View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
vanylapep
Joined: 03 Jan 2014 Posts: 312
|
Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
vanylapep wrote:
Hello,
Mine is a Made By Rollei Planar 1.8/50 Rollei-HFT Made In West Germany.. is it any good? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Pancolart
Joined: 04 Feb 2008 Posts: 3705 Location: Slovenia, EU
Expire: 2013-11-18
|
Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Pancolart wrote:
vanylapep wrote: |
Hello,
Mine is a Made By Rollei Planar 1.8/50 Rollei-HFT Made In West Germany.. is it any good? |
Come-on, try it asap! Shoot first, ask later . _________________ ---------------------------------
The Peculiar Apparatus Of Victorian Steampunk Photography: 100+ Genuine Steampunk Camera Designs https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0B92829NS |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Tedat
Joined: 08 Nov 2011 Posts: 800 Location: Berlin/Germany
|
Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Tedat wrote:
it's only good if you use it... and if you use it, you don't need to ask _________________ Regards
Jan
flickr
Sony A7RM2
Contax T*: Distagon 4/18, Distagon 2/28, Distagon 1.4/35, PC-Distagon 2.8/35, Planar 1.4/50, Planar 1.4/85, Planar 2/100, Planar 2/135, S-Planar 2.8/60, Tessar 2.8/45, Mirotar 8/500, Vario Sonnar 3.4/35-70, Vario Sonnar 4.5-5.6/100-300
Carl Zeiss for Rollei QBM: F-Distagon 2.8/16 HFT, Distagon 2.8/25, Planar 1.4/50 HFT, Sonnar 2.8/85
Konica Hexanon AR: 2.8/21, 1.2/57
Other: Minolta F2.8 [T4.5] 135mm STF, Meopta Meostigmat 1.4/70, Tokina AT-X 2.5/90.. and lots of early M42 Yashinon, Rikenon and Mamiya lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
vanylapep
Joined: 03 Jan 2014 Posts: 312
|
Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2014 5:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
vanylapep wrote:
Well, I haven't received it yet that's why. But I was wondering if it's different (in IQ) then the one the OP is talking about. Especially because it's made in Germany and not Singapore.
I'll post samples when I receive and indeed have tried it. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Pancolart
Joined: 04 Feb 2008 Posts: 3705 Location: Slovenia, EU
Expire: 2013-11-18
|
Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Pancolart wrote:
vanylapep wrote: |
Well, I haven't received it yet that's why. But I was wondering if it's different (in IQ) then the one the OP is talking about. Especially because it's made in Germany and not Singapore.
I'll post samples when I receive and indeed have tried it. |
Personally i like German version more. Perhaps it's only collector's / nostalgia bias. _________________ ---------------------------------
The Peculiar Apparatus Of Victorian Steampunk Photography: 100+ Genuine Steampunk Camera Designs https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0B92829NS |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Tedat
Joined: 08 Nov 2011 Posts: 800 Location: Berlin/Germany
|
Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 6:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Tedat wrote:
they are all the same including the Voigtländer Color Ultron 1.8/50.. there may be differences in handling and coating.. that's all. _________________ Regards
Jan
flickr
Sony A7RM2
Contax T*: Distagon 4/18, Distagon 2/28, Distagon 1.4/35, PC-Distagon 2.8/35, Planar 1.4/50, Planar 1.4/85, Planar 2/100, Planar 2/135, S-Planar 2.8/60, Tessar 2.8/45, Mirotar 8/500, Vario Sonnar 3.4/35-70, Vario Sonnar 4.5-5.6/100-300
Carl Zeiss for Rollei QBM: F-Distagon 2.8/16 HFT, Distagon 2.8/25, Planar 1.4/50 HFT, Sonnar 2.8/85
Konica Hexanon AR: 2.8/21, 1.2/57
Other: Minolta F2.8 [T4.5] 135mm STF, Meopta Meostigmat 1.4/70, Tokina AT-X 2.5/90.. and lots of early M42 Yashinon, Rikenon and Mamiya lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
pinholecam
Joined: 26 Nov 2012 Posts: 223
|
Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
pinholecam wrote:
I have such a lens but it was converted by a Taiwanese seller.
