View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Pancolart
Joined: 04 Feb 2008 Posts: 3702 Location: Slovenia, EU
Expire: 2013-11-18
|
Posted: Sat Oct 19, 2013 11:20 am Post subject: Zeiss Planar and Zeiss Planar |
|
|
Pancolart wrote:
It took me a while to get myself a Carl Zeiss Planar 1.7/50mm C/Y T*. There seem to be many similarities (regarding lens body style and material) with Singapore made late version HFT Rollei Planar (Voigtländer COLOR-ULTRON) 1.8/50mm QBM. This might be answered somewhere already but... _________________ ---------------------------------
The Peculiar Apparatus Of Victorian Steampunk Photography: 100+ Genuine Steampunk Camera Designs https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0B92829NS |
|
Back to top |
|
|
fuzzywuzzy
Joined: 18 Dec 2010 Posts: 1258 Location: Down East, Canada, eh?
Expire: 2013-11-30
|
Posted: Sat Oct 19, 2013 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
fuzzywuzzy wrote:
There's a discussion here:
http://forum.mflenses.com/voigtlaender-color-ultron-50-1-8-on-ebay-t22816.html _________________ I welcome C&C, editing my pics and reposting them on the forum is fine.
NEX-F3
~~~~~~~~~
CZJ Sonnar 135/4, Biotar 58/2, Pancolar 50/2, Tessar 50/2.8, Flek 35/2.8, Flek 25/4
Super Takumar 135/2.5, 135/3.5, 100/4 bellows, 50/1.4, 28/3.5
Helios 58/2, 3M-5A 500/8, Mir 20M
Vivitar Series 1 70-210 - - - - - - - - Nikkor 200/4
Rikenon 28/2.8 - - - - - - - - Zeiss 50/1.7 Planar
PB 50/2.4, 135/2.8
Yashica 50/1.9, 28/2.8, 135/2.8
Hexanon 28/3.5, 50/1.4 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Sat Oct 19, 2013 12:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Two different lenses, the Planar 1.7/50 is the descendent of the Contarex Planar 2/50 and is therefore a 'true' Planar.
The 1.8/50 is the descendent of the Voigtlander Ultron and therefore not a 'true' Planar at all.
I had the 1.8/50 and while I thought it was a very sharp lens with excellent CA control, I didn't think it was anything special, I preferred the Topcon RE Auto Topcor 1.8/58, Minolta MD 1.7/50 and Konica Hexanon 1.7/50 so sold it for a nice profit. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
shapencolour
Joined: 03 Oct 2013 Posts: 270
|
Posted: Sat Oct 19, 2013 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
shapencolour wrote:
Zeiss Planar 50/1.7 C/Y and Rollei Planar HFT 50/1.8 are both the same planar 7/6 desing,though not identical.The HFT's first three lenses are more convex.HFT coatings were aimed to emulate T* coatings,but since the HFT were economical,some compromises must have been taken into account.In the real life experience,C/Y is a better lens overall but not by much.
50/1.8 has little less CA between f1.8 and 2,8 and slightly more muted colours.
f1.8/NEX5N
f5.6/NEX5N
whereas the C/Y is contrastier and crisper with more vivid colour rendition overall
f5.6/NEX3
F4/NEX5N
_________________ shapencolour |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Yann E.
Joined: 19 Jan 2013 Posts: 12 Location: The sunny Gascony, France
|
Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 9:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yann E. wrote:
shapencolour wrote: |
Zeiss Planar 50/1.7 C/Y and Rollei Planar HFT 50/1.8 are both the same planar 7/6 desing,though not identical. |
Not really. Lens construction is quite different for the 2 lenses. As Iangreenhalg1 mentionned, the Rollei 1.8/50 is the last known avatar of the 2/50 Voigtländer Ultron for the Prominent RF camera (a 6/5 lens), first recalculated for the Icarex SLR with addition of one lens (the famous "convex" Ultron, a 7/6 lens) then recalculated again for the short lived Zeiss SL706, with a convex 1st element this time.
The optical scheme is 1+1+1+1|2+1.
The 1.7/50 is NOT the descendent of the Contarex 2/50 Planar (a typical 6/4), it is in fact one of the 2 descendents of the 1.4/55 Contarex Planar with a different 7/6 construction (the 1.4/50 is of the same construction).
The optical scheme is 1+1+1|2+1+1. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 9:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Merci Yann for the info, very useful. Thanks for the correction on the Contarex Planar.
