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

SMC Pentax 55/1.8 vs Rollei HFT Planar 50/1.8
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2021 4:24 pm    Post subject: SMC Pentax 55/1.8 vs Rollei HFT Planar 50/1.8 Reply with quote

Hello,

Can someone share how do the SMC Pentax 55mm f/1.8 and the Rollei HFT Planar 50mm f/1.8 (or it's Voigtlander Color-Utron version) compare in terms of richness of colors and contrast? For a project I need a 50mm with great colors and contrast at a low budget and these are the two options I found to match my needs well. I know that both HFT and SMC are good multi coatings but a first hand experience with both will be very helpful!

Any links to related info, comparisons, tests, etc. would be great too!

Thank you!


PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2021 5:27 pm    Post subject: Re: SMC Pentax 55/1.8 vs Rollei HFT Planar 50/1.8 Reply with quote

Dusty-Lens wrote:
Hello,

Can someone share how do the SMC Pentax 55mm f/1.8 and the Rollei HFT Planar 50mm f/1.8 (or it's Voigtlander Color-Utron version) compare in terms of richness of colors and contrast? For a project I need a 50mm with great colors and contrast at a low budget and these are the two options I found to match my needs well. I know that both HFT and SMC are good multi coatings but a first hand experience with both will be very helpful!

Any links to related info, comparisons, tests, etc. would be great too!

Thank you!


I had a M42 version of the SMC Takumar 55mm 1.8. But I sold it so I can't compare side by side with my Rollei planar. I really like the Planar more and will not sell that lens. That would be my choice but it probably costs more.

You will find similar richness in a Contax Planar 50mm f/1.7 and f/1.4.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2021 5:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I own both lenses but I didn't make a direct comparison yet.
I would use the Ultron/Planar if one of these two lenses would be my choice.

If you wish I can make some comparisation shots this forthcoming weekend, I'm out now.
Please let me know. I can offer pictures from FF, APSC or MFT cameras....


PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2021 7:10 pm    Post subject: Re: SMC Pentax 55/1.8 vs Rollei HFT Planar 50/1.8 Reply with quote

blotafton wrote:
Dusty-Lens wrote:
Hello,

Can someone share how do the SMC Pentax 55mm f/1.8 and the Rollei HFT Planar 50mm f/1.8 (or it's Voigtlander Color-Utron version) compare in terms of richness of colors and contrast? For a project I need a 50mm with great colors and contrast at a low budget and these are the two options I found to match my needs well. I know that both HFT and SMC are good multi coatings but a first hand experience with both will be very helpful!

Any links to related info, comparisons, tests, etc. would be great too!

Thank you!


I had a M42 version of the SMC Takumar 55mm 1.8. But I sold it so I can't compare side by side with my Rollei planar. I really like the Planar more and will not sell that lens. That would be my choice but it probably costs more.

You will find similar richness in a Contax Planar 50mm f/1.7 and f/1.4.


Thank you! Yes, it costs a bit more, but the difference is not big and if it is the lens with richer colors and contrast this is well worth it.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2021 7:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tb_a wrote:
I own both lenses but I didn't make a direct comparison yet.
I would use the Ultron/Planar if one of these two lenses would be my choice.

If you wish I can make some comparisation shots this forthcoming weekend, I'm out now.
Please let me know. I can offer pictures from FF, APSC or MFT cameras....


Great, thanks! I will be using it on FF (A7RM2) so any existing FF examples from both will be very helpful!

If it wouldn't be difficult for you to make some comparisons of voluminous colorfull objects under good lighting and using various apertures this would be really, really helpful. I will postpone buying until I see the comparison images. An image is far more informative than words. I guess the Rollei/Voigt given its Ultron design will be sharper and will probably have better micro contrast but I have heard many superlatives regarding the Pentax SMC 55mm f/1.8 too.

Thank you very much again!


PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2021 7:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dusty-Lens wrote:


If it wouldn't be difficult for you to make some comparisons of voluminous colorfull objects under good lighting and using various apertures this would be really, really helpful. I will postpone buying until I see the comparison images. An image is far more informative than words. I guess the Rollei/Voigt given its Ultron design will be sharper and will probably have better micro contrast but I have heard many superlatives regarding the Pentax SMC 55mm f/1.8 too.

Thank you very much again!


