Planar 85 rollei and contax quick comparison

[F16SUNSHINE]

I mean really quick
But here you go.
I will comment later. I want to get a couple shots that make use of the Triangle for background texture.
I have seen some samples on someones flickr page. But I can't find it.
These are both at f4
Full size @ imageshack below Contax (LH)is first
Rollei Second(RH)



Contax AE


Rollie / contax

[Orio]

The bokeh looks actually different !

[F16SUNSHINE]

It does for sure.
So here is another quick look with denser background highlights.
This is an awful shot just to inspire some thought.
The funky triangle Bokeh is in full effect here.
You can see how it could be used to actually "make" a nice corse background for Portraits etc..
F2.8

[Orio]

yeah...looks like a Christmas tree
However wide open the Rollei seems to have a smoother bokeh than the Contax - just a little bit not much.
It would be interesting to see if this happens thanks to less sharpness, or if the two things are independent.

[peterqd]

[bawang]

I prefer the bokeh from the Contax ver. The one from the Rollei seems like lazy brush strokes, very careless and hurried strokes. I guess it's a matter of taste.

Andy, can you take/post a similar denser background with Contax. The triangle Rollei reminded me of the kaleidoscope my kids did at school

[F16SUNSHINE]

Khidhir I will do when I can.

I know that it is a unique chance to compare these two.
I hope to get some nice human subjects to do so properly.
For those interested in an opinion.
The Contax is my first choice. I do like the very unique character from the Rollei.
Also this Bokeh is something that can be a tool like no other.
Especially considering the sharpness and classic "Zeissy" look of the lens.
It is actually only in fairly intense highlights that this triangualr shape is apparent .Two sample without "hot" highlights are below both f4.
Used in a "softer" lighting or low light situation the Bokeh is as smooth as ever.
One should also not expect to find the Rollei for less money.
The HFT 1.4/85 is generally 1/3-2/3 more mooonaayee$ than a Contax MM version. There is the collector factor to consider.
All that said it is cool and I will pull it to the top of the Que and make more posts with it soon.

Full size by request
Contax


Rollei

[F16SUNSHINE]

BTW

On these last two I prefer the Rollei version.
Look at the bright cliff face and lake in the far background 2/3's from the left edge of the image.

Subtle things of course but we are just having fun with techy stuff anyway.
Well maybe it could make a shot who knows.

[poilu]

for me it is exactly the same lens
the very little better contrast of the Contax is probably due to better coating
you are right about the collector factor
I could say you are Zeiss collector

[Orio]

The Contax shot shows a tiny little more contrast and micro-contrast

Contrast test: if you look at the tree top left, you can see that the shadows densities of the two images are close (although the Contax shot is slightly darker overall); but if you look at the shadows on the hill over the lake, you can see that the difference in density is higher (the Rollei shot has less dense shadows)

Micro-contrast test: if you look at the OOF stone on the right, you can see that on the Contax picture it is easier to separate visually with a contour the white little blots that are on the top (lightened) part from the purplish base colour of the stone.
This of course translate also into the "smoother bokeh" category, so it will be a matter of preference, those who prefer the smoother bokeh will like the Rollei image better, those who prefer more micro-contrast will like the Contax image better.

We are speaking of really tiny differences anyway.
-