Price was about the same though.
The conversion (M42 mount) is well done and the nice thing now is that the lens works on my prev 5D w/o hitting the mirror and is a more universal M42 mount which fits on my Pentax dslr too (as well as A7, though that can take anything anyway )
I'm from Singapore, so I wanted to get it as a memento too.
I agree with the observation of poorer flare resistance as I compared it to the SMC Tak 55/1.8
But its got a nice o/p for sure imo.
DSC0659220140417ILCE-7 by jenkwang, on Flickr
Taken with the lens |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2017 3:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I was rooting in my lens cupboard and found a lens I never knew I owned - a Rollei Planar 1.8/50. It's made in Singapore, all metal, but has no coating marks - no HFT, nothing. So what do I have? I thought all the Rollei made in Singapore lenses were HFT coated, so do I have a lens assembled in Singapore using double coated glass from Zeiss in Germany?
My lens looks like this one:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Rollei-Planar-50-mm-1-8/252977480316?_trksid=p2047675.c100005.m1851&_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIM.MBE%26ao%3D2%26asc%3D43781%26meid%3D4b38382028f1439f92b2df90bc2463ee%26pid%3D100005%26rk%3D2%26rkt%3D6%26sd%3D261733643371 _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
blotafton
Joined: 08 Aug 2013 Posts: 1636 Location: Sweden
|
Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2017 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
blotafton wrote:
vanylapep wrote: |
Well, I haven't received it yet that's why. But I was wondering if it's different (in IQ) then the one the OP is talking about. Especially because it's made in Germany and not Singapore.
I'll post samples when I receive and indeed have tried it. |
I happened to get one of each and did a quick test. The Singapore HFT version (near mint) has smoother operation and natural colors. My German copy is well used and is a little stiff in focusing. Images are slightly more green and the reds are not as deep, but not by much. I place the HFT ahead. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tb_a
Joined: 26 Jan 2010 Posts: 3678 Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2017 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tb_a wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
I was rooting in my lens cupboard and found a lens I never knew I owned - a Rollei Planar 1.8/50. It's made in Singapore, all metal, but has no coating marks - no HFT, nothing. So what do I have? I thought all the Rollei made in Singapore lenses were HFT coated, so do I have a lens assembled in Singapore using double coated glass from Zeiss in Germany? |
ALL of the QBM lenses manufactured in Singapore by Rollei (for Rollei and Voigtlaender cameras) have been made there only under license from Zeiss/Oberkochen.
Obviously there have been both Rollei and Zeiss QBM lenses without HFT coatings as well: http://www.sl66.com/pg/HFT_coating.shtml
BTW, T* and HFT is identical and was a joint development of Zeiss and Rollei: http://www.dantestella.com/zeiss/coatings.html _________________ Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2017 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I thought that the only non-HFT Rollei SL lenses were the early German ones, but I guess I must have an early Singapore one without HFT.
T* and HFT are not quite the same, T* has some steps that must be done manually whereas HFT can be done by machines. The end result is practically the same. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
l9magen
Joined: 13 Jul 2011 Posts: 326 Location: Calgary, Canada
Expire: 2016-10-21
|
Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2017 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
l9magen wrote:
I wonder what other joys are lurking in the back of this mystical cupboard. _________________ Lochlann
Digital Camera: Leica MM246 & M10
RF lenses: Zeiss ZM, assorted Japanese LTMs & Nikkor-S |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2017 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Well, today I found three lenses I didn't know I had - a Pentacon 2.8/135 MC M42, a black Jupiter-8 2/50 on a Zorki 4 I also didn't know I had and a Planar 1.8/50.
Last week I found an early Minolta 3.5/100 that sadly has a stuck iris and discovered I have two identical J-9s for Kiev/Contax one a 1961 and the other a 1963, I remember buying the 1963 one.