OK, can use my A7R2 and send you some originals; i.e. post the download link here.
Will come back this weekend.

BTW, have done a huge comparison for infinity landscape using all my 50mm lenses (I have many) and found the cheap Sony FE 50/1.8 at F5.6 best in combination with my A7R2, even better than the Rollei/Vogtländer Ultron.

Cheers,


PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2021 8:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tb_a wrote:
Dusty-Lens wrote:


If it wouldn't be difficult for you to make some comparisons of voluminous colorfull objects under good lighting and using various apertures this would be really, really helpful. I will postpone buying until I see the comparison images. An image is far more informative than words. I guess the Rollei/Voigt given its Ultron design will be sharper and will probably have better micro contrast but I have heard many superlatives regarding the Pentax SMC 55mm f/1.8 too.

Thank you very much again!


OK, can use my A7R2 and send you some originals; i.e. post the download link here.
Will come back this weekend.

BTW, have done a huge comparison for infinity landscape using all my 50mm lenses (I have many) and found the cheap Sony FE 50/1.8 at F5.6 best in combination with my A7R2, even better than the Rollei/Vogtländer Ultron.

Cheers,


Thanks again! I am sure that modern lenses are sharper and better corrected for aberrations. How do the FE's micro contrast and 3d pop on one hand and colors and contrast otoh compare with the Ultron? These are the really interesting to me rendering characteristics.

Cheers!


PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dusty-Lens wrote:
Thanks again! I am sure that modern lenses are sharper and better corrected for aberrations. How do the FE's micro contrast and 3d pop on one hand and colors and contrast otoh compare with the Ultron? These are the really interesting to me rendering characteristics.


As I stated, the reason for my internal testing was to find the sharpest lens with the highest resolution for landscapes (corner to corner) for my A7R2. In this discipline the Sony FE beats all my older lenses, even my old Leitz Summicron M.

All other aspects are not that interesting for me as I'm shooting RAW only and the other "rendering characteristics" like contrast, saturation, tonality, clarity, etc. can be added or manipulated in post processing anyway.
Therefore what really counts for me is the maximum optical quality, everything else is a matter of taste and can be designed afterwards in post processing. On the other hand unsharp corners stay unsharp forever, there is nothing you can do about.

To make it clear: I'm talking here about pixel peeping level 100% view 42MP FF corner to corner at max. F5.6. The Ultron at F8 or F11 maybe likewise good, but I stopped my comparison at F5.6 as I usually shoot on lowest ISO without IBIS for quality reasons; i.e. I need short aperture times for handheld shooting.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2021 11:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well.
I have some versions of the rollei/voigtlander planar/ultron 50/1 8 and the Icarex's ultron 50/1,8.
Also the xenon qbm 50/1,8.
All of them very good lenses like the MDIII 50/1,4 is too.
But with the Sony 7RIV (61 mp), I found the Sony 50/1,2 GM is the more sharp with better 3d than any planar .


PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2021 11:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tb_a wrote:
Dusty-Lens wrote:
Thanks again! I am sure that modern lenses are sharper and better corrected for aberrations. How do the FE's micro contrast and 3d pop on one hand and colors and contrast otoh compare with the Ultron? These are the really interesting to me rendering characteristics.


As I stated, the reason for my internal testing was to find the sharpest lens with the highest resolution for landscapes (corner to corner) for my A7R2. In this discipline the Sony FE beats all my older lenses, even my old Leitz Summicron M.

All other aspects are not that interesting for me as I'm shooting RAW only and the other "rendering characteristics" like contrast, saturation, tonality, clarity, etc. can be added or manipulated in post processing anyway.
Therefore what really counts for me is the maximum optical quality, everything else is a matter of taste and can be designed afterwards in post processing. On the other hand unsharp corners stay unsharp forever, there is nothing you can do about.

To make it clear: I'm talking here about pixel peeping level 100% view 42MP FF corner to corner at max. F5.6. The Ultron at F8 or F11 maybe likewise good, but I stopped my comparison at F5.6 as I usually shoot on lowest ISO without IBIS for quality reasons; i.e. I need short aperture times for handheld shooting.


