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: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:10 am    Post subject: Cactus peeping with Rollei Planar 1.8/50 Reply with quote

Except of large flare on Sony mirrorless, this lens is just an instrument of pure joy, close to perfection.





Taken with Nex, the lens is the older all-metal version Made in Singapore.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I quite agree.
One of the great lenses for me.
I have heard that it is even better than the f1.4 version of this lens, but I don't have that lens so am not certain for myself.
Tom


PostPosted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I neither have a 1.4 version. That sounds the same as for Re.Topcors where 1.8 is appreciated higher than 1.4.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 12:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

alex ph wrote:
I neither have a 1.4 version. That sounds the same as for Re.Topcors where 1.8 is appreciated higher than 1.4.

Yes, very much so - in spite of the price difference.
Interestingly you might just pick up a Voigtlander 58mm f1.4 Nokton cheaper than an RE Auto Topcor 5.8cm f1.4.
It is from reports a copy of the lens design.
It certainly is a wonderful lens.

But back to the Rollei - I even read of the inferiority of the Singapore version compared to the German version.
Mine is Singapore made and is quite wonderful like yours.
Check out the detail in this wide open shot plus crop.
Tom

#1


#2


PostPosted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 12:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oldhand wrote:
I quite agree.
One of the great lenses for me.
I have heard that it is even better than the f1.4 version of this lens, but I don't have that lens so am not certain for myself.
Tom


Hi. High quality Lens

But the hexanon 50/1,8 is sharper wide Open and the mamiya SX 1,8/55 is sharper at F4-5,6


PostPosted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 12:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

papasito wrote:
Oldhand wrote:
I quite agree.
One of the great lenses for me.
I have heard that it is even better than the f1.4 version of this lens, but I don't have that lens so am not certain for myself.
Tom


Hi. High quality Lens

But the hexanon 50/1,8 is sharper wide Open and the mamiya SX 1,8/55 is sharper at F4-5,6


I have not found that, but it could be so with your lenses.
It is hard to imagine more sharpness than I already have.
You are right of course - it is a great lens
Tom


PostPosted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 12:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very well speaking illustration of the lens' capacity, Tom. As always.

I have both, Made in Germany and Made in Singapore, all-metal versions. They perform equally well, I did not find any difference in character, sharpness or colour rendition.

Papasito, the copy of Hexanon 1.8/50 I have has a weaker micro-contrast than Rollei 1.8/50. Subjectively that gives less volume and pop-up. But maybe you have a more consecutive sharpness measurement.

I've just checked "sold" prices for Nokton that I tried once and since have a secret wish to get it one day. It still turns around 450-500 euros, as 5 or 7 years ago. Sigh! I'd love it shifting down to the price range of Topcor 1.8 rather than 1.4...


PostPosted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 1:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

alex ph wrote:

I've just checked "sold" prices for Nokton that I tried once and since have a secret wish to get it one day. It still turns around 450-500 euros, as 5 or 7 years ago. Sigh! I'd love it shifting down to the price range of Topcor 1.8 rather than 1.4...


I also looked at the CV lens, and for that exact same reason instead decided to purchase over time a Topcor 58 1.8, RE-2, Topcor 58 1.4 and Topcor GN 50 1.4 all for same price as Nokton.

The 58 1.4 can be had for less than US $200 (160 paid) if you are willing to crack it open and clean out oil on aperture blades and optics.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 1:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Blazer0ne wrote:
if you are willing to crack it open and clean out oil on aperture blades and optics.


I usually avoid actions of the kind with lenses that costed me more than 20 euros. Was it an easy move to get into the lens and - especially - to reassemble it back? Did you post the process images?


