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

CZJ Pancolar 55mm f1.4 vs Auto Sears 55mm f1.4
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2023 7:18 pm    Post subject: CZJ Pancolar 55mm f1.4 vs Auto Sears 55mm f1.4 Reply with quote
A lucky day at the junk market netted me an Auto Sears 55mm f1.4, which I had heard had similar bokeh and performance to the CZJ Pancolar 55 1.4. This Sears is, AFAIK, the same as the first generation Mamiya-Sekor 55mm f1.4, which is supposed to be a Tomioka design, rebadged as Rikenon, Cosina and others. Anyway, I did a first shoot comparing to my Pancolar. Both are radioactive, 7/5 designs.

Results below. My takeaways are:

1. Bokeh is very similar, with the rather unusual inverted bowl shape of the bokeh circles off axis. Likewise, the spherical aberration correction is very similar, resulting in the same types of edge highlighting of those circles.

2. The Sears is significantly shorter in FL. Comparing to my other 55s and 50s, the Sears looks to be around 52mm.

3. I did some infinity tests (not shown), and the center performance is nearly identical: same sharpness and equal highlight halation.

4. The Sears is a seriously good deal, at 3% the cost of the Pancolar...

#1


#2


#3


#4


#5


#6


#7


#8


PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2023 9:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for the comparison. From what I see, the Pancolar has somewhat softer bokeh, but the Sears is a very nice lens indeed and definitely more bang for the buck!


PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2023 9:57 pm    Post subject: Re: CZJ Pancolar 55mm f1.4 vs Auto Sears 55mm f1.4 Reply with quote
kymarto wrote:
A lucky day at the junk market netted me an Auto Sears 55mm f1.4, which I had heard had similar bokeh and performance to the CZJ Pancolar 55 1.4. This Sears is, AFAIK, the same as the first generation Mamiya-Sekor 55mm f1.4, which is supposed to be a Tomioka design, rebadged as Rikenon, Cosina and others.

I have several of those 1.4/55mm lenses, and some obvioulsy are different computations. The story seems to be more complicated than the usual urban legends might suggest.

Some reliable information on the supposed Japanese Zeiss copies can be found here (Spoiler: the Japanese 1.4/55 lenses are NOT Zeiss copies):
https://lenslegend.com/mamiya-sekor-55mm-f1-4-review/




kymarto wrote:
Anyway, I did a first shoot comparing to my Pancolar. Both are radioactive, 7/5 designs.

Results below. My takeaways are:

1. Bokeh is very similar,


That's true for pretty much all double Gauss normal lenses with identical focal length and speed, according to my tests. Going from 1.4/50mm to 1.4/58mm has a much bigger influence on bokeh than the (very small) variation between different brands of 1.4/50mm lenses, for instance.

http://www.artaphot.ch/systemuebergreifend/objektive/477-standard-lens-bokeh-i
http://www.artaphot.ch/systemuebergreifend/objektive/479-standard-lens-bokeh-ii
http://www.artaphot.ch/systemuebergreifend/objektive/480-standard-lens-bokeh-iii


kymarto wrote:

3. I did some infinity tests (not shown), and the center performance is nearly identical: same sharpness and equal highlight halation.

4. The Sears is a seriously good deal, at 3% the cost of the Pancolar...


Not surprising to me - vintage normal lenses from the same time frame usually have pretty similar properties. There are some exceptions such as the Super Takumar 1.4/50 (pretty low performance) or the Fuji 1.8/55 and Topcon 1.8/58mm (better than average), but mostly they are quite comparable.

Thanks for sharing the results - always appreciated!

S


PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2023 12:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for that. I have Zess Jena 55 1.4 In Praktina mount. Would be curious to know how that would stack up. Presumably similar.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2023 8:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gatorengineer64 wrote:
Thanks for that. I have Zess Jena 55 1.4 In Praktina mount. Would be curious to know how that would stack up. Presumably similar.


Do you have an adapter for the praktina to Sony? They were available some time ago, but can't find em nowadays


PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2023 8:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for sharing, I own the Cosina, and had the Chinon version, it's still one of my favourite standard lens. I only regret that it's shorter than 55, my ideal of standard is 58, also because it goes wonderfully with the 35 mm, my first choice ever


PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2023 9:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
If you want buttery backgrounds, the Petri 55/1.4 is another option. Bokeh balls are quite uniform (no strong outlining), which results in soft backgrounds. I think the Pancolar and Tomioka are sharper wide open though.

Petri5514401 by devoscasper, on Flickr
Petri5514400 by devoscasper, on Flickr
Petri5514406 by devoscasper, on Flickr


PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2023 11:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
If you want buttery backgrounds, the Petri 55/1.4 is another option. Bokeh balls are quite uniform (no strong outlining), which results in soft backgrounds. I think the Pancolar and Tomioka are sharper wide open though.


