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

Zeiss vs Zeiss
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Dec 11, 2010 11:44 am    Post subject: Zeiss vs Zeiss Reply with quote
i looking for sharp lens and i want buy one 50mm ...
please can say me wath is best choice?
zeiss planar 50mm f1.7 (contax)
zeis pancolar (for m42)

i have m42 adaptor for my canon 450d, but i am attempted by the planar...


PostPosted: Sat Dec 11, 2010 11:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Pancolar is nice, but I'd recommend the Planar if you can adapt C/Y lenses.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
At wider apertures 5.6 and below the Pancolar isn't very sharp in the corners, but that is at fullframe. My copy is quite soft in the center wide open (f/1.8 ) also. I still got some nice results with it on a crop camera (40D) with wide apertures. Stopped down the lens is very sharp and also very good for landscapes.

I have not tried the Contax 50/1.7, but it's probably better in most aspects, especially at wide apertures.

Btw, a better title for your thread would be CZJ vs Contax.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 11, 2010 1:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Try to get Voigtlaender Color-Ultron 1.8/50 for M42. One of sharpest lens at f1.8. With perfect contrast and color rendering.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 11, 2010 1:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
AhamB wrote:
At wider apertures 5.6 and below the Pancolar isn't very sharp in the corners, but that is at fullframe. My copy is quite soft in the center wide open (f/1.8 ) also. I still got some nice results with it on a crop camera (40D) with wide apertures.


I have the same experience. I did several comparisons of Pancolar/Planar 1.4/EF 50 1.8 and the Pancolar was always the least sharp one. Of course, there's more to a lens (esp. among the 50s) then sharpness, but if I'd choose one, it would be the Planar. Wink


PostPosted: Sat Dec 11, 2010 2:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
There are so many great 50mm's out there... out of the two you listed, the Planar would be the better choice. However, I'd recommend going after an Olympus Zuiko 50/1.8 ('made in Japan' version printed on the front of the lens) or 50/1.4 (past 1,000,000 serial number). These represent great value.

Other than that, Nikkor AI/AIS 50/1.4 is super-sharp, contrasty, and 3D, and can be had cheaper than either Zeiss. Yashica ML 50/1.4 is excellent and also inexpensive. SMC Takumar 50/1.4 is nice but way overrated IMO with current (inflated) prices.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 12, 2010 10:14 am    Post subject: Re: Zeiss vs Zeiss Reply with quote
verdurina wrote:
i looking for sharp lens and i want buy one 50mm ...
please can say me wath is best choice?
zeiss planar 50mm f1.7 (contax)
zeis pancolar (for m42)


Neither...The Planar is ok but its has dissapointing bokeh and general rendering plus its mostly plastic in construction.
The Pancolar has lower optical quality, being a Carl Zeiss Jena lens, but at least its mostly all metal in construction.
The Pentacon 50mm f1.8 can match either, and its a darn sight cheaper than both of them.
If you desperately want a good 50mm Zeiss though, the 50mm f1.4 Planar T* is probably the one to get but again, you may end up dissapointed because its bokeh is'nt very nice compared to the bokeh you get from faster f1.2 50mm-58mm lenses.
Personally I'd give Zeiss a miss in the 50-58mm range and look for better, faster alternatives, that can often be bought supprisingly cheaply.
The Canon FL 55mm f1.2 for instance...Optically, so good that Canon carried the design on into the later FD 55mm f1.2, and its all metal in construction.
The only 50-58mm lens that can match it is the Minolta Rokkor 58mm f1.2 but you wont find one of those cheap anymore. The Canon is a lot cheaper Wink


PostPosted: Sun Dec 12, 2010 10:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Had that 1,7 Planar and resold it, again. Nice lens, very good, but not that spectacular and with 0,6m as closest focussing distance? Nice to have for two weeks and nice to resell again.

Klaus


PostPosted: Sun Dec 12, 2010 10:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks to all,
but now I am more confused!
Color-Ultron I really like, I would consider with the planar and Pancole.
I'll choose one of these inexpensive lens set.
Perhaps the plan will be the least expensive but I have to buy the adapter!

Last edited by verdurina on Sun Dec 12, 2010 11:34 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Dec 12, 2010 11:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I missed that you want the lens for Canon crop body. Then the cheapest option will be the QBM bayonet mount version of Color-Ultron or Rollei/Zeiss Planar HFT 1.8/50 (all same lens, only different names). Usually it goes for 20-40€ on eBay.de. Adapter is available on eBay.com from Chinese shops.
Rollei labeled version goes usually cheapest.







PostPosted: Sun Dec 12, 2010 11:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
verdurina wrote:
grazie a tutti,
ma ora sono sempre più confuso!!!
color-ultron mi piace molto, lo vorrei considerare insieme al planar e al pancolar.
credo che sceglierò quello poco costoso lens fra queste indicate.
forse il planar sarà il meno costoso ma dovrò comprare l'adattare!


Verdurina please write in English.
The very late versions of Planar 1.7/50 (those with serial number beginning with a 8 ) are incredibly sharp and the best buy.
If you can not find one, with the same money you can buy a Nikkor. Practically all Nikkor 50mm lenses are very good. Some are excellent. you can not go wrong with them.
A cheaper alternative, but also excellent, are the Olympus 50mm lenses (the old ones, those for manual focus). Both the 1.8 and the 1.4 are reported to be very good (I never had them so I can not speak personally).


