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

Which 55 mm lens ?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2019 3:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:
References, please. I think you need to learn the meaning and proper usage of the word obviously, given the numerous times you've misused the word here in the forum.


Don't worry. When I see a drawing of a lens formula and it looks like a Ultron then it's OBVIOUSLY Ultron based. That's my understanding of the word "obvious".

You can check the lens drawing of the Takumar at Pentaxforums: https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-S-M-C-Super-Auto-Takumar-55mm-F1.8.html
It's 6/5 like the 1950's ORIGINAL Ultron 50/2 designed by A.W. Tronnier for Voigtlaender. Don't mix it up with lenses which are only called "Ultron" in later years and/or by other makers. The Voigtlaender "Ultron" 50/1.8 produced in the 1970's under Rollei ownership was actually a Zeiss Planar and no Ultron DESIGN; the 100% identical Rollei lens was rightly called Planar.
BTW, the Zenitar 50/1.7 is also an Ultron based design. That's particularly mentioned on the maker's site. Same applies for the Minolta 50/1.7 and there are others as well.

You can do the same for the Fujinon lens. Google may help you to find the correct drawings.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2019 5:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
visualopsins wrote:
References, please. I think you need to learn the meaning and proper usage of the word obviously, given the numerous times you've misused the word here in the forum.


Don't worry. When I see a drawing of a lens formula and it looks like a Ultron then it's OBVIOUSLY Ultron based. That's my understanding of the word "obvious".
...


Thanks for references.

Using the word without references implies a "holier-than-thou" attitude which, knowing you and your past work, is certainly not intended.

Saying something like "looking at lens formulas it is obvious to me..." avoids any misinterpretation of attitude.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2019 9:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
papasito wrote:
Finally I bought the mamiya Chrome nose 1,8/55


Yes, congrats! I'm sure you'll enjoy that one.

I have a Mamiya 55mm 1.4 and I like it a lot.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2019 11:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
KEO wrote:
papasito wrote:
Finally I bought the mamiya Chrome nose 1,8/55


Yes, congrats! I'm sure you'll enjoy that one.

I have a Mamiya 55mm 1.4 and I like it a lot.


Thank you, KEO. Very much.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2019 4:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:
tb_a wrote:
D1N0 wrote:
I find the EBC fujinon 55 1.8 rendering very modern. Great micro contrast. But I have a problem with it's bokeh. I think it looks like plastic. I much prefer the takumar bokeh.


Obviously the lens design of the Fujinon is Planar based and the Takumar is Ultron based. However, the out of focus rendering isn't too much different from what I've just checked.
Anyway, both lenses are excellent in terms of optical quality. Bokeh is in any case a matter of taste.

BTW, the last version of the Topcor 58mm/F1.8 is excellent as well:


References, please. I think you need to learn the meaning and proper usage of the word obviously, given the numerous times you've misused the word here in the forum.


Fuji 55/1.8

http://nojysweblog.blogspot.com/2015/03/fujinon-55mm-f18-m42-lens-review.html

Zeiss planar


Takumar 55/1.8

https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-S-M-C-Super-Auto-Takumar-55mm-F1.8.html

Ultron

http://forum.mflenses.com/q-on-ultron-lenses-t77876.html





PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2019 9:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Interesting Planar chart.

Unfortunately it's not failure free. The drawing of the Rollei Planar/Voigtlaender Ultron 50/1.8 is wrong. Tronnier's 7 elements Ultron design is the only one with concave front element. Glatzel's 7 elements Zeiss Planar for the Rollei is different.
Furthermore I'm not really sure whether the original 6/5 Ultron can really be seen as a Planar based (6/4) design. IMHO it's something different. Tronnier's Septon 50/2 (7/5) which is a 6/4 Planar with added front element is also missing.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2019 9:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
D1N0 wrote:
I find the EBC fujinon 55 1.8 rendering very modern. Great micro contrast. But I have a problem with it's bokeh. I think it looks like plastic. I much prefer the takumar bokeh.