From whatever have read your probably better off sticking to newer lenses that were designed for the new digital cameras. If pixel peeping on a 42mp sensor is what you are after, the older lenses simply weren't designed for such a thing.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 12:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tb_a wrote:
Dusty-Lens wrote:
Thanks again! I am sure that modern lenses are sharper and better corrected for aberrations. How do the FE's micro contrast and 3d pop on one hand and colors and contrast otoh compare with the Ultron? These are the really interesting to me rendering characteristics.


As I stated, the reason for my internal testing was to find the sharpest lens with the highest resolution for landscapes (corner to corner) for my A7R2. In this discipline the Sony FE beats all my older lenses, even my old Leitz Summicron M.

All other aspects are not that interesting for me as I'm shooting RAW only and the other "rendering characteristics" like contrast, saturation, tonality, clarity, etc. can be added or manipulated in post processing anyway.
Therefore what really counts for me is the maximum optical quality, everything else is a matter of taste and can be designed afterwards in post processing. On the other hand unsharp corners stay unsharp forever, there is nothing you can do about.

To make it clear: I'm talking here about pixel peeping level 100% view 42MP FF corner to corner at max. F5.6. The Ultron at F8 or F11 maybe likewise good, but I stopped my comparison at F5.6 as I usually shoot on lowest ISO without IBIS for quality reasons; i.e. I need short aperture times for handheld shooting.


After viewing so many tests (not easy at all) from experienced fellows, it seems that most of the vintage lenses, for corner sharpness work best at f8 and f11, so the comparison at 5,6 it's kind of limited.
It is true that new lenses might work best on PP , but regarding the low ISO, I thought Sony FF has invariable ISO Up to a maybe 800? I have never did the test, this is what I have read some while ago, so I wonder why would use the lowest ISO , besides maybe very large printings and that's where it might be noticeable? Thanks


PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 1:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kiddo wrote:
After viewing so many tests (not easy at all) from experienced fellows, it seems that most of the vintage lenses, for corner sharpness work best at f8 and f11, so the comparison at 5,6 it's kind of limited.
It is true that new lenses might work best on PP , but regarding the low ISO, I thought Sony FF has invariable ISO Up to a maybe 800? I have never did the test, this is what I have read some while ago, so I wonder why would use the lowest ISO , besides maybe very large printings and that's where it might be noticeable? Thanks


Well, it doesn't make much sense for me to use a FF 42MP camera if I wouldn't try to get the best quality out of it. For lesser demanding tasks or smaller pictures any of my APSC or MFT cameras or even my Smartphone are more than good enough.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 6:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tb_a wrote:
kiddo wrote:
After viewing so many tests (not easy at all) from experienced fellows, it seems that most of the vintage lenses, for corner sharpness work best at f8 and f11, so the comparison at 5,6 it's kind of limited.
It is true that new lenses might work best on PP , but regarding the low ISO, I thought Sony FF has invariable ISO Up to a maybe 800? I have never did the test, this is what I have read some while ago, so I wonder why would use the lowest ISO , besides maybe very large printings and that's where it might be noticeable? Thanks


Well, it doesn't make much sense for me to use a FF 42MP camera if I wouldn't try to get the best quality out of it. For lesser demanding tasks or smaller pictures any of my APSC or MFT cameras or even my Smartphone are more than good enough.


It makes total sense what you're saying. Still I feel I get more resolution out of most of my vintage lenses on the A7R2 than on my A7, by probably that's because it doesn't have an optical low pass filter. Still, modern lenses will mostly give better sharpness if you pixelpeep.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 6:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

caspert79 wrote:
It makes total sense what you're saying. Still I feel I get more resolution out of most of my vintage lenses on the A7R2 than on my A7, by probably that's because it doesn't have an optical low pass filter. Still, modern lenses will mostly give better sharpness if you pixelpeep.


I'm absolutely on your side. If I compare my pictures from my A850 (FF 24MP) with the A7R2 (FF 42MP) the A7R2 wins; particularly if you compare the pictures at same size, i.e. if you downsize the A7R2 pictures to 24MP.
The absence of the low pass filter on the A7R2 is definitely an additional benefit for ultimate sharpness.
On the other hand you may get better results to use old lenses with weak corner performance on smaller sensor cameras if you don't utilize the full potiential of the 42MP.
Have done some comparisons with my Ricoh GXR-M (APSC 12MP without low pass filter) and A7R2 and with some lenses the Ricoh beats the Sony if compared at same size; particularly with RF lenses the Ricoh wins in every case.
Conclusio: It's always the combination of the used camera and lens, there is no best camera or best lens alone.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 8:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

papasito wrote:
Well.
I have some versions of the rollei/voigtlander planar/ultron 50/1 8 and the Icarex's ultron 50/1,8.
Also the xenon qbm 50/1,8.
All of them very good lenses like the MDIII 50/1,4 is too.
But with the Sony 7RIV (61 mp), I found the Sony 50/1,2 GM is the more sharp with better 3d than any planar .


