MFlenses - A new life in a digital age
MFLenses 2026

Manual Focus Lenses Forum

Explore the world of vintage lenses through repair notes, real test shots, and detailed archive threads packed with images.

Explore the world of vintage lenses through repair notes, real test shots, and detailed archive threads packed with images.
logovectorizer.com
Spotlight

Featured partner placement for the forum front page.

Zeiss battle Prakticar vs Planar
Post new topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  


Post
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 7:12 am
Post subject: Zeiss battle Prakticar vs Planar
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 7:12 am
Post subject: Zeiss battle Prakticar vs Planar
Reply
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.


Post
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 7:47 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 7:47 am
Post subject:
Reply
! Planar is sharper, but Prakticar bokeh shows more detail?! What's up with that?


Post
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 8:00 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 8:00 am
Post subject:
Reply
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


Post
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 8:38 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 8:38 am
Post subject:
Reply
Great comparison, thanks! I'm with Prakticar - when I want clinical sharpness I prefer modern lenses, when I want character I use old ones.


Post
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 8:55 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 8:55 am
Post subject:
Reply
You'd need to use hood on Prakticar. Large front glass nearly reaches out of lens.


Post
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:34 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:34 am
Post subject:
Reply
Looks like a bad copy of the Prakticar, my copy is quite a bit sharper at f1.4,


Post
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 11:10 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 11:10 am
Post subject:
Reply
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?


Post
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 12:15 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 12:15 pm
Post subject:
Reply
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.


Post
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 2:50 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 2:50 pm
Post subject:
Reply
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.


Post
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 6:25 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 6:25 pm
Post subject:
Reply
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


Post
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 7:00 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 7:00 pm
Post subject:
Reply
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.


Post
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 7:25 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 7:25 pm
Post subject:
Reply
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.


Post
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 7:36 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 7:36 pm
Post subject:
Reply
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.


Post
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 11:09 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 11:09 pm
Post subject:
Reply
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.


Post
Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2017 6:28 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2017 6:28 am
Post subject:
Reply
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.


Post
Posted: Mon May 24, 2021 1:32 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon May 24, 2021 1:32 am
Post subject:
Reply
I don't have the Planar but here are:
Some images with the Prakticar.
Bokeh is not unpleasant and it is sharp from wide open.
Tom


#1


#2


#3


#4


Post
Posted: Tue May 25, 2021 6:28 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue May 25, 2021 6:28 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Nice, what version of the lens do you have?


Post
Posted: Tue May 25, 2021 9:57 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue May 25, 2021 9:57 pm
Post subject:
Reply
blotafton wrote:
Nice, what version of the lens do you have?


Thank you.
It is the first version with the outside lettering.
Tom


Post
Posted: Tue May 25, 2021 10:16 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue May 25, 2021 10:16 pm
Post subject:
Reply
blotafton wrote:
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.
I would love to see this bokeh comparison.


Post
Posted: Wed May 26, 2021 1:07 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Wed May 26, 2021 1:07 am
Post subject:
Reply
jamaeolus wrote:
blotafton wrote:
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.
I would love to see this bokeh comparison.


Like 1 Like 1

I agree! A bokeh comparison of different lens designs would be awesome to see. Identifying character by design certainly narrows selection o lenses. Not only to help identify lens design in those "guess which lens?" threads, but to help select a lens for "that" look...


Post
Posted: Wed May 26, 2021 10:23 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Wed May 26, 2021 10:23 am
Post subject:
Reply
Oldhand wrote:
blotafton wrote:
Nice, what version of the lens do you have?


Thank you.
It is the first version with the outside lettering.
Tom


That is the most interesting one in my opinion.


Post
Posted: Wed May 26, 2021 10:30 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Wed May 26, 2021 10:30 am
Post subject:
Reply
visualopsins wrote:
jamaeolus wrote:
blotafton wrote:
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.
I would love to see this bokeh comparison.


Like 1 Like 1

I agree! A bokeh comparison of different lens designs would be awesome to see. Identifying character by design certainly narrows selection o lenses. Not only to help identify lens design in those "guess which lens?" threads, but to help select a lens for "that" look...


Here is the comparison:
http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic,p,1504047.html#1504047

After the time that has past since posting the test I think the test should be redone with better subject and background and better naming of the lenses to avoid confusion.
I would like to have a smaller subject and a more detailed background to give more bokeh to judge.


Post
Posted: Wed May 26, 2021 11:18 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Wed May 26, 2021 11:18 am
Post subject:
Reply
Here are a couple of shots with the AUS Jena Prakticar 50mm f1.4 - first version.
Shot on Fuji XE-2s.
I forgot that I had set the camera to .jpg and not RAW.
The film simulation is Velvia - hence the strong colour
Shot at f1.4
Tom

#1


#2


Post
Posted: Wed May 26, 2021 9:52 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Wed May 26, 2021 9:52 pm
Post subject:
Reply
The Prakticar used for the test reminded me the Super Takumar 50/1,4 7 element.

Nice bokeh and sharp enought.

The planar, sharper and with more constrast has some CA . The Zeiss ZA is a bit sharper with less CA.

neither would be my choice for everyday use


Post
Posted: Wed May 26, 2021 10:50 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Wed May 26, 2021 10:50 pm
Post subject:
Reply
papasito wrote:
The Prakticar used for the test reminded me the Super Takumar 50/1,4 7 element.

Nice bokeh and sharp enought.

The planar, sharper and with more constrast has some CA . The Zeiss ZA is a bit sharper with less CA.

neither would be my choice for everyday use


When used correctly you see less of these weaknesses. I usually don't use f/1.4 at infinity. And up close f/1.4 looks a lot better. The C/Y Planar is an everyday lens for me. Stopping it down makes the images not only very sharp but they also have an extra quality that I can only describe as crispy or micro contrasty.

I agree the Prakticar looks similar to the Super Takumar.
Post new topic Reply to topic
Page 1 of 1