PostPosted: Sun Dec 12, 2010 11:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sorry orio, I have the wrong copy / paste from the translator! Very Happy

this is the planar that i want buy! Smile



i want spend almost 40/50€...but i don't think can buy this for 50€! Smile


PostPosted: Sun Dec 12, 2010 11:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Very good choice, but the price would be more around 100€. Wait a bit, and get your Planar copy Cool


PostPosted: Sun Dec 12, 2010 11:52 am    Post subject: Re: Zeiss vs Zeiss Reply with quote
Just to add that you should keep in mind what cameras you might want to use in future. The 450D will accept a wide range of lens mounts with adapters, but if you bought a Pentax or Sigma, for instance, then you wouldn't be able to use lenses with Contax mount. I have M42, Pentax K and Minolta SR film cameras besides my 400D and I can use M42 lenses (e.g. the Pancolar) on all of them.

DSG wrote:
The Canon FL 55mm f1.2 for instance...Optically, so good that Canon carried the design on into the later FD 55mm f1.2, and its all metal in construction.
The only 50-58mm lens that can match it is the Minolta Rokkor 58mm f1.2 but you wont find one of those cheap anymore. The Canon is a lot cheaper Wink

This advice is not helpful. Neither of these lenses can be used on the 450D unless they are converted to a different mount and register distance, or you use an adapter with its own lens, which are more expensive and weaken picture quality.

Last edited by peterqd on Sun Dec 12, 2010 11:59 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Dec 12, 2010 11:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Canon can fit a lot of lenses. But Minolta and Canon FD should be adapted with a special adapter.
maybe it is useful to this table, I do not remember the source, sorry!



PostPosted: Sun Dec 12, 2010 12:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
verdurina wrote:
Canon can fit a lot of lenses. But Minolta and Canon FD should be adapted with a special adapter.
maybe it is useful to this table, I do not remember the source, sorry!


As Peter says, Canon FD and Minolta MD lenses can only be used on Canon EOS cameras if:

a) You only shoot macro
b) You use an adapter with extra glass, which will affect image quality, focal length and speed (a mild teleconverter).

So, not recommended to be honest.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 12, 2010 12:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I also wonder why somebody recommends an FD lens to a beginner who has got an EOS cam.

Thanks for that table, but we have tried so many different mounts that we easily could set up such a table ourselves. Wink

I recommended the Planar, because I understood that you want to decide between the Planar and the Pancolar.

Of course, there are many other excellent 50mm lenses: Nikkor, Zuiko, Takumar, Leica Summicron... all easily adaptable to EOS.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 12, 2010 1:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
Thanks for that table, but we have tried so many different mounts that we easily could set up such a table ourselves. Wink

I did one back in 2008, remember? Smile


PostPosted: Sun Dec 12, 2010 3:19 pm    Post subject: Re: Zeiss vs Zeiss Reply with quote
peterqd wrote:
Just to add that you should keep in mind what cameras you might want to use in future. The 450D will accept a wide range of lens mounts with adapters, but if you bought a Pentax or Sigma, for instance, then you wouldn't be able to use lenses with Contax mount.


But C/Y mount lenses can be converted to other mounts, including Sigma SA and Pentax K...I converted my 50mm f1.7 Planar T* to PK mount, so it can be used on both Sigma and Pentax DSLR's and I converted my 28mm f2.8 Distagon T* to SA mount.

peterqd wrote:

I have M42, Pentax K and Minolta SR film cameras besides my 400D and I can use M42 lenses (e.g. the Pancolar) on all of them.


So?...I can use Pentax K mount lenses without needing adapters, all M42 and manual focus Nikon F lenses via adapters and I have converted Minolta and Olympus OM mount lenses to SA mount too.

peterqd wrote:

DSG wrote:
The Canon FL 55mm f1.2 for instance...Optically, so good that Canon carried the design on into the later FD 55mm f1.2, and its all metal in construction.
The only 50-58mm lens that can match it is the Minolta Rokkor 58mm f1.2 but you wont find one of those cheap anymore. The Canon is a lot cheaper Wink

This advice is not helpful. Neither of these lenses can be used on the 450D unless they are converted to a different mount and register distance, or you use an adapter with its own lens, which are more expensive and weaken picture quality.


I would'nt recommend using optical adapters either but fortunately its easy to convert the FL 55mm f1.2 to other mounts. There are plenty that have been converted to EF mount Wink


PostPosted: Sun Dec 12, 2010 3:51 pm    Post subject: Re: Zeiss vs Zeiss Reply with quote
DSG wrote:
.. its easy to convert the FL 55mm f1.2 to other mounts.

That might be easy for you, but surely not for someone who just goes the first steps into manual lenses!

Thus it's not a useful recommendation to a beginner. I completely agree to Peter!


PostPosted: Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I would like to add for choice. Zenitar M 50/1,7 M42, it sharp in wide open. and cheaper than any Zeiss.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 13, 2010 5:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I wonder what the OP is looking for in a 50 that his 3 helios and one Tessar are not providing. That might point to a recommendation.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 13, 2010 5:53 am    Post subject: Re: Zeiss vs Zeiss Reply with quote
DSG wrote:

I would'nt recommend using optical adapters either but fortunately its easy to convert the FL 55mm f1.2 to other mounts. There are plenty that have been converted to EF mount Wink


Simply not worth it given the alternatives available that require no conversion.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
The very late versions of Planar 1.7/50 (those with serial number beginning with a 8 ) are incredibly sharp and the best buy.


It's impossible to find anywhere.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 13, 2010 4:06 pm    Post subject: Re: Zeiss vs Zeiss Reply with quote
tkbslc wrote:
DSG wrote:

I would'nt recommend using optical adapters either but fortunately its easy to convert the FL 55mm f1.2 to other mounts. There are plenty that have been converted to EF mount Wink


Simply not worth it given the alternatives available that require no conversion.


There are no better alternatives, except for the Minolta Rokkor 58mm f1.2, and that needs conversion too.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2