Rollei Planar 1.8/50: if you have it, keep it !

Minolfan · Joined: 30 Dec 2008 Posts: 3439 Location: Netherlands

Hey Peterqd, you forget the Meyer/Pentacon 50mm 1.8 for the Praktica. I think this one was a little bit more expensive than the Tessar; CZJ Pancolar was more pricey.

peterqd · Expire: 2014-01-04

Kram · Joined: 06 Feb 2010 Posts: 1344 Location: Portland, OR

For me, this is a very special lens.
Posted images here:
http://forum.mflenses.com/first-rollei-hft-planar-50-1-8-shoot-t35106.html#1096938

BRunner · Joined: 29 Jul 2009 Posts: 705 Location: Czech Republic

Keysersoze27 · Expire: 2012-12-24

Excalibur · Expire: 2014-04-21

Kram · Joined: 06 Feb 2010 Posts: 1344 Location: Portland, OR

Keysersoze27 · Expire: 2012-12-24

Only Nikkor 1.8/50 AiS version 1 from my 50s can come close at the sharpness @1.8 of the Planar 1.8/50.

(Central sharpness with tripod at 45cm )

alex ph · Joined: 16 Mar 2013 Posts: 1674

I'd like to revitalize the thread with a question. I've got a Rollei Planar 1.8/50 made in Singapore in 1977 following the Paepke Fototechnik who repairs Rollei analog products and who friendly replied to me when I sent them the S/N. I has metal and not rubber focusing ring. The coating is not marked on the lens barrel (like HFT), it just says Planar 1,8/50 Made by Rollei s/n SL. But a red-rainbow relex is well seen under a particular angle. Stunnig lens, impressive 3D effect, beautiful color rendition and microcontrast.

What I discovered testing it, the lens gets pretty much of flare. It is predictibly visible directly opposed to the sun. For example, here is a frontal shot of sunset, which gives red and yellow light spots.

I imagine, those of you who have this lens or its analog expreienced the same effect? (I slightly pushed the contrast).

But what estonished me, in the low light the lens catches even worse some artificial light which is weaker and normally less obtrusive. Look at that night test shot (here I also slightly pushed the contrast). Are not those multiple lamp reflexes weird?

Did you have such an experience with your Rollei Planar or Color-Ultron? If yes, what is your way to cope with it? Is there a good remedy, like a special filter?

ManualFocus-G · Expire: 2014-11-24

That sort of green ghosting has been reported from Sony a7r users recently. Are you using a filter?

simbon4o · Joined: 19 Dec 2011 Posts: 390 Location: Bulgaria

The shot with the sun - the flare is from the lens.
The second shot - it is possible to be UV filter or other filter in front of the lens or the lens itself.
Only one 50mm lens I have tested is good enough to shoot against bright lights and it is SMC Pentax M 50 1.7. It is hard to make flares with it.

alex ph · Joined: 16 Mar 2013 Posts: 1674

Yes, ManualFocus-G, the lens came with a nice B+W UV filter on it. It sits so well on the lens that I did not have an idea to get it off. I think, it is from the same period, the 1970s. More precisely, the filter ring says: B+W 49ES 1*. Both shots were made using NEX-5N, with a FOTGA adapter.

simbon4o, thanks for your tip, next time I will go into the night with the filter off. Agree with your judgment on SMC Pentax lens. I tested an S-M-C Takumar 1.4/50. It cuts any flare to death! But Planar gives a visibly stronger 3D effect, hard to resist.

alex ph · Joined: 16 Mar 2013 Posts: 1674

I made another test in order to see if my Planar gets flare because of the UV filter it came with. So I waited for the night came and made some shots with NEX-5n. Let's see the difference.

Here is a shot with the UV filter on:

The flare is similar to what I already showed in my first post.

And here is the shot with no filter:

The image esthetics apart, what the filter makes, it only sharpens the flare spot given by the lens itself. This Planar is heavily sensitive to stray light!

That ruined my hope for the filter to be the source of that parasitic reflexes in night shots. Maybe some coating issue in my case, even if I can see no visible defects.

