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

Lots of Planar 85/1.4's out there... opinions?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:46 pm    Post subject: Lots of Planar 85/1.4's out there... opinions? Reply with quote
Hi all, just wanted to get some user opinions out there about the jungle of Planars now in existence.

I had the Cosina assembled Planar 85/1.4 ZK for my former Pentax and sold that when I got my current Planar in ZA for Sony A900. I have to be honest though, the manual action on the ZA is terrible and I miss it more than I appreciate having AF.

Furthermore, while the lens in and of itself is a solid performer, I dislike the fact it has been slightly recalculated in ZA mount. More elements, which in performance offers less of the mild diffusion of contrast toward close focus distance, wide open. On one hand, it can focus slightly closer and appear slightly sharper wide open now, but I _preferred_ the slightly dreamy look at 1.4 for my uses. I don't use the ZA much as a result.

So, I find myself considering to sell my ZA and buy an older Planar, convert to M42 mount (www.leitax.com) and have the vintage looking and smooth manual feel Planar on my A900, which I am otherwise ecstatic with. But which one?

I've read the Contax MM's are the ones for converting with regards to Sony anyways.

So I guess I'm curious between the Z, MMG and MMJ, but also still with the AEG - to get some opinions, specifically on bokeh.

I'll show a few samples I've taken with both lenses to describe what I like

Note with the ZK, at MFD, around the focus, how the light diffuses away from the subject. Dreamy.


Also note the mottled, painterly quality to the bokeh - it has some texture I feel.


Here now is the ZA.

Note how the bokeh is perhaps more liquid and the contrast around the plane of focus more clear -




Don't get me wrong, its still a great lens in ZA, but its... different. I just wanted to same lens I was used to.

Can anyone show some examples of lively bokeh from various versions?

Thanks in advance for your time.


Kelly.

ps I covet the Jahre 85/1.2 above all things, but have not yet found one I could afford...


PostPosted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 8:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
There are many discussions about the ZA lens and I think it's more or less confirmed, that the ZA Planar has nothing to do with Zeiss, but it's evolution of the Minolta 85/1.4 lens.

This is the old Zeiss Planar 85/1.4 (C/Y):




This is current Zeiss Planar 85/1.4 (SLR):




Both are based on the same optical formula, Ultron 6/5 - which was only recalculated for the newer version (minor differences)... rear optical group consists of achromatic doublet and one positive element. One thing: 3rd element in the front group - it's very thick and almost flat.


This is Minolta 85/1.4 G (on the left) a Sony "Zeiss" Planar 85/1.4 (on the right):




Minolta has one more element in the rear group (when compared to original Planars). Third optical element in the front group isn't thick - it's quite thin when compared to original Planars. And its front surface is more convex.

Sony "Zeiss" Planar is very similar to Minolta, third element is (like on Minolta) negative meniscus, which is much thinner than on original Zeiss Planars. Rear group is also very similar to the old Minolta, only the semi-last optical element was splitted in two for better possibilities of correction.

If you check reviews, Sony "Zeiss" Planar behaves very similarly to Minolta; curves are shaped similarly, only a bit better thanks to the splitted element.

Sony "Zeiss" Planar was announced in 2006 after Sony acquired Minolta.

Well, Minolta or Zeiss, the lens performs pretty nice Smile


PostPosted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 9:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Kelly
Before you convert a Contax Planar I suggest you try an M42 Pancolar 1.8/80.
The fractional loss of minimum DOF and speed will not be missed.
It's already M42 and performs as the CZ Planar IMHO.
Don't get me wrong the Contax lens is fantastic. It seem though that you have tried a few planar85's and maybe a different horse should step onto the course Wink


PostPosted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 9:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
no-X wrote:
...
Sony "Zeiss" Planar is very similar to Minolta, third element is (like on Minolta) negative meniscus, which is much thinner than on original Zeiss Planars. Rear group is also very similar to the old Minolta, only the semi-last optical element was splitted in two for better possibilities of correction....


Thanks no-X for the informative post. It explains what I'm seeing very well. In the end, if the ZA could somehow have had a smooth damped helical together with the AF (impossible I know), I would try to love it more, but its got two strikes for me now.

