Contax Planar sharpness

[ManualFocus-G]

I did some resolution tests yesterday with the Canon 50/1.8 II and the CZ Planar 50/1.4 and 50/1.7. Was surprised that the Canon blew them both away in the corners at all apertures up to f8. The Contax lenses were much sharper in the middle.

Does anyone know if the Planar design is sharper when focused at longer distances and is just a bit poor for close ups (1m or so)? Or do I have two duff lenses?! My 85/2.8 was also poor in the corners close up.

Thanks

[Attila]

I think Canon was designed for this kind of test, Planar for photography forget this test

[Himself]

[ManualFocus-G]

Ha! As an update, I stopped being lazy and did an infinity shot and the CZ is a LOT sharper in the corners at that sort of distance. It makes me wonder how people come to these resolution scores though!

Right, off to so do some Christmas shopping!

[symphonic]

I actually had a similar experience when I tested my three 50s (EF 50/1.8 II, Pancolar 1.8 and Planar 1.4). The Canon is surprisingly good in every test I made including one to infinity. But, in the end I always grab the Planar with me, it's always the results I get with it that separate it from the others, not 100% crop tests.

[poilu]

[F16SUNSHINE]

They are all basically the same optical scheme... Double Guass as most fast 50's are as well.
The glass/build quality and coatings are pretty much all that separates one 50 from another.

I have a canon ef 5o with metal mount.It is my only AF lens besides the one in my Contax T2 (thanks again Rolf ).
The lens is lightweight and surprisingly good. No shame in shooting it.
They don't call them plastic fantastic for nothing. Now if only it had the same image "Character" as the Planar 1.4

[jjphoto]

[AhamB]

[rbelyell]

graham, if youre off xmas shopping, let me suggest picking up the planat T 85/1.4. i just got one (for a great price i might add) and it confirmed my observations on this site that it is quite possibly the best portrait lens ever! i may never take it off my 5d. forget thet tests; enjoy the pop!

[estudleon]

A lot of excelent taker lense, aren't very good in test. The classic examples are the Leica M lenses.

Not very good in pl/mm tests, but great IQ.
Of course all of them at F/4-5,6 are great in pl/mm too.

Time ago, I saw some pics taken by Orio with an old sonnar 1,5/50. The resolution power was low, sure, but the IQ was great, one of the best that I saw in my taste.

[hexi]

[goombles]

I guess your tests are legit as this person discovered the same: http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/zeiss_85mm/zeiss85mm_3.html

[ManualFocus-G]

Hehe thanks for all the responses! I would never consider changing it as my standard lens, I was just surprised by the test results (which were done in a controlled environment e.g. same tripod, shooting straight on at a flat surface using liveview). The Planar had CA in the sides and poor corners at 1m or so.

But I just love it's character and pop! And at greater distances it is sharp across the frame and better than the Canon

One thing I found really interesting...the corners were worse on a crop sensor 1000D than with a full frame 5D!

No more test cards for me

[Joosep]

This should be why:
Close focus = Macro or portrait, you dont need the corners.
Close to infinity or infinity = You need the everything.
I think CZ designed theyr lenses for these simple reasons.

Now the new lenses...
Close focus = MTF tests, the better the lens, more people will buy it.
Infinity = Noone tests it, who cares ?

[Keysersoze27]

[keyser1884]

In my experience, the Canon is not a lens to be underestimated. It's not my go-to mens despite it being an autofocus lens (OK, not a surprise on this forum).

I would describe that the lens as being uncorrected. It trades its high of perfect rendering when it's spot on for utter utter dismal rendering when the conditions are off.