But I am not at all dissapointed with the other (and the main) qualities of the lens. The image quality it produces, both for portraits and landscapes, is outstanding.

simbon4o · Joined: 19 Dec 2011 Posts: 390 Location: Bulgaria

SMC 50 1.4 is not the best in flare resistance, you must try the small one SMC M 50 1.7 Wink

. Auto Chinon 50 1.7 Multi Coating is also not bad in this discipline. Rollei Planar looks a little smoother in the bokeh wide open - this is what gives the 3D feeling. Other planars must be closed down a little to give this.

Here is a shot with the M 50 1.7 on film in very bad condition - sun on border of the frame.

And one on digital(old one, that's why the noise is strong in it)

In terms of flare resistance the M 50 1.7 is awesome even the sun is making only soft and smooth lighter spot, no flares Smile

The Rollei looks like my Zenitar 50 1.7 - flares are strong in every direction.

memetph · Joined: 01 Dec 2013 Posts: 940 Location: Poland

I see two different phenomenons. Flare and ghosting.
On one picture , you can even see a reflection from the sensor of the hexagonal aperture.
About the ghosting , I have not found any solution but the UV filter has an influence.

You did not mention which camera you are using. I have tested my different lenses with my A7.
My conclusion about flare are the following :
The best lenses have small elements. My champion is the SMC 50 /4 macro. Lenses with a small rear element are doing well ( smc 28/3.5 ).
Some lenses are simply not useable or in very limited circumstances.
The adapter has a hudge influence. Believe me, I have tested 3 models M42 Nex and only one was ok for the lenses with large elements.
if you have an A7 , don't listen to feed back from people using croped sensors and even Canon 5d. For the latest , the adapters are simple and narrow rings and I suspect this help a lot to reduce the flare ( I should say not to increase the flare).

vanylapep · Joined: 03 Jan 2014 Posts: 312

So the HTF Singapore is the one to get? There's four versions:

- No HTF Made in West Germany (Carl Zeiss)
- No HTF Made in Singapore
- HTF Made in Singapore (SL)
- Rollei-HTF Made in Singapore (no SL)

Is the 1.4 as good?

memetph · Joined: 01 Dec 2013 Posts: 940 Location: Poland

It was late at night ....and I have not notice that your pictures were made with a nex5.
The ghosting with this Rollei is hudge but my conclusion is the same . You should try another adapter.
It could reduce a little bit the ghosting and a lot the flare.

Lightshow · Joined: 04 Nov 2011 Posts: 3666 Location: Calgary

I finally got around to ordering an adapter for mine, so I'll actually be able to use it.
Re: just as sharp wide open as stopped down, my Topcor 58/1.8 & 58/1.4 have this trait. Should start a thread on the subject.

darrski · Joined: 03 Mar 2014 Posts: 55

From what I've seen that lens can really get great images...what do you guys thing about this offering ..in native mounts...no converter needed ..
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Harmless-Converted-Nikon-Dslr-Rollei-HFT-Planar-50mm-f-1-8-50-1-8-HFT-/111245299845?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item19e6bc9085

Tedat · Joined: 08 Nov 2011 Posts: 800 Location: Berlin/Germany

alex ph · Joined: 16 Mar 2013 Posts: 1674

Thank you for your suggestion, memetph, I will search for another adapter or I will test it with EOS first, in the same night-light conditions, in the end of the month.

simbon4o, nice images, impressive counter-light capacities and joly round bokeh. I have an SMC 1.8/55. Will give it a try.

alex ph · Joined: 16 Mar 2013 Posts: 1674

darrski, as far as I understand, converting Rollei is rather easy for someone who has an appropriate substitutive mount. Twice a regular price of Planar 1.8 for the conversion seems a bit high. But it's a layman opinion.

alex ph · Joined: 16 Mar 2013 Posts: 1674

In order to complete tests of my copy, here is a couple of mock macro shots made with Planar put on a reverse ring. Camera NEX-5n, out-of-camera jpg resized and slightly sharpened while resize.

The first one taken at f1.8 looks a bit too dreamy:

But this may be caused by imprecise focusing and handshake at ISO100 (shutter speed around 1/60). For the next shot I set ISO at 400 (shutter 1/320), aperture at f2.8 and that gives a better idea of sharpness and overall image quality that the lens gives being put upside down:

At f5.6 the depth of field predictibly grows. But at f2.8 already (the second image) the lens is already as sharp in its focus peak as at smaller apertures.

Here is a shot at f5.6: