaho on Sat Aug 10, 2019 10:23 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Aug 10, 2019 10:22 am    Post subject: Re: Rollei HFT Planar 50/1.8 vs 50/1.4 Reply with quote

y wrote:
Surprisingly, the f/1.4 version is a bit wider than the f/1.8. Other than that, it's very subjective. The f/1.8 seems to be a bit sharper but suffers from more aberrations.


Thanks for your comparison. IMHO that scenery is more than good enough.

Interestingly from what I've read up to now the Zeiss Planars are quite similar, i.e. the F1.7 version is said to be a little bit sharper than the F1.4 version. However, I don't have these lenses myself, only the Rollei/Voigtlaender F1.8 ones.

According to a big comparison test report from the early 1980's (German ColorFoto Magazine) both Rollei F1.8 and Zeiss F1.7 are apprx. on the same level and amongst the best fifties from that time. It's really difficult to tell which one of the two is the better one but if my memory serves me right, the Rollei was a tad sharper wide open.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 10, 2019 3:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

aidaho wrote:
Is the second shot in 50/1.4 gallery at F1.8 or at F2?
The 20.jpg was shot at aperture stop f/2.0.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 12, 2019 1:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you for your test! Very interesting.

As aidaho says, the 1.8 looks sharper in ex-center segments of the image. And not only w/o. I look in particular at the tree left to the center. Its individual leaves are more distinct when taken with the Rollei 1.8 at every aperture. While colours look more vibrant taken with the 1.4.

If your curiosity to continue testing is still on, two other scenery might well present the differences:

1) a counter-light shot for detecting chromatic abberations, something like tree branches and leaves taken in down-to-sky perspective or distant metal items at sunset. Rollei 1.8 may give at times quite strong red CAs at wide apertures. The 1.4 might be better corrected (or maybe not).

2) a close focused shot to see the bokeh differences (if visible), something like an item put on windowsill.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 12, 2019 7:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

alex ph wrote:
Rollei 1.8 may give at times quite strong red CAs at wide apertures. The 1.4 might be better corrected (or maybe not)

Iit's likely the opposite. As a general rule of thumb, slower lenses are better corrected.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 12, 2019 7:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

aidaho wrote:
alex ph wrote:
Rollei 1.8 may give at times quite strong red CAs at wide apertures. The 1.4 might be better corrected (or maybe not)

Iit's likely the opposite. As a general rule of thumb, slower lenses are better corrected.

I'll try to test this. My feeling is that both Planars fringe a lot - even at f/4.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 12, 2019 6:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That'll be quite interesting!


PostPosted: Mon Aug 19, 2019 6:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

alex ph wrote:
If your curiosity to continue testing is still on, two other scenery might well present the differences:

1) a counter-light shot for detecting chromatic abberations, something like tree branches and leaves taken in down-to-sky perspective or distant metal items at sunset. Rollei 1.8 may give at times quite strong red CAs at wide apertures. The 1.4 might be better corrected (or maybe not).

2) a close focused shot to see the bokeh differences (if visible), something like an item put on windowsill.

A close focus/bokeh test done - added wide-open and f/2.8 shots to the galleries in the opening post.

Taken again with A7, ISO 100, normalized WB, tripod + remote.

Current weather really doesn't allow for a CA torture test. Will try to do that later.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 21, 2019 11:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

aidaho wrote:
alex ph wrote:
Rollei 1.8 may give at times quite strong red CAs at wide apertures. The 1.4 might be better corrected (or maybe not)

Iit's likely the opposite. As a general rule of thumb, slower lenses are better corrected.


Not necessarily. Most Minolta f1.4 lenses are better than the contemporary (!) f1.7 cousins in the f2 ... f4 range. The f1.4 usually have one additional lens compared to the f1.7 lens. Other f1.4 lenses have a longer focal length which facilitates their computation, such as the early MC 1.4/58mm [in reality even a 60mm lens!] vs early MC 1.7/55mm.

The only well known exception are the C/Y Planars 1.4/50mm and 1.7/50mm: both are 7 lens constructions.

Stephan


PostPosted: Fri Aug 23, 2019 5:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Zeiss Rollei Voigt 50 f1,8 is my best 50 mm WO. The Minolta MDIII f2 is good at f2 but lacks the contrast of the Zeiss.
My japanese f1.4 are good stopped down at f2 , as Thomas wrote.
The best between f1.4 and f2 is my Canon FDn , better than Minolta, Pentax and Nikkor.