A beautiful set of 50s! How do the rollei/voigtlander compare to the Xenon QBM and the Icarex's ultron 50/1,8 in your opinion, that's quite interesting! I am sure that the xenon qbm 50/1,8 is a sharp lens but from what I have seen and read so far it seem that the rollei/voigt have the best coors and contrast out of these.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 9:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tb_a wrote:
Dusty-Lens wrote:
Thanks again! I am sure that modern lenses are sharper and better corrected for aberrations. How do the FE's micro contrast and 3d pop on one hand and colors and contrast otoh compare with the Ultron? These are the really interesting to me rendering characteristics.


As I stated, the reason for my internal testing was to find the sharpest lens with the highest resolution for landscapes (corner to corner) for my A7R2. In this discipline the Sony FE beats all my older lenses, even my old Leitz Summicron M.

All other aspects are not that interesting for me as I'm shooting RAW only and the other "rendering characteristics" like contrast, saturation, tonality, clarity, etc. can be added or manipulated in post processing anyway.
Therefore what really counts for me is the maximum optical quality, everything else is a matter of taste and can be designed afterwards in post processing. On the other hand unsharp corners stay unsharp forever, there is nothing you can do about.

To make it clear: I'm talking here about pixel peeping level 100% view 42MP FF corner to corner at max. F5.6. The Ultron at F8 or F11 maybe likewise good, but I stopped my comparison at F5.6 as I usually shoot on lowest ISO without IBIS for quality reasons; i.e. I need short aperture times for handheld shooting.


Landscape definitely requires good sharpness over the whole frame I absolutely agree.

My personal type of general shooting and street photography - given my framing approach and that it' never examined at 100% - don't require the highest acutance or resolution at pixel level. Also I often use square 1:1 format for my images which further eases my requirements for critical corner performance.

Lately I have concluded for certain types of my work that the post processing enhancement of contrast, clarity and saturation doesn't give me exactly the same results as those which are due to better initial raw image characteristics. Processing an image that already has better color and contrast gives a better final result for me. Also good micro contrast is something that happens when it is present throughout the process so it puts requirements not only on the processing approach but on the lens too. It is just my point of view of course and it is needed only for some specific needs, for example when I shoot portraiture I look for very different lens characteristics and I reach for a different tool (lens).

Cheers!


PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 12:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Maybe also consider the SMC Pentax-m 50mm F1.7. It is the successor to the 55mm 1.8. A very underrated lens.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 12:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

D1N0 wrote:
Maybe also consider the SMC Pentax-m 50mm F1.7. It is the successor to the 55mm 1.8. A very underrated lens.


Thanks!

I am a bit afraid of the Pentax/Takumar 50mm as I had a couple of bad experiences with their 50mm lenses, unlike some other Takumar lenses which I use often. I had the Pentax A 50mm f/1.7 in mint condition which suffered from quite noticeable SA wide open. And I had the S-M-C Takumar 50mm f/1.4 also mint which simply couldn't match my Zenitar-ME1 MC 50mm f/1.7 in neither sharpness, bokeh smoothness or focus transitions. Although the Takumar was cheaper than the ME1 which was a very rare lens, a Soviet recalculation of the Ultron. So I am not sure which 50mm from Pentax I could try while the 55mm (also an Ultron iteration - a recalculation of the 1st Ultron "Prominent" version very similar to the Zenitar-ME1 as an optical scheme) seems to have the good saturation and contrast that I a looking for now plus smooth bokeh and is reasonably sharp wide open.

But I guess the Rollei/Voigtlander is the better lens in terms of color saturation and contrast from what I read so far.

Cheers!


Last edited by Dusty-Lens on Thu Oct 14, 2021 5:04 pm; edited 7 times in total


PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 12:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dusty-Lens wrote:
papasito wrote:
Well.
I have some versions of the rollei/voigtlander planar/ultron 50/1 8 and the Icarex's ultron 50/1,8.
Also the xenon qbm 50/1,8.
All of them very good lenses like the MDIII 50/1,4 is too.
But with the Sony 7RIV (61 mp), I found the Sony 50/1,2 GM is the more sharp with better 3d than any planar .


A beautiful set of 50s! How do the rollei/voigtlander compare to the Xenon QBM and the Icarex's ultron 50/1,8 in your opinion, that's quite interesting! I am sure that the xenon qbm 50/1,8 is a sharp lens but from what I have seen and read so far it seem that the rollei/voigt have the best coors and contrast out of these.


In colors area, the ultron and the xenon are a bit blueish then my copy of planar qbm.
In contrast area , both qbm have more then the xenon.

In resolution power, wide open, the three are very good lenses. To my eyes, my copy of the ultron is a bit sharp with more contrast and strong colors.

In the same way from f/1,8 to f/2 8

From f/3,5 no differences between the three.

My prefer of the Bunch?
The ultron.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 12:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

papasito wrote:
Dusty-Lens wrote:
papasito wrote:
Well.
I have some versions of the rollei/voigtlander planar/ultron 50/1 8 and the Icarex's ultron 50/1,8.
Also the xenon qbm 50/1,8.
All of them very good lenses like the MDIII 50/1,4 is too.
But with the Sony 7RIV (61 mp), I found the Sony 50/1,2 GM is the more sharp with better 3d than any planar .


A beautiful set of 50s! How do the rollei/voigtlander compare to the Xenon QBM and the Icarex's ultron 50/1,8 in your opinion, that's quite interesting! I am sure that the xenon qbm 50/1,8 is a sharp lens but from what I have seen and read so far it seem that the rollei/voigt have the best coors and contrast out of these.


In colors area, the ultron and the xenon are a bit blueish then my copy of planar qbm.
In contrast area , both qbm have more then the xenon.

In resolution power, wide open, the three are very good lenses. To my eyes, my copy of the ultron is a bit sharp with more contrast and strong colors.

In the same way from f/1,8 to f/2 8

From f/3,5 no differences between the three.

My prefer of the Bunch?
The ultron.


Thank you - this info is very helpful in my current choice!!

The Xenon (just as the early, made in West Germany Rollei Planar) seems to have a bit older double coating instead of the multi coating in the HFT Planar and Color-Ultron so I was guessing that the later two have a bit stronger colors and contrast, good to have it confirmed!

You wrote that your copy of the Ultron has a bit more contrast and stronger colors than the others - did you mean the QBM Voigt Color-Ultron or the older Icarex Ultron? I am asking as the Icarex's Ultron seems to have an older single or double layer coating and it will be very interesting if it has stronger colors and contrast than the later multilayer coating used on the Voigt Color-Ultron.

I know that the 2nd Ultron iteration - Icarex/M42 with concave/negative front element is a bit sharper wide open than the 3rd QBM Ultron iteration but my question is regarding the color and contrast. By the way the Zenitar-ME1 as another Ultron iteration is extremely sharp too but it has moderate color saturation and contrast due to inferior Soviet multi coatings.

Cheers!


PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 3:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dusty-Lens wrote:
papasito wrote:
Dusty-Lens wrote:
papasito wrote:
Well.
I have some versions of the rollei/voigtlander planar/ultron 50/1 8 and the Icarex's ultron 50/1,8.
Also the xenon qbm 50/1,8.
All of them very good lenses like the MDIII 50/1,4 is too.
But with the Sony 7RIV (61 mp), I found the Sony 50/1,2 GM is the more sharp with better 3d than any planar .


A beautiful set of 50s! How do the rollei/voigtlander compare to the Xenon QBM and the Icarex's ultron 50/1,8 in your opinion, that's quite interesting! I am sure that the xenon qbm 50/1,8 is a sharp lens but from what I have seen and read so far it seem that the rollei/voigt have the best coors and contrast out of these.


In colors area, the ultron and the xenon are a bit blueish then my copy of planar qbm.
In contrast area , both qbm have more then the xenon.

In resolution power, wide open, the three are very good lenses. To my eyes, my copy of the ultron is a bit sharp with more contrast and strong colors.