PostPosted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 1:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oldhand wrote:
papasito wrote:
Oldhand wrote:
I quite agree.
One of the great lenses for me.
I have heard that it is even better than the f1.4 version of this lens, but I don't have that lens so am not certain for myself.
Tom


Hi. High quality Lens

But the hexanon 50/1,8 is sharper wide Open and the mamiya SX 1,8/55 is sharper at F4-5,6


I have not found that, but it could be so with your lenses.
It is hard to imagine more sharpness than I already have.
You are right of course - it is a great lens
Tom


My copy of the planar should be a bad cleaned or so. IT seems that I'm the only one whose Mamiya SX at F/4-5,6 is sharper than the rollei's planar 1,8.

Tom, do you have both?


PostPosted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

alex ph wrote:
Blazer0ne wrote:
if you are willing to crack it open and clean out oil on aperture blades and optics.


I usually avoid actions of the kind with lenses that costed me more than 20 euros. Was it an easy move to get into the lens and - especially - to reassemble it back? Did you post the process images?


If you find one for a bargain like I did...

Extremely simple inside and easy to work on photos weren't needed.

If the lens is older silver style and has slot screws on the bayonet mount they will need to be primed to loosen gunk.

The 50 1.4* is pain to unstiffen and the focus system leaves much to be desired. It's also a different mechanical system than the rest of the lineup. (*Radioactive)

I started with the 58 1.8, which was the best deal, and after working on it felt confident to move to another lens only because the aperture and focus mechanics were similar across the lineup of RE Auto.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 4:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oldhand wrote:
But back to the Rollei - I even read of the inferiority of the Singapore version compared to the German version.
Mine is Singapore made and is quite wonderful like yours.


That's a fairy tale. There is no difference. In terms of coatings the contrary is the case because some of the early German versions are only MC coated whereas all Singapore versions are HFT coated, irrespective of their markings.
I've got 2 Voigtlaender branded ones from Singapore in M42. Same optics but better versatility due to M42 mount.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 4:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Blazer0ne wrote:


I started with the 58 1.8, which was the best deal, and after working on it felt confident to move to another lens only because the aperture and focus mechanics were similar across the lineup of RE Auto.


Like 1


PostPosted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 9:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, i have to get it out of my shelf and test it.
I'll try it and the Planar 1.7/50.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 9:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oldhand wrote:
alex ph wrote:
I neither have a 1.4 version. That sounds the same as for Re.Topcors where 1.8 is appreciated higher than 1.4.

Yes, very much so - in spite of the price difference.
Interestingly you might just pick up a Voigtlander 58mm f1.4 Nokton cheaper than an RE Auto Topcor 5.8cm f1.4.

Noktons cheaper than Topcors?! "Sold" ebay listings show prices over $300. You can get a Topcor for less than $200 (I got mine for $180 with a nice Super D).

Personally, I like 58/1.4 more than 1.8. It simply feels better.

As for Rollei Planars 50s - I own both in their rubberized HFT version. No direct comparison done yet. However, unlike the 1.4, the 1.8 has no aperture stop between wide-open and f/2.8. That's irritating.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't think it's fare to compare 1.4 and 1.8 50's as they have been designed differently most of them. It's true that such a very sharp lens it's a benefit in some cases ,but not all of them, like portraits ,where I do prefer softish look with less dof of course . Saying this ,I love my topcor 1.4 so do I like more 1.4 planar than the 1.7,probably it's a matter of taste and interest of each one, besides the subject we shoot. I've heard many people comparing 1.8 to 1.4 50's and all agree that most 1.8 are sharper ,but that's normal ,as of there's design.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 1:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Some remarks after reading the former posts .
I have 4 different versions of this Planar ( Ultron) 50 f1.8 and had even more in my hands.
The «German versîon » is not better than the Singapour ones .
The mecanical quality of this lens is poor ( far from a Pentax lens of that time).
It needs very often an internal cleaning (haze) and a focusing relub.
There are variations between samples ( time+quality issues?)
One of my favorite 50mm though a distracting bokeh .


PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 6:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

papasito wrote:
Oldhand wrote:
papasito wrote:
Oldhand wrote:
I quite agree.
One of the great lenses for me.
I have heard that it is even better than the f1.4 version of this lens, but I don't have that lens so am not certain for myself.
Tom


Hi. High quality Lens

But the hexanon 50/1,8 is sharper wide Open and the mamiya SX 1,8/55 is sharper at F4-5,6


I have not found that, but it could be so with your lenses.
It is hard to imagine more sharpness than I already have.
You are right of course - it is a great lens
Tom


My copy of the planar should be a bad cleaned or so. IT seems that I'm the only one whose Mamiya SX at F/4-5,6 is sharper than the rollei's planar 1,8.

Tom, do you have both?


No, not any more.
I sold the Mamiya during a time of rationalising my nifty fifties.
Probably should have kept it, but already had too many.
Mamiya was a good lens for sure
Tom


PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's interesting at which point OOF appreciation may differ in our views. I never found the lens' bokeh distracting or nervous.



And then thanks to a high micro-contrast this lens renders really well glass and glossy surfaces, I'd say on par with Re.Topcors



PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And yes, Olivier and Y, please share your comparisons if you make them. I am really interested to see how this Rollei stands with Planar 1.7/50 on one side and 1.4 Rollei on the other.

It's true that technically these lenses may differ. But what we get and often search for at the end is not the glass count but picture. Precise tests of technically close lenses exposed here, especially of the 1.4/50 ones, showed very well at which point they are similar in rendering. So, "imprecise" comparisons may give a stimulating idea which picture properties to expect from various lenses.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 10:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Great lens, I like the Singapore version a bit more than the German one, that has slightly stiff focus.

According to Flickr my best photo ever was taken with the Planar made in Germany.

The bokeh is smooth up close but if you want a really creamy look a bit further out you might want a Rokkor 55mm 1.7 or a Zenitar 50mm 1.7. But these doesn't have as much micro contrast.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 9:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

alex ph wrote:
And yes, Olivier and Y, please share your comparisons if you make them. I am really interested to see how this Rollei stands with Planar 1.7/50 on one side and 1.4 Rollei on the other.

It's true that technically these lenses may differ. But what we get and often search for at the end is not the glass count but picture. Precise tests of technically close lenses exposed here, especially of the 1.4/50 ones, showed very well at which point they are similar in rendering. So, "imprecise" comparisons may give a stimulating idea which picture properties to expect from various lenses.

Alex, I was speaking about the Rollei planar 1.8/50. Wink


PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 9:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Olivier, I thought that you wished to test Rollei together with Carl Zeiss 1.7/50.

Strangely enough, there is no direct comparison online, even if there are several discussions around that question, including this forum: on lens design, coating, lens history and its variations. But no side-by-side images.

Any illustruted test would really be welcome!


PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 9:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

alex ph wrote:
Olivier, I thought that you wished to test Rollei together with Carl Zeiss 1.7/50.

Strangely enough, there is no direct comparison online, even if there are several discussions around that question, including this forum: on lens design, coating, lens history and its variations. But no side-by-side images.

Any illustruted test would really be welcome!

Yes Alex, I wish to test Rollei 1.8/50 and Carl Zeiss 1.7/50. I meant that I don't have the 1.4/50.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 10:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Olivier wrote:
alex ph wrote:
Olivier, I thought that you wished to test Rollei together with Carl Zeiss 1.7/50.

Strangely enough, there is no direct comparison online, even if there are several discussions around that question, including this forum: on lens design, coating, lens history and its variations. But no side-by-side images.

Any illustruted test would really be welcome!

Yes Alex, I wish to test Rollei 1.8/50 and Carl Zeiss 1.7/50. I meant that I don't have the 1.4/50.


The C/Y planar 1,7/50 (1st. Version) should be in the same League than the rollei.
But the second version of the planar 1,7/50 (N° 8.xxx.xxx) with different scheme seems to be the sharper of the three