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

Zeiss battle Prakticar vs Planar
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 7:12 am    Post subject: Zeiss battle Prakticar vs Planar Reply with quote

50mm f/1.4 battle. The Prakticar is version 1. I was surprised about how soft it is at f1.4, reminds me of the Zuiko 55mm f1.2. Feel free to comment on the performance.
The camera is the Sony a7, tripod mounted, 2s shutter delay, e-FCS off.



Prakticar f/1.4:


f/1.4 100%


f/5.6 100%









Planar f/1.4


f/1.4 100%


f/5.6 100%






Planar f/1.4


f/1.4 100%


f/5.6 100%



Prakticar f/1.4


f/1.4 100%


f/5.6 100%



Bokeh comparison, color adjusted.

Prakticar:


Planar




The Planar has better bokeh.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 7:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

! Planar is sharper, but Prakticar bokeh shows more detail?! What's up with that?


PostPosted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 8:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

To my eyes, the Planar looks more clinical while the Prakticar looks more artistic.
I think that in my own photography I would have more fun and produce more pleasing results with the Prakticar.
I really like the colour rendering and the way that it paints.
Tom


PostPosted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 8:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Great comparison, thanks! I'm with Prakticar - when I want clinical sharpness I prefer modern lenses, when I want character I use old ones.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 8:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You'd need to use hood on Prakticar. Large front glass nearly reaches out of lens.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Looks like a bad copy of the Prakticar, my copy is quite a bit sharper at f1.4,


PostPosted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 11:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for comments!

I am also thinking that maybe something is wrong with the Prakticar. But is has no signs of damage and does not seem to be worked on. And stopping down to f/2.8 makes the glow disappear. This speaks against there being any fault and makes me think that it's just the character of the lens. I have a rubber lens hood somewhere to try, but don't expect it will help much.

Ian, is your lens also version 1?


PostPosted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 12:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The first version of CZJ Prakticar 50/1.4 is known to be really subpar. It seems it has gained its outrageous price just for being f/1.4 and having a "Zeiss" label.

Simply go for the second version if you want a f/1.4 Prakticar.

// Thanks for the test anyway.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 2:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes mine is v1, and no, it isn't known for being subpar, in fact, it should be superb. Same with the 1.8 version, which is a serious rival to the Planar 1.7/50.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 6:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Looks like a bad copy of the Prakticar, my copy is quite a bit sharper at f1.4,


Could you provide some Praktikar images and 100% crops taken at f1.4? That would help to clarify your statement ... thanks Wink

Stephan


PostPosted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 7:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I had 2nd version of Prakticar few years ago as well as Planar 1.4/50
I've made some comparision beetwen them and I may say - there was no much difference in sharpness at f/1.4
At least I can't say that Planar is much sharper than Prakticar. I'd say both lenses perform very well wide open.
As fore bokeh - I always prefer Carl Zeiss Jena lenses to Zeiss from West Germany. Yes Zeiss Oberkochen lenses are more modern and their bokeh is too proper, but Jena lenses bokeh is more artistic and unique.
For example - Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar 1.8/80 is quite more appreciated by the collectors and photographers comparing to Zeiss Planar 1.4/85 for C/Y even despite the fact that 1.4/85 Planar is faster and optically more complete.

If i find test shots of mine Prakticar 1.4/50 i'll upload them.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 7:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was about to ask the same! If I have a faulty copy I need to get it replaced.

It seems to work best at close distance when wide open.

Some more samples. With a few edits.








2.8 or 4










Oh, and this lens has that 3d-look. (when making stereo images) Wink crossed eye viewing for 3d.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 7:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

visualopsins wrote:
! Planar is sharper, but Prakticar bokeh shows more detail?! What's up with that?


It's not uncommon to have such differences in bokeh.
It's just more "busy" or "nervous" bokeh, due to design.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 11:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

blotafton wrote:
visualopsins wrote:
! Planar is sharper, but Prakticar bokeh shows more detail?! What's up with that?


It's not uncommon to have such differences in bokeh.
It's just more "busy" or "nervous" bokeh, due to design.


I think here due to different dof placement, or, possibly planar highlights overexposure. Prakticar focus is slightly farther away, so bokeh highlights are more in focus. Identical focus would have produced very much more similar results, imho.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 08, 2017 6:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

visualopsins wrote:
blotafton wrote:
visualopsins wrote:
! Planar is sharper, but Prakticar bokeh shows more detail?! What's up with that?


It's not uncommon to have such differences in bokeh.
It's just more "busy" or "nervous" bokeh, due to design.


I think here due to different dof placement, or, possibly planar highlights overexposure. Prakticar focus is slightly farther away, so bokeh highlights are more in focus. Identical focus would have produced very much more similar results, imho.


The focus is almost the same give or take a few mm. Not enough to make a difference. Different optical designs creates different out of focus highlights. They are exposed the same but the Planar has a shorter shutter speed due to it not having yellow glass from radiation.

I have made a big bokeh test with over 40 normal lenses that I have not posted yet, I could do if there's any interest. Lenses with similar design have similar bokeh, I think most will agree on this.