It seems like Sony bent over backwards to keep legacy Minolta users a happy bunch, I wonder if they are happy with the new lens or if they too see the differences. But yeah, a solid lens - just not what I was expecting.

F16SUNSHINE wrote:
Kelly
Before you convert a Contax Planar I suggest you try an M42 Pancolar 1.8/80.
The fractional loss of minimum DOF and speed will not be missed.
It's already M42 and performs as the CZ Planar IMHO.
Don't get me wrong the Contax lens is fantastic. It seem though that you have tried a few planar85's and maybe a different horse should step onto the course Wink


Andy! The man who turned me on to the Trioplan against my expectations (100/2.8, bokeh couldn't be _that_ funky right? WRONG!) I'll investigate the Pancolar.

Kelly.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 4:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Just a point of interest - Andy I caved and went for the C/Y 85/1.4 after all. Bought MMJ from Matsuistore in near mint (Ex+) for 593US shipped. Also ordered David Llado (Leitax) C/Y to M42 adapter and a James Lao M42 to Alpha chipped adapter. Total cost will be around $800 cad, will sell my ZA Planar for $1200 cad - after a few tests Smile

For me, I gain back the look for the older Planar, proper MF feel and a third of my money, win-win-win!

Will revive the thread once it comes, thanks for your inputs No-X, Andy.


K.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 5:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I would support andy's proposal ..

the bokeh and rendition of the Pancolar is good enough to be a competitor for Planar 85 ..

I think that Pancolar has shorter minimum focusing distance than Planar 85 C/Y (?) ...
but I am not sure ..

tf


PostPosted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 5:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
C/Y allows 1m and Pancolar 83cm. But extension rings are cheap solution Smile


PostPosted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 5:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Looking forward to your update Kelly. You will love the Contax lens. If you want the original Contax67-86 ring and a hood #4 I might have a spare that I could sell you for reasonable. Ebay sellers are ridiculous with what they charge for those Contax hoods.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 7:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
oops, double post!

Last edited by thePiRaTE!! on Fri Feb 19, 2010 7:33 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 7:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
trifox wrote:
I would support andy's proposal ..

the bokeh and rendition of the Pancolar is good enough to be a competitor for Planar 85 ..

I think that Pancolar has shorter minimum focusing distance than Planar 85 C/Y (?) ...
but I am not sure ..

tf


I went to the 'bay and searched out the Pancolar right away after this thread and would you believe its the same price as the Planar?

Matsuistore - great seller as I'm sure you all know - sells Ex+ Planars for under $600, same price as Pancolar from less reputed sellers. I think because the Planar isn't a native M42, people ignore it a little. Its nice when that sort of quirk works to ones advantage for a change Smile

Regarding MFD, as No-X points out, its not much different. I will use my trusty M42 extension tubes if I need that, but for me the strength of the Planar is in inflicting bokeh from a distance - like a bozookeh, haha. I have a lot of good 50's for closer work.

Anyways, I'm excited to compare the C/Y with my ZA and find out if it meets my old feelings for the ZK I once had Very Happy

F16SUNSHINE wrote:
Looking forward to your update Kelly. You will love the Contax lens. If you want the original Contax67-86 ring and a hood #4 I might have a spare that I could sell you for reasonable. Ebay sellers are ridiculous with what they charge for those Contax hoods.


Thanks again Andy - if you have an extra hood to match this Planar, I would be interested!


K.


PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 9:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
pirate wrote:
the strength of the Planar is in inflicting bokeh from a distance - like a bozookeh, haha

I tried my contax MM but I don't get the same bokeh as the ZK
is this bazookeh Laughing



PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 5:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
...
I tried my contax MM but I don't get the same bokeh as the ZK
is this bazookeh Laughing
...


Poilu, thanks for the test! I think it's much closer in the sense of the bokeh showing more texture than the ZA. The ZA generally produces a very fluid oof area I find.

I think with the shots I was showing for the ZK, I was probably standing back a bit farther from the subject material. Your shots appear to be taken closer to MFD with a little less distance between the subject and background, but you're right in that in doesn't seem to have the diffusive glow around the focus plane.