I just have too much stuff and not enough space to store it all so it is all easily accessible and catalogue-able.
I'm sure I'm not the only one.... _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lloydy
Joined: 02 Sep 2009 Posts: 7795 Location: Ironbridge. UK.
Expire: 2022-01-01
|
Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2017 12:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lloydy wrote:
Strangely enough.....I got my Planar 50 / 1.8 out of the case today, My lens has Serial No. 1036*** SL Made by Rollei. Planar 1.8 / 50 on the ring, and 'Made in West Germany' on the rear mount. There's no HFT or T*, but the lens is coated. It cam on a Rolleiflex SL35 Serial No 4091*** that is 'Made in Singapore' sometime between 1972 and 1976.
Maybe the cameras were shipped back to Germany and fitted with a lens? or lenses shipped to Singapore before production started there? Who knows?
The main reason I got it out of the case was to compare it to a Contax / Yashica lens because I'd love a Planar to fit on my Contax RX camera and wondered if the QBM mount could be taken off and replaced with a C/Y without modification? The Planar is superb, as is the Contax RX, they would be a perfect match. _________________ LENSES & CAMERAS FOR SALE.....
I have loads of stuff that I have to get rid of, if you see me commenting about something I have got and you want one, ask me.
My Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/mudplugga/
My ipernity -
http://www.ipernity.com/home/294337 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
l9magen
Joined: 13 Jul 2011 Posts: 326 Location: Calgary, Canada
Expire: 2016-10-21
|
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2017 2:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
l9magen wrote:
What about either of the native Contax Planars (f1.4 or f1.7)?
Am I missing something?
I shot with my f1.4 and 1.7 on the RX body, and both performed admirably. I recently have had to sell off a lot of lenses, and the f1.7 went off to market.
But already I'm wondering if I kept the f1.4 purely for the extra stop, and if that was worth it or not: the f1.7 was sharp at all f-stops. I might regret the sale.
...no, no: I WILL regret that sale. _________________ Lochlann
Digital Camera: Leica MM246 & M10
RF lenses: Zeiss ZM, assorted Japanese LTMs & Nikkor-S |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tb_a
Joined: 26 Jan 2010 Posts: 3678 Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2017 4:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
tb_a wrote:
l9magen wrote: |
What about either of the native Contax Planars (f1.4 or f1.7)?
Am I missing something?
I shot with my f1.4 and 1.7 on the RX body, and both performed admirably. I recently have had to sell off a lot of lenses, and the f1.7 went off to market.
But already I'm wondering if I kept the f1.4 purely for the extra stop, and if that was worth it or not: the f1.7 was sharp at all f-stops. I might regret the sale.
...no, no: I WILL regret that sale. |
The F1.4 versions of the Contax and Rollei Planars are practically the same lenses with different mounts, whereby the Contax version was made by Tomioka/Yashica (Kyocera) in Japan and the Rollei one by Rollei/Singapore (early versions in Germany).
The F1.7 Contax Planar is more or less the same construction as the F1.4 version and was introduced 1982 as a more affordable alternative to the F1.4 version with a slightly inferior center resolution. BTW, the Yashica ML 50/1.7 shares the same construction and is nearly identical in performance.
The slightly slower F1.8 Rollei/Voigtlaender Planar/Ultron is a different construction, already introduced 1974. The performance of the F1.8 and F1.7 versions is on a very high level (according to a comparative test report of the German "Color Foto" magazine from 1984) with very minor and neglect-able differences comparable to the Leitz Summicron-R 50/2 from that time.
The advantage of the Voigtlaender variant is that it is available in a M42 version as well. That's the reason why I went for this one as it's also usable on my FF Sony A850 DSLR. _________________ Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
l9magen
Joined: 13 Jul 2011 Posts: 326 Location: Calgary, Canada
Expire: 2016-10-21
|
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2017 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
l9magen wrote:
Thank you for the information Thomas. I personally never noticed a big difference in resolution between the Contax Planars, but I never did any specific tests. So you are probably right.