Obviously the lens design of the Fujinon is Planar based and the Takumar is Ultron based. However, the out of focus rendering isn't too much different from what I've just checked.
Anyway, both lenses are excellent in terms of optical quality. Bokeh is in any case a matter of taste.

BTW, the last version of the Topcor 58mm/F1.8 is excellent as well:



When the Takumar 55 lenses are ultrons I don't get why the Zenitar 50mm 1.7 is called the Poor mans Ultron, since Takumars are much cheaper and more abundant Wink


PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2019 12:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hmph! Looks like my Double-Gauss Zeiss 58/2 Biotar and Pentax M 50/1.7 need a name change to Planar and Ultron respectively, according to the above.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2019 7:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sciolist wrote:
Hmph! Looks like my Double-Gauss Zeiss 58/2 Biotar and Pentax M 50/1.7 need a name change to Planar and Ultron respectively, according to the above.

Biotar isn't a Double Gauss design, it's based on Planar, technically it's an asymmetric Planar.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2019 8:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
Interesting Planar chart.

Unfortunately it's not failure free. The drawing of the Rollei Planar/Voigtlaender Ultron 50/1.8 is wrong. Tronnier's 7 elements Ultron design is the only one with concave front element. Glatzel's 7 elements Zeiss Planar for the Rollei is different.
Furthermore I'm not really sure whether the original 6/5 Ultron can really be seen as a Planar based (6/4) design. IMHO it's something different. Tronnier's Septon 50/2 (7/5) which is a 6/4 Planar with added front element is also missing.

It's the 4 front elements no-x was using as criteria to group them together, not it's shape.
You have to follow the progression in design, with every generation the designers built on the designs that came before, for example Planar didn't just materialize out of thin air, it's based on what came before... Gauss, Acromat, and Double Gauss.
Starting with the Planar, he split the Doublet to create the Ultron, then further experimented by added another element to the rear like the 7 & 8 element Biotar, then again tried something different by adding elements to the front.
Just like the Bugatti Veyron doesn't look anything like the cars 100 years ago, but you can follow the progression of innovation.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2019 10:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lightshow wrote:
You have to follow the progression in design, with every generation the designers built on the designs that came before, for example Planar didn't just materialize out of thin air, it's based on what came before... Gauss, Acromat, and Double Gauss.
Starting with the Planar, he split the Doublet to create the Ultron, then further experimented by added another element to the rear like the 7 & 8 element Biotar, then again tried something different by adding elements to the front.
Just like the Bugatti Veyron doesn't look anything like the cars 100 years ago, but you can follow the progression of innovation.


So far that's clear. Nevertheless I wouldn't call any of these lenses which amend the basic Planar 6/4 design as Planar design any longer; i.e. the Biotar/Xenon (even with additional rear elements) or the Septon (additional front element) still belong to the Planar design family but the Ultron or Pancolar variants are something different. At least that's my point of view.
I think the most confusion is created since Zeiss is naming the lenses "Planar" irrespective of their designs.


PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2019 1:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Now that you mention Septon (i assume you're reffering to the dkl mount,as i don't know another septon), do you have it's formula? As i've made test of c/y planar 50mm 1.4 at f2 and Septon at f2, and both of them look very very much the same.... Including colors (tests made inside,outside the planar should do better for the coatings)


PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2019 2:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
kiddo wrote:
Now that you mention Septon (i assume you're reffering to the dkl mount,as i don't know another septon), do you have it's formula? As i've made test of c/y planar 50mm 1.4 at f2 and Septon at f2, and both of them look very very much the same.... Including colors (tests made inside,outside the planar should do better for the coatings)


Septon formula is the same than planar 2,8/80 mm hasselblad

https://www.flickr.com/photos/alf_sigaro/3441850798


PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2019 3:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm impressed of such an old tiny lens to get so complicated formula. This lens is suffering from the decemented elements,i assume the fron group, and i just saw one example for quite cheap 45$ ,too bad that i already have one....otherwise,is one of my favourites 50mm f2


PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2019 7:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
kiddo wrote:
Now that you mention Septon (i assume you're reffering to the dkl mount,as i don't know another septon), do you have it's formula? As i've made test of c/y planar 50mm 1.4 at f2 and Septon at f2, and both of them look very very much the same.... Including colors (tests made inside,outside the planar should do better for the coatings)


You may find the drawing of the Septon here: http://www.klassik-cameras.de/septon_3.jpg

Also the Hasselblad Zeiss Distagon 40mm/F4 shares a similar formula. The C/Y Planar 50/1.4 is actually a Ultron design.
Again very good examples that the name of a lens has nothing to do with it's construction formula. Wink


PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
And here is the known planar 80/2,8 for the Hassy

http://allphotolenses.com/lenses/item/c_3528.html


PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2019 10:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I see they are very similar, wonder if there are any actual lenses that have same design


PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2019 10:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
DigiChromeEd wrote:
Another excellent and affordable choice is the Petri CC Auto 55mm f1.8. My copy is in M42 mount and is tack sharp from f2.8.


I agree with this, it has some nice and unique character


PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2019 10:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
alex_d wrote:
DigiChromeEd wrote:
Another excellent and affordable choice is the Petri CC Auto 55mm f1.8. My copy is in M42 mount and is tack sharp from f2.8.


I agree with this, it has some nice and unique character


You guys make me crazy , my copy is petri breech lock and the adapter itself costs more then the lens ,i am thinking of a homemade adapter, at least to try out the 55 1.8 petri, as it is brand new. The thing is that i've got so many 50's ,that i'm not sure if it's worth spending time3 with this Petri, so your comments really make me curious.....


PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2019 5:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Returning to the start of the thread, my new lens, the mamiya chrome nose 1,8/55 mm, will be in my hands tomorrow morning ( may be this evening)

Will tell you all about.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2019 7:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
papasito wrote:
Returning to the start of the thread, my new lens, the mamiya chrome nose 1,8/55 mm, will be in my hands tomorrow morning ( may be this evening)

Will tell you all about.
Happy Dog
Happy Dog Like Dog


PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 5:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The next saturday will send pics taken today in the morning

By now let me say something about the mamiya chrme nose 1,8/55 mm lens.


Good contrast in all the apertures (similar to my hexanon 1,7/50 mm lens)

The same good rendering about colors (saturated and clean ones).

Almost no lateral CA. Very good rendering here if we see that the coating is very old, only ambar one with only two pale green coated surfaces (very common in the second element of the oldest lenses).

It seems to have more long. CA in comparision to the hexanon 1,7/50. But it's only apparent, because the 55 mamiya has less DOF than the hexanon (it is 50 mm wide FL than 55 mm, so more DOF). In this way, all the thing near the limit of the focus with the hexanon will be OOF with the mamiya.
Thus, in those cases, all the OOF have with both lenses Long.CA.

Formula 6 elements in 4 groups

Resolving power : It's high. In the same level of the hexanon 1,7/50.
In my copy, the best apertures are F/4-8. the three very, very good.
At F/1,8 is a bit sharper than the hexanon at F/1,7 and both something glowy.
At F/2 both are very usuable . Soft corners.
From F/2,8 to F/11 both have very good sharpness, contrast and colors.

If the mamiya had been MC, it could be the best or near that.

By now, it's the new friend/lens for walk around


PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 1:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
papasito wrote:
The next saturday will send pics taken today in the morning

By now let me say something about the mamiya chrme nose 1,8/55 mm lens.


Good contrast in all the apertures (similar to my hexanon 1,7/50 mm lens)

The same good rendering about colors (saturated and clean ones).

Almost no lateral CA. Very good rendering here if we see that the coating is very old, only ambar one with only two pale green coated surfaces (very common in the second element of the oldest lenses).

It seems to have more long. CA in comparision to the hexanon 1,7/50. But it's only apparent, because the 55 mamiya has less DOF than the hexanon (it is 50 mm wide FL than 55 mm, so more DOF). In this way, all the thing near the limit of the focus with the hexanon will be OOF with the mamiya.
Thus, in those cases, all the OOF have with both lenses Long.CA.