Taunusreiter provides good info on all three generations of the Ultron design:
http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Bessa_RF_histo_dt.html
This is the original for Prominent, Bessamatic, Ultramatic, Vitessa etc:
This is the second version, for Icarex:
This is the third version, better known as the Planar 1.8/50 for Rollei:
For comparison, here is the C/Y Planar 1.7/50:
_________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Yann E.
Joined: 19 Jan 2013 Posts: 12 Location: The sunny Gascony, France
|
Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 9:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yann E. wrote:
Ian,
You're welcome, it's just that I'm a bit of an optical scheme geek...
Still, although you're correct about the Vitessa, the Bessamatix & ultramatic never used the ultron, as its original 6/5 version was not compatible with their register, and the 7/6 ultron was too large for their leaf shutter.
Istead they were fitted with the 2/50 Septon, a 7/5 avatar of the leaf-shutter 2.8/80 Planar and 5.6/135 S-Planar for the Hasselblad 6x6 system :
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 10:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Of course, yes, silly mistake, cheers for the correction. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ForenSeil
Joined: 15 Apr 2011 Posts: 2726 Location: Kiel, Germany.
|
Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 12:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ForenSeil wrote:
shapencolour wrote: |
Zeiss Planar 50/1.7 C/Y and Rollei Planar HFT 50/1.8 are both the same planar 7/6 desing,though not identical.The HFT's first three lenses are more convex.HFT coatings were aimed to emulate T* coatings,but since the HFT were economical,some compromises must have been taken into account.In the real life experience,C/Y is a better lens overall but not by much.
50/1.8 has little less CA between f1.8 and 2,8 and slightly more muted colours.
|
I thought the HFT coating is identical to the T* coating?
My 50/1.8 (I had two but I'm not sure if I testet both) showed more visible blueish/purple CAs wide open than all my other 50ies at that time (some Konica ARs and Minolta MDs), is that normal or was my copy decentered? Is the 50/1.7 even worse? _________________ I'm not a collector, I'm a tester
My camera: Sony A7+Zeiss Sonnar 55/1.8
Current favourite lenses (I have many more):
A few macro-Tominons, Samyang 12/2.8, Noritsu 50.7/9.5, Rodagon 105/5.6 on bellows, Samyang 135/2, Nikon ED 180/2.8, Leitz Elmar-R 250/4, Celestron C8 2000mm F10
Most wanted: Samyang 24/1.4, Samyang 35/1.4, Nikon 200/2 ED
My Blog: http://picturechemistry.own-blog.com/
(German language) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 12:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I think something wrong with your copy as CA correction is one of the strengths of that lens.
HFT is supposedly T* modified for application on large scale by machine. T* isn't suited to large scale production apparently. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Yann E.
Joined: 19 Jan 2013 Posts: 12 Location: The sunny Gascony, France
|
Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 1:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yann E. wrote:
Well, I personally doubt it considering that
- Contax Zeiss production figures were actually at least as high if not largely higher than Rollei Zeiss production figures
- all current (read : for the last 25-30 years) zeiss productions including Hasselblad lenses, Zeiss binoculars and all Sony
Zeiss (including compact & bridge cameras) are T* coated
I read somewhere (can't remember the "where") that HFT was co-engineered by Zeiss & Rollei shortly after Rollei acquired Voigtländer from Zeiss, as Rollei wanted a high-end multicoating along with a full-fledged production licence for Zeiss lenses but Zeiss would not issue a licence for T* at the time. It makes sense, but not all things that make sense are true so don't take my word for it...
Forenseil :
I have noticed the same with 3 different copies of the 1.8/50, only wide open and along with some sherical aberration (a known problem on both 7/6 SLR versions of the Ultron, absent from the 6/5 RF version), so it may be a constant with that lens. CA almost disappears at f2.8 though, so it's not a major issue IMO.
As for the differences between the two coatings, I've used quite a lot of Zeiss glass in the past both in HFT & T* and I find HFT to be slightly less resistant to flare. The color rendition is quite different too, with T* producing extremely dense & saturated colors while HFT colors are less saturated, more "transparent" if you see what I mean.
Aside from the flare issue which can be greatly reduced by a good shade, deciding which is better is largely a matter of personnal taste IMO. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
danfromm
Joined: 04 Sep 2011 Posts: 585
|
Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 1:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
danfromm wrote:
Why do you folks take trade names so seriously? I mean, the original Planar was a symmetrical 6/4 double Gauss type, f/3.3 and slower, depending on focal length. The first lens of that type to succeed commercially was TTH's Series 0 and derivatives, all f/2 or faster asymmetrical 6/4 double Gauss types covered by more patents than I can believe.