I'm not sure just how similar the construction was: same optical design scheme perhaps, but the size differential does suggest something else - plus the greater degree of CA exhibited by the 1.4 when closed down to f2 (in comparison to the 1.7 when closed down to f2) also suggests that there was something different between the lenses.
Didn't someone once post the optical schemes here? I shall go hunt for them.... _________________ Lochlann
Digital Camera: Leica MM246 & M10
RF lenses: Zeiss ZM, assorted Japanese LTMs & Nikkor-S |
|
Back to top |
|
|
l9magen
Joined: 13 Jul 2011 Posts: 326 Location: Calgary, Canada
Expire: 2016-10-21
|
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2017 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
l9magen wrote:
Found it - and you were correct Thomas:
http://forum.mflenses.com/schneider-sl-xenon-1-8-50mm-in-qbm-t40385,start,15.html
I was contemplating selling my Rollei 50/1.8 as part of an enforced clearout, and nearly sold it to member BarneyL last month. But I took a day to reconsider, and for once, I made the right decision to hold onto the Rollei (sorry Bartek). This thread has helped that feel-good factor. _________________ Lochlann
Digital Camera: Leica MM246 & M10
RF lenses: Zeiss ZM, assorted Japanese LTMs & Nikkor-S |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tb_a
Joined: 26 Jan 2010 Posts: 3678 Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2017 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tb_a wrote:
l9magen wrote: |
Thank you for the information Thomas. I personally never noticed a big difference in resolution between the Contax Planars, but I never did any specific tests. So you are probably right.
I'm not sure just how similar the construction was: same optical design scheme perhaps, but the size differential does suggest something else - plus the greater degree of CA exhibited by the 1.4 when closed down to f2 (in comparison to the 1.7 when closed down to f2) also suggests that there was something different between the lenses.
Didn't someone once post the optical schemes here? I shall go hunt for them.... |
Lochlann, that's what I've found:
It's not exactly the same but the F1.7 construction was based on the F1.4 construction.
However, I never owned the F1.4 version myself. Therefore I can olny quote what I've read in my books, my magazines and on the internet. The Planar history might be of interest for you to read: http://vintage-camera-lenses.com/carl-zeiss-planar-history-part-3/
Cheers, _________________ Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
l9magen
Joined: 13 Jul 2011 Posts: 326 Location: Calgary, Canada
Expire: 2016-10-21
|
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2017 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
l9magen wrote:
Ha, I read that right after I made my earlier posts, which is why I was reminded that I've seen the optical designs somewhere before. But it was good to refresh myself.
Following on from that, are both the SL-Xenon 50/1.8 (QBM) and the Xenon 50/1.9 (M42) both planar-type designs too? And are they same lenses, but just in different mounts? (the difference in maximum f-stop could just be a marketing ploy)
I have had both but found the SL-Xenon to be much better (sharper, better colours, much nicer wide open). I wonder what the difference might be. I found this quote from an old thread here:
Quote: |
The slightly asymmetrical Xenon design is exactly the same as the later Zeiss Contarex Planar 50 f2, Zeiss Contax G Planar 45 f2 and Leitz Summicron 50f2. |
......strange, neither Xenons remind me of the Contax G planar
Enjoy your weekends everyone. _________________ Lochlann
Digital Camera: Leica MM246 & M10
RF lenses: Zeiss ZM, assorted Japanese LTMs & Nikkor-S |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 4073 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Sat May 22, 2021 9:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
taunusreiter wrote: |
... the 50/1.8 Planar: According to Dr. Tronnier jun., son of the designer of this lens, the GERMAN made Planar (7 elements/ 6 groups) was the last design of A.W.Tronnier and was changed to a simpler 6/4 design when Rollei moved production to Singapore. |
I just dicovered that I have ...