Formula 6 elements in 4 groups

Resolving power : It's high. In the same level of the hexanon 1,7/50.
In my copy, the best apertures are F/4-8. the three very, very good.
At F/1,8 is a bit sharper than the hexanon at F/1,7 and both something glowy.
At F/2 both are very usuable . Soft corners.
From F/2,8 to F/11 both have very good sharpness, contrast and colors.

If the mamiya had been MC, it could be the best or near that.

By now, it's the new friend/lens for walk around


The Mamiya Sekor ES 55mm 1.8 was once tested as having an extraordinary high central resolution but dropping off to the edges:
#1


I have the SX version of it but someone claimed the optical designs changed more over time in the M42 versions than the Herron Mamiya pages show. Mine is sharp at the center though and that SX M42 model was introduced after the short lived ES bayonet version. For a more even distribution of resolution the Topcor RE 58mm 1.8 is recommended. I also have the Canon 55mm 1.2 SSC that covers other tasks. My main standard lens used is the Olympus OM 50mm 1.4 though that also has good edges. All used on FF.

Success, curious what your experience will be.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 10:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ernst Dinkla wrote:



I have the SX version of it but someone claimed the optical designs changed more over time in the M42 versions than the Herron Mamiya pages show. Mine is sharp at the center though and that SX M42 model was introduced after the short lived ES bayonet version. For a more even distribution of resolution the Topcor RE 58mm 1.8 is recommended. I also have the Canon 55mm 1.2 SSC that covers other tasks. My main standard lens used is the Olympus OM 50mm 1.4 though that also has good edges. All used on FF.

Success, curious what your experience will be.


I agree.
The RE Auto Topcor 1.8/58 is one of the best all round lenses that I have used.
It has a character that includes sharpness, beautiful transition to OOF and beautiful bokeh.
Superb lens that does everything well - a gestalt lens where the total is more than the sum of the parts
Tom


PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 11:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ernst Dinkla wrote:
papasito wrote:
The next saturday will send pics taken today in the morning

By now let me say something about the mamiya chrme nose 1,8/55 mm lens.


Good contrast in all the apertures (similar to my hexanon 1,7/50 mm lens)

The same good rendering about colors (saturated and clean ones).

Almost no lateral CA. Very good rendering here if we see that the coating is very old, only ambar one with only two pale green coated surfaces (very common in the second element of the oldest lenses).

It seems to have more long. CA in comparision to the hexanon 1,7/50. But it's only apparent, because the 55 mamiya has less DOF than the hexanon (it is 50 mm wide FL than 55 mm, so more DOF). In this way, all the thing near the limit of the focus with the hexanon will be OOF with the mamiya.
Thus, in those cases, all the OOF have with both lenses Long.CA.

Formula 6 elements in 4 groups

Resolving power : It's high. In the same level of the hexanon 1,7/50.
In my copy, the best apertures are F/4-8. the three very, very good.
At F/1,8 is a bit sharper than the hexanon at F/1,7 and both something glowy.
At F/2 both are very usuable . Soft corners.
From F/2,8 to F/11 both have very good sharpness, contrast and colors.

If the mamiya had been MC, it could be the best or near that.

By now, it's the new friend/lens for walk around


The Mamiya Sekor ES 55mm 1.8 was once tested as having an extraordinary high central resolution but dropping off to the edges:
#1


I have the SX version of it but someone claimed the optical designs changed more over time in the M42 versions than the Herron Mamiya pages show. Mine is sharp at the center though and that SX M42 model was introduced after the short lived ES bayonet version. For a more even distribution of resolution the Topcor RE 58mm 1.8 is recommended. I also have the Canon 55mm 1.2 SSC that covers other tasks. My main standard lens used is the Olympus OM 50mm 1.4 though that also has good edges. All used on FF.

Success, curious what your experience will be.


The ES, SX and the last DTL 1,8/55 mm Mamiya lens are 6/5 not 6/4 lens
The test was made of 6/5 lens not 6/4.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4