Post-WW II f/2.8 5/4 Planars didn't conform at all to Rudolph's original Planar patent. The faster more complex types whose cross-sections are shown above have the trade name, also don't conform to the original patent. Trade name doesn't map cleanly to layout.
This discussion brings to mind an acrimonious one here about what "Biogon" means, also discussions of how many angels, if they exist, can dance on the head of a pin. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 2:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
This is the info I was trying to remember (emphasis added by me):
Quote: |
How do Zeiss T* and Rollei HFT compare?
Since this has recently grown into a frequently asked question we feel it is appropriate to provide an official and unequivocal answer from Carl Zeiss:
HFT, meaning "High Fidelity Transfer", is a multi-layer anti-reflection coating system co-developed by Zeiss and Rollei. This occurred several decades ago at a time when Zeiss T* coating was new on the market and could only be applied at the Zeiss Oberkochen plant to rather small camera lens production batches. Rollei envisaged very large volume production in their then new Singapore plant and therefore encouraged this joint development.
Today the situation is this: HFT has become a well established trademark for Rollei's proprietary multi-layer anti-reflection coating. The optical performance of this Zeiss/Rollei co-development is so close to the performance of the original Zeiss T* that one can hardly detect any difference in all practical picture taking.
The Planar®, Distagon®, Sonnar® lenses that Rollei produces under license from Carl Zeiss are all HFT coated by Rollei. All the lenses that Carl Zeiss produces for Rollei at the Zeiss Oberkochen plant are actually Zeiss T*. coated. However, the designation on these lenses is "HFT" in the interest of remaining fully consistent throughout the Rollei product range. |
_________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Yann E.
Joined: 19 Jan 2013 Posts: 12 Location: The sunny Gascony, France
|
Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 3:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yann E. wrote:
danfromm wrote: |
Why do you folks take trade names so seriously? I mean, the original Planar was a symmetrical 6/4 double Gauss type, f/3.3 and slower, depending on focal length. The first lens of that type to succeed commercially was TTH's Series 0 and derivatives, all f/2 or faster asymmetrical 6/4 double Gauss types covered by more patents than I can believe.
Post-WW II f/2.8 5/4 Planars didn't conform at all to Rudolph's original Planar patent. The faster more complex types whose cross-sections are shown above have the trade name, also don't conform to the original patent. Trade name doesn't map cleanly to layout. |
Exactly, and the same is true for Voigtländer Heliars, with Voigtländer having lumped together all their non-apo "general photography" 5/3 lenses under that name no matter wether they were true Heliar types or Dynars. Zeiss decided one day that all their double Gauss derivatives would be named "Planar" because the name had a reputation (probably from the 2/50 Contarex Planar, as earlier models weren't that successful), and a lot of confusion has followed...
I wholeheartedly agree that comparing a "true" symmetrical Planar, a Biotar, a Biometar, a Septon, an Ultron and a modern apo double Gauss derivative with floating elements is pointless, but as all are or have been sold under the same name it is important to sort them out.
danfromm wrote: |
This discussion brings to mind an acrimonious one here about what "Biogon" means, also discussions of how many angels, if they exist, can dance on the head of a pin. |
I care to disagree ...There's no acrimony here that I can even remotely perceive, unless my English has serious flaws (being French, this is indeed possible ). Just trying to sort out "who is what" in that long list of pseudo-Planars... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Yann E.
Joined: 19 Jan 2013 Posts: 12 Location: The sunny Gascony, France
|
Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yann E. wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
This is the info I was trying to remember (emphasis added by me):
Quote: |
How do Zeiss T* and Rollei HFT compare?
Since this has recently grown into a frequently asked question we feel it is appropriate to provide an official and unequivocal answer from Carl Zeiss:
*SNIP*. |
|
Learning something new everyday is what makes life interesting. Thanks ! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
danfromm
Joined: 04 Sep 2011 Posts: 585
|
Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 5:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
danfromm wrote:
Yann E. wrote: |
danfromm wrote: |
This discussion brings to mind an acrimonious one here about what "Biogon" means, also discussions of how many angels, if they exist, can dance on the head of a pin. |
I care to disagree ...There's no acrimony here that I can even remotely perceive, unless my English has serious flaws (being French, this is indeed possible ). Just trying to sort out "who is what" in that long list of pseudo-Planars... |
Yann, your English is better than my French. You missed the Bigon squabble I referred to. Be glad you did.
Cheers,
Dan |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|