The Zeiss Planar 50/1.4

[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.

 

[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

 

[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

 

[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

 

[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.]

 

[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.

 

[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

 

[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

 

[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.

 

[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