When I first got the Planar it took me a while to appreciate how to inflict maximum OOF. I was used to the Nokton for example, getting in pretty close on subjects and developing a feel for the distance the background wanted to be to produce the most dramatic bokeh. The Planar has that measly 1:10 max mag. ratio which left my familiar subjects smaller and a lot farther away than I was used to in my composition. But, I learned. The Planar can lob serious blur from way back there and on much larger subject matter, I just had to look to a bigger scale to figure out my bokeh shots and found the Planar could deliver as my 50's had done from closer up. So the Planar to me is like heavy bokeh artillery - my Bozookeh (tm) Very Happy

Looking through some older shots where I've shot at MFD, I can see some closer similarities to your shots -

This shot has a similar, conspicuous edge lighting around the subject as your orange against a light background


And the bokeh here is closer to that seen on your second shot, I think because of the MFD


Still a little different, but it looks to me more familiar than the ZA.

I'm excited to test it myself!


K.


PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 10:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
If you want the washed out bokeh the Planar 1.4/85 is not the lens that delivers it. Even at it's blurrest, the P 1.4/85 bokeh always retains some structure (unless of course you focus to the closest and have a very distant background)

That structure, is the price you pay for the "3D".

-


PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 1:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
for the planar 85/1.4 , it is important optically that the lense be MM (like the 28mm) ?


PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 2:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Heathcliff wrote:
for the planar 85/1.4 , it is important optically that the lense be MM (like the 28mm) ?


No.


PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 4:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Heathcliff wrote:
for the planar 85/1.4 , it is important optically that the lense be MM (like the 28mm) ?


Though I have no personal experience in this field yet, from my initial research into the matter (due to my quest for the bokeh rendition of earlier designs) I have learned of only small, idiosyncratic differences. Optically speaking, the aperture shape changed in most MMs vs the earlier AEGs. This is only important if you have a preference as to what the shape is of your stopped down highlights. Coatings and internal barrel blackening are other things I've read that had 'improved' by later versions - these aspects would help contrast control.


Orio wrote:
If you want the washed out bokeh the Planar 1.4/85 is not the lens that delivers it. Even at it's blurrest, the P 1.4/85 bokeh always retains some structure (unless of course you focus to the closest and have a very distant background)

That structure, is the price you pay for the "3D".

-


hmm. Not sure about washed out. I think if anything I am personally trying to avoid the more fluid characteristic backgrounds the newer ZA model I have provides. I preferred the oof rendition of the 6/5 design as seen in the ZK I once had. Hoping the MMJ I've since ordered will be closer to my memories (or better?) ie, showing more texture in oof as seen in ZK samples vs ZA above.

Regards,

Kelly.


PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 4:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Poilu, the picture with the oranges leaves me speechless. Absolutely breathtaking.

Thomas


PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 4:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
thePiRaTE!! wrote:

Optically speaking, the aperture shape changed in most MMs vs the earlier AEGs. This is only important if you have a preference as to what the shape is of your stopped down highlights.


Yeah but he asked about optically. Glasses wise there should be no difference between AE and MM. Even today's Z lens is very similar to the original AE design.

Quote:
Coatings and internal barrel blackening are other things I've read that had 'improved' by later versions - these aspects would help contrast control.


This is the first time that I ever read about these things.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 12:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:

This is the first time that I ever read about these things.


As I say, its not my personal experience, but I did find the link to where I read it - http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/forum/topic/861952

The poster gives other links himself, but I didn't have time to explore it fully yet.


Kelly.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 12:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
...had this review bookmarked about the 1.4/85 a long time ago:

Quote:
These are my commences;
Both are different. The older AE type will have a better colour redition than the MM type under tunsten lighting night shots and the MM tend to biased to reddish hue. From the first appearance from pictures ,the MM has a more dynamic appeal than the AE type. but if you are comparing the shadow detail the AE have much better resolving power.
Come to sharpness at infinity the AE will able to produced fine razor sharp detail while the MM will tend toward softer image . At closed shot the AE will suffer some vigenet at the 4 corners but the MM will not appear.Overall MM tend to be more contrast which lead me to believe there are some changes in the the optical construction.
But I'm very much convinced Zeiss had strive to maintain and enhanced the standard but they may have introduced new glass material to remain competitive.The sharpness of this AE lens is great as comparable to 50 mm F4 CF lens but CF is still a more superior lens overall.