Petri5514406 by devoscasper, on Flickr


Absolutely superb lens very under-rated.
Your images show it well.
Tom


PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2023 11:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
If you want buttery backgrounds, the Petri 55/1.4 is another option. Bokeh balls are quite uniform (no strong outlining), which results in soft backgrounds. I think the Pancolar and Tomioka are sharper wide open though.



So far the Zenitar 50 1.7 ticked that box


PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2023 12:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gatorengineer64 wrote:
Thanks for that. I have Zess Jena 55 1.4 In Praktina mount. Would be curious to know how that would stack up. Presumably similar.

Does Praktina Pancolar exist?


PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2023 2:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Pancolart wrote:
Gatorengineer64 wrote:
Thanks for that. I have Zess Jena 55 1.4 In Praktina mount. Would be curious to know how that would stack up. Presumably similar.

Does Praktina Pancolar exist?

I think it is the Zeiss Jena 55mm F1.4 in PB mount. Wink


PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2023 5:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Petri stopped down, click for full size:
PetriCC5514_3 by devoscasper, on Flickr


PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2023 6:23 pm    Post subject: Re: CZJ Pancolar 55mm f1.4 vs Auto Sears 55mm f1.4 Reply with quote
kymarto wrote:
A lucky day at the junk market netted me an Auto Sears 55mm f1.4


Absolutely lovely! I couldn't pick a favourite between the two in your image series Smile


PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2023 11:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hi,

have you used that one sharpening software that you mentioned before (and i forgot the name but it was a german i think..)


PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2023 11:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Wow, that Auto Sears is impressive indeed! I like it more than the Pancolar


PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2023 12:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
alex_d wrote:
hi,

have you used that one sharpening software that you mentioned before (and i forgot the name but it was a german i think..)


The name is Piccure Plus 3.0. I do use it normally and I find that it works very well - better than Topaz Sharpen AI. It is subtler and leaves less artifacts. I did not use it for these pics. It is a shame that the developer died and that it was abandoned. I originally bought it, but lost the serial number, and the company has been dissolved, so I found a cracked version for Windows and have been using that. Given that the company no longer exists, I don't feel that it is unethical to do so. If anyone needs or wants the cracked version (Windows only) let me know.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2023 12:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I can't agree that the bokeh of all DG lenses at f1.4 is the same. There is quite a difference in the shape of the bokeh "circles" as they near the edge. Here is a comparison between the bokeh of some of my DGs around 50mm. Not all are f1.4, but you'll get the idea. Note not only the shapes, but also the outlining of those shapes. The Pancolar and the Sears have the unusual feature of the circles being elongated towards the outside, in the shape of bowls. More usual are cat's eyes like the Biotar or "bowls" in the other direction like the Canon and Domiron.
#1


#2


#3


#4


#5


#6


#7


#8


#9


Last edited by kymarto on Wed Nov 29, 2023 12:38 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2023 12:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
by the bokeh balls size, it seems that pancolar might be a longer focal length


PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2023 12:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kiddo wrote:
by the bokeh balls size, it seems that pancolar might be a longer focal length


Yes, it appears, as compared to my other 55mm and 50mm lenses, that the Sears is around 52mm. I did another test, moving the camera forward to provide the same apparent magnification, and the bokeh looks very similar. My feeling is that the Pancolar has slightly more outlining at the far edge of the bokeh balls, whereas that of the Sears is more even. In terms of physical dimensions, the lenses are quite different. The front elements sizes are 45.9mm for the Pancolar compared to 39.4mm for the Sears. Rear elements are 31.2mm vs 29.5mm, and the Pancolar is 4.5mm longer than the Sears, from front element to rear.

These pics have been auto white balanced and brightnesses matched, but no other PP

#1


#2


PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2023 12:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kymarto wrote:
alex_d wrote:
hi,

have you used that one sharpening software that you mentioned before (and i forgot the name but it was a german i think..)


The name is Piccure Plus 3.0. I do use it normally and I find that it works very well - better than Topaz Sharpen AI. It is subtler and leaves less artifacts. I did not use it for these pics. It is a shame that the developer died and that it was abandoned. I originally bought it, but lost the serial number, and the company has been dissolved, so I found a cracked version for Windows and have been using that. Given that the company no longer exists, I don't feel that it is unethical to do so. If anyone needs or wants the cracked version (Windows only) let me know.


ok nice, i thought so, it leaves some special mark on images so im recognising it.

i could use your version, maybe better to private message for this kind of stuff ?

thanx


PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2023 6:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kymarto wrote:
I can't agree that the bokeh of all DG lenses at f1.4 is the same. There is quite a difference in the shape of the bokeh "circles" as they near the edge. Here is a comparison between the bokeh of some of my DGs around 50mm. Not all are f1.4, but you'll get the idea. Note not only the shapes, but also the outlining of those shapes. The Pancolar and the Sears have the unusual feature of the circles being elongated towards the outside, in the shape of bowls. More usual are cat's eyes like the Biotar or "bowls" in the other direction like the Canon and Domiron.