1) one "Carl Zeiss Planar 1.8/50 stamped "Lens made in West Germany"
2) one "HFT PLanar 1.8/50" stamped "Lens made in Singapur"
3) one "Rollei-HFT PLanar 1.8/50" stamped "Made by Rollei Singapur"
4) one "Rollei-HFT PLanar 1.8/50" not staped at all (neither "Germany" nor "Singapur")
All of them have eight light reflexes in front of the aperture, thus indicating that they all are the famous [7/6] Planar design by Tronnier. The above statement that the design was changed to [6/4] when moving the production to Singapur obviously is not true.
S _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 11054 Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
Posted: Sat May 22, 2021 9:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
stevemark wrote: |
taunusreiter wrote: |
... the 50/1.8 Planar: According to Dr. Tronnier jun., son of the designer of this lens, the GERMAN made Planar (7 elements/ 6 groups) was the last design of A.W.Tronnier and was changed to a simpler 6/4 design when Rollei moved production to Singapore. |
I just dicovered that I have ...
1) one "Carl Zeiss Planar 1.8/50 stamped "Lens made in West Germany"
2) one "HFT PLanar 1.8/50" stamped "Lens made in Singapur"
3) one "Rollei-HFT PLanar 1.8/50" stamped "Made by Rollei Singapur"
4) one "Rollei-HFT PLanar 1.8/50" not staped at all (neither "Germany" nor "Singapur")
All of them have eight light reflexes in front of the aperture, thus indicating that they all are the famous [7/6] Planar design by Tronnier. The above statement that the design was changed to [6/4] when moving the production to Singapur obviously is not true.
S |
What about reflections behind aperture -- just asking I don't know if that makes a difference... _________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX-A ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (151B), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
tb_a
Joined: 26 Jan 2010 Posts: 3678 Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
Posted: Sat May 22, 2021 10:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tb_a wrote:
There are obviously some myths around about the Planar 50/1.8 for Rollei/Voigtländer.
I can confirm that according to the Rollei Report from Claus Prochnov which lists all production figures from the original Rollei documents there have been:
5 slightly different Rollei versions marked Planar and 4 different Rollei versions marked Opton (for eastern block countries only),
3 slightly different Voigtländer versions marked Color-Ultron and
1 Ifba version marked Ifbagon (french market version) for "flash" distributor.
These differences are limited to the mount (M42 and QBM) and aperture mechanism.
ALL of them share exactly the same lens construction 7/6 and ALL are HFT coated as from 1974 (when production shifted to Singapore) until end of production apprx. 1980; i.e. from 1970 to 1974 HFT and MC versions have been produced in Germany.
Everything else is a fairy tale. _________________ Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 4073 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Sun May 23, 2021 12:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
visualopsins wrote: |
What about reflections behind aperture -- just asking I don't know if that makes a difference... |
Eight reflexes in front of the aperture means either [4/4] lenses or [5/3] in front of the aperture.
The first possibility [4/4] is incompatible with the proposed (hypothetical) [6/4] construction of the "Singapur Planar 1.8/50mm". The second possibility [5/3] would mean that we have only one single lens behind the aperture - which highly unlikely for a 1.8/50mm lens. Therefore I didn't bother to look at the rear side reflexes ...
S
PS I just checked now: Both the "Carl Zeiss Planar 1.8/50mm" (made in Germany) as well as the "Singapur Planar 1.8/50mm" have five reflexes behind the aperture, and these reflexes have the same shape. Eight reflexes infront of the aperture and five behind the aperture is exactly what we would expect from the [7/6] construction.
tb_a wrote: |
There are obviously some myths around about the Planar 50/1.8 for Rollei/Voigtländer.
I can confirm that according to the Rollei Report from Claus Prochnov ... ALL of them share exactly the same lens construction 7/6 and ALL are HFT coated as from 1974 (when production shifted to Singapore) until end of production apprx. 1980; i.e. from 1970 to 1974 HFT and MC versions have been produced in Germany.
Everything else is a fairy tale. |
Thanks a lot for this clarification which confirms my observation.
S _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
alex ph
Joined: 16 Mar 2013 Posts: 1674
|
Posted: Sun May 23, 2021 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
alex ph wrote:
tb_a wrote: |
Everything else is a fairy tale. |
I like the tone of your conclusion! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|