Menu
What's new
CI Photocommunity

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

The Zeiss Planar 50/1.4

G

Guest

Many photogs, especially beginner, ignore this standard lens, This is one of the 3 best Japan made Carl Zeiss lens. Others are Distagon 21/2.8 and Planar 135/2(60th annv'y).
For a proper use, it can be some time used as wide angle and some time can be used as mid-tele. Here attached one of my work with 50/1.4.
 
G

Guest

Does anybody know how to tell a MM type or an AE type lens from appearance? I want to buy a used one but even the seller doesn't know.
Thanks
 
G

Guest

> Hi Feng.

These lenses are very easy to tell apart. The MM version has an extra pin which is located near the edge of the aperture ring. Furthermore, the MM version's smallest aperture digit (F/16) is green, and the AE version's is white.

Hope this helps

G Couture
 
G

Guest

Hi
what about the quality of the 1.4 to the 1.7-Planar ?
I already have the 1.7-Planar (MM-serion) and now have the option of buying the 1.4-Planar (AE-version - I don't need MM really as I use the 137MA).
Is the 1.4-Planar really better ?
It feels better, you can get closer with it - o.k. but what about the optical quality ?
hope to get answers....
Paul
 
G

Guest

>[Do you mean a trade-in offer for the 50/1.4? If so, I guess it'll cost you >minial and recommend you to go. Otherwise, you'll have two standards >lenses, which is unnecessary.

For the optical difference, it would be hard to note unless your shot taken at wide open and enlarged into 16x20.]
 
G

Guest

Hi Paul,

I first got a P50/1.7MM when I got my 167MT, I later sold it and got a P50/1.4MM and can only say that I can't really tell the difference. From looking at the lens test results the 1.4 performs slightly better at the widest apertures, below F2.8. Now that I have an RTS3 body as well I picked up another P50/1.7MM, the 1.4 is heavier (more glass) but the build quality on both is excellint in my opinion. Optically both are excellent and if you are not frquently shooting below F2.8 there is no optical advantage at all in having the 1.4, if anything it's larger front element is likely to make it more prone to flare. I would actually say that a 1.7MM has one slight advantage over a 1.4 AE in that it's aperture blades have a different profile giving a slightly more pleasing Bokeh, if you want to go for a 1.4 I would wait for an MM version, after all you would want a 1.4 for it's wide performance which suggests lots of "out of focus" parts in the compositions which you would want rendered as pleasing as possible. The differences are subtle, they're all great lenses, hope this is of some help!

Cheers,

Art.
 
G

Guest

Hi Paul,

When the RTS III was launched some ten years ago it was thoroughly testet by the national photo magazine in Sweden - and so was the 50/1.7. The test crew concluded then, that the 50/1.7 was the sharpest lens they had ever tested - even sharper than the 50/1.4 tested some years before.

It might be that optical difference due to production variance from lens to lens of each opening is more significant than differences between the 50/1.4 and 50/1.7.

Enjoy!

Jakob
 
G

Guest

Hi folks,

thanx a lot !
Perhaps I have to take some photos to compare these lenses.
And then : Looking for an affordable 85/100mm....
Paul
 
G

Guest

>Good move, Paul. Remember that Planar 50/1.7 is also a sharp lens. Strongly >advise you go for another focal length, esp the 85/1.4.
 
G

Guest

That'll be too expensive...
I already have a 85mm-lens (M42-screw-mount Pentax 1.8/85) and a 90mm-macro-lens (old Tamron 2.5/90).
So I don't really NEED one but just want to have one. Do you think that the 1.4/85 is optically really better than the 2.8/85 ?
I already have now the 1.4/50 (got it as a cheap set with a Yashica FR !) so I have a lens for low-light situation and I think that the faster lenses have some compromises in themselves...

Paul
 
G

Guest

>The Planar 85/1.4 is of course outperformed Sonnar 85/2.8. If you think the >latter fits your budget, you should go for West Germany version(ie, Sonnar >85/2.8 AEG) owing to better color rendition. However, your old Pentax >85/1.8 is a famous mid-tele! Its overall performance may rank above the >sonnar 85/2.8...If you really WANT another budgeted CZ mid-tele lens, you >may consider sonnar 100/2.8(AEG) or sonnar 135/2.8(Japan), the former is >quite rare but it's better.

What compromises do you mean for those fast lenses? Heavy in weight?
 
G

Guest

Both the Sonnar 85/2.8 and the Planar 85/1.4 will have much richer and clea= ner colors than the longer Takumar screw mount lenses. The Takumars that I = have tried have had a cold tone to them. The old screw mount east german Ze= iss lenses also are warmer than the Takumar lenses. If you are shooting bla= ck and white, it will probably be difficult to see any difference at mid-ap= artures whether you use Takumar or Zeiss - they will all be sharp if you ar= e using a fast shutter speed or a tripod. The Takumar lenses are also excel= lent lenses.

I do not believe that you can see any difference between the 'made in Germa= ny' and the 'made in Japan' lenses. All the Zeiss lenses have good color re= ndition.

The Planar 85 is supposedly a little bit sharper at infinity than the Sonna= r 85, and the Sonnar 85 is supposedly a little sharper at shorter distances= , making it good for portraits. I have used both lenses wide open with good= result.

The Planar 85 weighs a lot more than the Sonnar 85. And the Planar takes bi= gger filters (67mm) than the Sonnar (55mm). So the Sonnar is a lot easier t= o bring along on a trip. The Sonnar 85 is the same design as the Sonnar 90 = for the G1/G2, and the users of the Sonnar 90 are very happy with its perfo= rmance, and the Sonnar 90 often gets rated very highly by its users.
 
G

Guest

Thanx again !
I'm going so sell the Takumar 1.8/85 and still look for a CZ 85/100 mm.
In this forum I found the statement, the 2.0/100 might be the best/sharpest lens in this range.

What do you think about it ?
There are not many statements to compare these lenses....
 
G

Guest

we may be a bit of the 50mm/1.4 thread… anyway…

i own a mm 100/3.5 and eventhough i guess its not as good as the 100mm/2.0, this lens is a very good buy (secondHand, 250$<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">• so small and deadly sharp.
 
G

Guest

>no meaning to compare the quality between 85/1.4 & 100/2, just think your >purpose to use the lens. For ex&le, 85/1.4 is more suitable for >portraits.
 
R

rico

Well-Known Member
Paul,

You'll be hard-pressed to find the 100/2 for under $1000, and that's 2nd-hand. In performance, this lens is pure gold (weighs like it, too). For travel, I need something lighter and cheaper, with the 85/2.8 and 100/3.5 looking equally attractive. The latter is no longer made and damn scarce. Ben, where did you find yours?
 
P

petinto

Hi to everybody. I have a Zeiss planar 1.4. A few days ago I noticed that there is a tinny oil line on the inner blades. It doesn't affect the finctioning of the lens, and the fact is that it seems it is not still crucial. Should I send it just now to the repair or better to wait until it affects functioning? Maybe I send it and in a year is the same... I do not know if this is normal with the passing of time. Thanks. JUAN
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top