Thanks for showing those differences, very informative.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2023 6:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kymarto wrote:
I can't agree that the bokeh of all DG lenses at f1.4 is the same. There is quite a difference in the shape of the bokeh "circles" as they near the edge. Here is a comparison between the bokeh of some of my DGs around 50mm. Not all are f1.4, but you'll get the idea. Note not only the shapes, but also the outlining of those shapes. The Pancolar and the Sears have the unusual feature of the circles being elongated towards the outside, in the shape of bowls. More usual are cat's eyes like the Biotar or "bowls" in the other direction like the Canon and Domiron.


Thanks for publishing these samples Wink They confirm my impression that - looking at vintage normal lenses from around 1960-1980 - mainly the focal length and the speed of the lens are determining the background blur. If we look at the 2/50mm and 1.9/50mm lenses you have shown, bokeh is very similar (especially if we adjust the low contrast of the Miranda to a normal level).

The 1.4/50mm Biotar of course is an exception since it was not designed for 24x36mm; I had been talking about lenses for 24x36mm without explicitely mentioning it ...

Real differences in bokeh can be found with non-Planar/double Gauss normal lenses (CZJ Sonnar 1.5/5cm for instance).

S


PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2023 3:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
kymarto wrote:
I can't agree that the bokeh of all DG lenses at f1.4 is the same. There is quite a difference in the shape of the bokeh "circles" as they near the edge. Here is a comparison between the bokeh of some of my DGs around 50mm. Not all are f1.4, but you'll get the idea. Note not only the shapes, but also the outlining of those shapes. The Pancolar and the Sears have the unusual feature of the circles being elongated towards the outside, in the shape of bowls. More usual are cat's eyes like the Biotar or "bowls" in the other direction like the Canon and Domiron.


Thanks for publishing these samples Wink They confirm my impression that - looking at vintage normal lenses from around 1960-1980 - mainly the focal length and the speed of the lens are determining the background blur. If we look at the 2/50mm and 1.9/50mm lenses you have shown, bokeh is very similar (especially if we adjust the low contrast of the Miranda to a normal level).

The 1.4/50mm Biotar of course is an exception since it was not designed for 24x36mm; I had been talking about lenses for 24x36mm without explicitely mentioning it ...

Real differences in bokeh can be found with non-Planar/double Gauss normal lenses (CZJ Sonnar 1.5/5cm for instance).

S


I guess you are right when it comes to the shape of the bokeh. But the way these bokeh balls are filled in can vary quite a bit, resulting in a quite different rendering of background. I did a little test, using my christmas tree as subject.

PetriVSChinon5514bokehklein by devoscasper, on Flickr

First of all, the Chinon's colors are quite a bit more saturated. This is a multicoated version of the Tomioka lens; differences may be smaller in non-multicoated versions of this lens.
Secondly. bokeh of the Chinon looks much more busy then the Petri's. Let's take a look at a 100% crop:

PetriVSChinon5514bokehcrop by devoscasper, on Flickr

Outlining of the Chinon's bokeh balls is much more pronounced. The Petri is particularly good in this regard, even better than the Pancolor it seems (that is, if you like soft backgrounds). I think the Tomioka is the sharper lens wide open though, I will do that test later.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2023 4:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
kymarto wrote:
I can't agree that the bokeh of all DG lenses at f1.4 is the same. There is quite a difference in the shape of the bokeh "circles" as they near the edge. Here is a comparison between the bokeh of some of my DGs around 50mm. Not all are f1.4, but you'll get the idea. Note not only the shapes, but also the outlining of those shapes. The Pancolar and the Sears have the unusual feature of the circles being elongated towards the outside, in the shape of bowls. More usual are cat's eyes like the Biotar or "bowls" in the other direction like the Canon and Domiron.


Thanks for publishing these samples Wink They confirm my impression that - looking at vintage normal lenses from around 1960-1980 - mainly the focal length and the speed of the lens are determining the background blur. If we look at the 2/50mm and 1.9/50mm lenses you have shown, bokeh is very similar (especially if we adjust the low contrast of the Miranda to a normal level).

The 1.4/50mm Biotar of course is an exception since it was not designed for 24x36mm; I had been talking about lenses for 24x36mm without explicitely mentioning it ...

Real differences in bokeh can be found with non-Planar/double Gauss normal lenses (CZJ Sonnar 1.5/5cm for instance).

S


I'm sure the Sonnar has larger differences in bokeh compared to the various DG types and subtypes, but I find that the DGs also have (for me) fairly marked differences between them. The Aires Coral 4.5cm f1.5 and Voigtlaender Nokton Prominent 50mm f1.5 have very strong outlining of the bokeh shapes as compared to most of the other Japanese 50ish 1.4s.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2023 9:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Splendid comparisons. Just a little additional info: Sears/Ricoh 1.4/55mm has rear element not completely flat compared to other (Cosina mostly) 1.4/55mm. So possibly made in house.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2