In the same way from f/1,8 to f/2 8

From f/3,5 no differences between the three.

My prefer of the Bunch?
The ultron.


Thank you - this info is very helpful in my current choice!!

The Xenon (just as the early, made in West Germany Rollei Planar) seems to have a bit older double coating instead of the multi coating in the HFT Planar and Color-Ultron so I was guessing that the later two have a bit stronger colors and contrast, good to have it confirmed!

You wrote that your copy of the Ultron has a bit more contrast and stronger colors than the others - did you mean the QBM Voigt Color-Ultron or the older Icarex Ultron? I am asking as the Icarex's Ultron seems to have an older single or double layer coating and it will be very interesting if it has stronger colors and contrast than the later multilayer coating used on the Voigt Color-Ultron.

I know that the 2nd Ultron iteration - Icarex/M42 with concave/negative front element is a bit sharper wide open than the 3rd QBM Ultron iteration but my question is regarding the color and contrast. By the way the Zenitar-ME1 as another Ultron iteration is extremely sharp too but it has moderate color saturation and contrast due to inferior Soviet multi coatings.

Cheers!


As you have said the ultron icarex is a single coated lens.
No matter that, it's really the sharper and with greater color rendering of my bunch.
It had a great cost of production with finished hand made front element which had a precisally tolerance.
Later, the qbm planar (plane) 50/1,8 was single coated too.
After that the multi coated color ultron/planar qbm had the front element with massive production, more cheaper then the ultron icarex.
The ultron icarex although is a single coated is my prefer cos it's sharper with more contrast and stronger colors, in my copies at least.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 3:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

papasito wrote:
Dusty-Lens wrote:
papasito wrote:
Dusty-Lens wrote:
papasito wrote:
Well.
I have some versions of the rollei/voigtlander planar/ultron 50/1 8 and the Icarex's ultron 50/1,8.
Also the xenon qbm 50/1,8.
All of them very good lenses like the MDIII 50/1,4 is too.
But with the Sony 7RIV (61 mp), I found the Sony 50/1,2 GM is the more sharp with better 3d than any planar .


A beautiful set of 50s! How do the rollei/voigtlander compare to the Xenon QBM and the Icarex's ultron 50/1,8 in your opinion, that's quite interesting! I am sure that the xenon qbm 50/1,8 is a sharp lens but from what I have seen and read so far it seem that the rollei/voigt have the best coors and contrast out of these.


In colors area, the ultron and the xenon are a bit blueish then my copy of planar qbm.
In contrast area , both qbm have more then the xenon.

In resolution power, wide open, the three are very good lenses. To my eyes, my copy of the ultron is a bit sharp with more contrast and strong colors.

In the same way from f/1,8 to f/2 8

From f/3,5 no differences between the three.

My prefer of the Bunch?
The ultron.


Thank you - this info is very helpful in my current choice!!

The Xenon (just as the early, made in West Germany Rollei Planar) seems to have a bit older double coating instead of the multi coating in the HFT Planar and Color-Ultron so I was guessing that the later two have a bit stronger colors and contrast, good to have it confirmed!

You wrote that your copy of the Ultron has a bit more contrast and stronger colors than the others - did you mean the QBM Voigt Color-Ultron or the older Icarex Ultron? I am asking as the Icarex's Ultron seems to have an older single or double layer coating and it will be very interesting if it has stronger colors and contrast than the later multilayer coating used on the Voigt Color-Ultron.

I know that the 2nd Ultron iteration - Icarex/M42 with concave/negative front element is a bit sharper wide open than the 3rd QBM Ultron iteration but my question is regarding the color and contrast. By the way the Zenitar-ME1 as another Ultron iteration is extremely sharp too but it has moderate color saturation and contrast due to inferior Soviet multi coatings.

Cheers!


As you have said the ultron icarex is a single coated lens.
No matter that, it's really the sharper and with greater color rendering of my bunch.
It had a great cost of production with finished hand made front element which had a precisally tolerance.
Later, the qbm planar (plane) 50/1,8 was single coated too.
After that the multi coated color ultron/planar qbm had the front element with massive production, more cheaper then the ultron icarex.
The ultron icarex although is a single coated is my prefer cos it's sharper with more contrast and stronger colors, in my copies at least.