from photographyreview.com


PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 4:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Keysersoze27 wrote:
...had this review bookmarked about the 1.4/85 a long time ago:

Quote:
These are my commences;
Both are different. The older AE type will have a better colour redition than the MM type under tunsten lighting night shots and the MM tend to biased to reddish hue. From the first appearance from pictures ,the MM has a more dynamic appeal than the AE type. but if you are comparing the shadow detail the AE have much better resolving power.
Come to sharpness at infinity the AE will able to produced fine razor sharp detail while the MM will tend toward softer image . At closed shot the AE will suffer some vigenet at the 4 corners but the MM will not appear.Overall MM tend to be more contrast which lead me to believe there are some changes in the the optical construction.
But I'm very much convinced Zeiss had strive to maintain and enhanced the standard but they may have introduced new glass material to remain competitive.The sharpness of this AE lens is great as comparable to 50 mm F4 CF lens but CF is still a more superior lens overall.


from photographyreview.com


My personal opinion on this review, from a person (me) who has been using a lot both versions in the last few years:
all these things are either there because somebody wanted to see them - or maybe because the person was extremely unlucky to have tried two very different copies of the lens.
But I really believe these come from the imagination or the desire to show himself off as "expert" by writing something new and yet unheard about a popular subject.

Sorry if this sounds hard - but my personal, hands-on experience with both lenses does not show any of that.
Nor is there any factual evidence from Zeiss that would allow to support that.

Take my two cents for what they're worth...


PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 4:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio,

I don't own the lens so I don't have any personal opinion about it .

I just added one of the many reviews of the 1.4/85 than lure on the net for years , take it with a grain of salt .... Very Happy

Many of them have a trend about the difference in "ariosity" as Rino Giardiello also indicated.
Maybe in the 35mm film format the differences are more evident or it just a way to increase the price of the MM lenses much like the German vs Japan build ones Confused


PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
F16SUNSHINE wrote:
Looking forward to your update Kelly. You will love the Contax lens. If you want the original Contax67-86 ring and a hood #4 I might have a spare that I could sell you for reasonable. Ebay sellers are ridiculous with what they charge for those Contax hoods.


Just a quick update - I did get and convert the C/Y. Only had time to shoot indoors at work, so nothing to show yet, except - I did note huge purple fringe with the C/Y in a stress test. Like, as bad as I've seen. On a positive note, the bokeh highlighting had the stronger edge lighting, as I prefer (yes, I am against the web trend in the regard) clearly different to the ZA, so I'm excited to get this lens in some sunlight and see what I can do with it.

K.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 6:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Just wanted to add that I've had a chance to give some quick, unscientific comparisons today between the C/Y and the ZA and will probably show a new thread once I create some controlled examples to display.

- C/Y diffuses light, as I had hoped, much more than ZA. It really gives the appearance of gentleness under f2 to light transitions. It 'fluffs up' areas of light transition presenting its trademark dreaminess. On the negative side, it also diffuses the purple fringe over a wider area as a result (more of a blue on the C/Y actually) though seen side by side with the ZA, is actually very similar in its fringing reaction.

- Circles of confusion are somewhat edge lit on the CY, and evenly lit on the ZA. This lends the ZA a fluid looking oof as everything blends evenly, where the bokeh comes across more dimensional on the Planar.

- The ZA appears to have more contrast wide open, but I was very pleased by the contrast of the CY. I was afraid I was going to take more of a hit stepping back in time with regards to the T* coating. I also feel the diffusive quality of the CY opened up lends both the gentleness and the appearance of softer contrast - it may in fact be less to do with the coating than this optical trait. More comparison in a wider range of conditions would be required.

- Chromatic fringing on the ZA is pure purple, but a less obtrusive shade of violet-blue on the CY. Neither is wanted, but the latter is less noticeable.

- By f4, both lenses appear very sharp across the frame and well controlled with regards to CA, yet both show a notable IQ edge drop off and vignette at wider apertures with the ZA apparently holding on slightly better to IQ. No surprises here.

Subjectively, for my money (a $400 savings in fact) I want my portrait lens to be the kinder gentler MANUAL CY, wide open Smile

A shot from overcast, frosty Calgary while awaiting transit downtown to work this morning:

Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1