That's amazing! I guess the difference in the optical scheme design is the reason why the 2nd Ultron version has excellent color and contrast even with single coating. Unfortunately it is out of my budget range at the moment. Of course it was more expensive to produce as you noted as the next versions dropped the negative/concave front element (the one which Tronnier used in order to win a bet and discussion with fellow opticians) to become cheaper mass production.

I guess that out of the rest the QBM Ultron/Planar is the better choice for the rich colors and contrast that am looking for. On the positive side the bokeh became calmer when the concave element was dropped.

Now I am looking forward to see some examples and even comparisons between the QBM Ultron/Planar and the SMC Pentax K 55mm f/1.8 (also an Ultron iteration - a recalculation of the 1st Ultron "Prominent" version) to see which has stronger colors, contrast and micro contrast.

Cheers!


PostPosted: Sat Oct 16, 2021 9:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

@Dusty Lens:

My local weather conditions are very tricky to perform a really equal comparison (very fast change of cloudy and sunny conditions).

However, at first run the SMC Takumar is not at all comparable to the Rollei Ultron; i.e. the Ultron/Planar performs better at F1.8 than the Pentax lens at F5.6.
Forget the Takumar. This lens needs F8 to provide sharp pictures.

I don't think that there is any need to investigate further or to upload these huge RAW files. That's really waste of energy.....

However, the Sony FE 50/1.8 (which is BTW an original Ultron design like all its predecessor versions which are in fact the Minolta 50/1.7 MC/MD/AF lenses) is approx. on the same level like the Ultron/Planar but obviously better corrected in the very outer corners to comply with the Sony sensor. That's also the reason why I prefer the Sony lens which additionally provides all AF functionalities of the A7R2.

Also the Minolta MD 50/1.4 (version III) or the Minolta AF 50/1.4 may be a very good alternative to the Rollei Ultron/Planar lens. It's exactly the same lens construction with very good coatings.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 16, 2021 10:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tb_a wrote:
@Dusty Lens:

My local weather conditions are very tricky to perform a really equal comparison (very fast change of cloudy and sunny conditions).

However, at first run the SMC Takumar is not at all comparable to the Rollei Ultron; i.e. the Ultron/Planar performs better at F1.8 than the Pentax lens at F5.6.
Forget the Takumar. This lens needs F8 to provide sharp pictures.

I don't think that there is any need to investigate further or to upload these huge RAW files. That's really waste of energy.....

However, the Sony FE 50/1.8 (which is BTW an original Ultron design like all its predecessor versions which are in fact the Minolta 50/1.7 MC/MD/AF lenses) is approx. on the same level like the Ultron/Planar but obviously better corrected in the very outer corners to comply with the Sony sensor. That's also the reason why I prefer the Sony lens which additionally provides all AF functionalities of the A7R2.

Also the Minolta MD 50/1.4 (version III) or the Minolta AF 50/1.4 may be a very good alternative to the Rollei Ultron/Planar lens. It's exactly the same lens construction with very good coatings.


Thank you for your findings! All clear regarding the sharpness.

How do the Takumar and the Ultron/Planar compare in terms of colors and contrast? No need to post pictures and waste time but can you just compare for yourself several snaps of colorful objects around the house and share your findings regarding colors and contrast? Thanks in advance!


PostPosted: Sat Oct 16, 2021 12:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dusty-Lens wrote:

How do the Takumar and the Ultron/Planar compare in terms of colors and contrast? No need to post pictures and waste time but can you just compare for yourself several snaps of colorful objects around the house and share your findings regarding colors and contrast? Thanks in advance!


Well, the Takumar provides the typical warm color tone like all old Takumars whereas the Ultron look is neutral and clear. I would rate the contrast of the Rollei lens higher but as I already stated, contrast can be boosted afterwards quite easy as well. Finally, CA's are better corrected by Rollei. If stopped down the only visible difference is the color tone. Also the Takumar is excellent then.
Both lenses can be found for apprx. EUR 50,- here in Europe; the Rollei Ultron is most probably the best lens available for this little money. I doubt that you will find anything better in this price range.
I think there are plenty of pictures from both lenses on Flickr or even here in the forum to see their color characteristics.
However, the mechanical quality of the old Takumars is better. These lenses are built to last forever. I never ever had any troubles with any of my Takumars and I have many of them.
If still in doubt, go for both lenses.....