Planar and Pancolar bokeh battle

If I had to keep one, I'd keep the Auto-D Quinon. It loses contrast but not without creating a very delicate image, with nicer bokeh, nicer colors, high resolution and graceful, just enough bloom.

The Zeiss. Depends on  the photo but the samples show the dreaded ultra purple fringes that make it unusable for me in any situation where there is high contrast or reflections. It happens because it's better corrected overall, and maybe mostly in digital - but render photos neon purple which is a no no. Post processing to make the purple gray is also a no no and it's too thick to deal without changing real colors.

The Pancolars are nice, especially the Radioactive one. It really does something nice in terms of rendering, although contrast isn't very high wide open.

I wonder how the images would look if f3.5 was used. Oftentimes, the outlining is causes by dust settling where the lens meets the rings, causing some scattering there, resulting in outlining that is mostly gone when the lens has just been cleaned.

Thanks for the samples. I'd prefer a cup of wine than another 50mm but the photos are  well done and show these lenses in action.

Wow, they are all super excellent in the center. Maybe as expected. The Pancolar warmer cast makes really nice images. I think the last two lenses are more like 5.6 with smaller specular highlights and longer DOF. The Rollei looks superb, great balance all along. In retrospective, maybe f2.4 would have been even more interesting, as the lenses transition to greatness but are not already quite perfect.

In terms of bokeh, it's hard to know when there are leaves behind because that causes so many occlusions in the light, that it always looks a bit odd or nervous.

If I had to pick one, wouldn't know how to choose, other than 'd likely skip the Contax ones for the purple fringing since I am quite sensitive to it.

blåland wrote:

fferreres wrote:

Wow, they are all super excellent in the center. Maybe as expected. The Pancolar warmer cast makes really nice images. I think the last two lenses are more like 5.6 with smaller specular highlights and longer DOF. The Rollei looks superb, great balance all along. In retrospective, maybe f2.4 would have been even more interesting, as the lenses transition to greatness but are not already quite perfect.

In terms of bokeh, it's hard to know when there are leaves behind because that causes so many occlusions in the light, that it always looks a bit odd or nervous.

If I had to pick one, wouldn't know how to choose, other than 'd likely skip the Contax ones for the purple fringing since I am quite sensitive to it.

The f/4 shots were mostly for seeing how the center improved. I might have stopped down the DKL lenses more by accident. The aperture ring is on the adapter and it's hard to see from some angles.

My biggest worry was how the labels and black areas are all purple wide open in the Zeiss C/Y brand, a bit less so concerning in the Rollei 1.8 which is a different optic I think n ot all subjects are like the scene, for example, putting something with texture at an angle will show a lot more of what happens in the out of focus areas. This is where the lenses really show the tricks under the hood, and where one would note how what was apparently similar, are entirely different things. For example, shoot a coconut instead of a bottle of wine, and it will tell you a lot  more about that. The bootle of wine is very good at showing the kind of casts, so it's a great target too.

Especially, I love non flat targets. I have yet to come across a tree, pet, plant, person, statue, flower, mountain, car, bicycle, etc. that is pure flat and perpendicular.

Superb comparison. Surprisingly, the expensive Planar is the least good. The radioactive lens is incredible and is widely available. All other versions are also fantastic.  For me, the Pancolar is the winner.

Juyal wrote:

Superb comparison. Surprisingly, the expensive Planar is the least good. The radioactive lens is incredible and is widely available. All other versions are also fantastic. For me, the Pancolar is the winner.

Interesting how much this is about personal preferences. I have the f1.8 radioactive Pancolar, and some others in this bunch, but they mostly sit on the shelf. I generally use the Heligon and especially the Quinon these days. It also helps that is exceedingly sharp stopped down, at least the macro version.

Did you notice that old german glass are more interesting, generally speaking, than the japanese?

xtam667 wrote:

Juyal wrote:

Superb comparison. Surprisingly, the expensive Planar is the least good. The radioactive lens is incredible and is widely available. All other versions are also fantastic. For me, the Pancolar is the winner.

Interesting how much this is about personal preferences. I have the f1.8 radioactive Pancolar, and some others in this bunch, but they mostly sit on the shelf. I generally use the Heligon and especially the Quinon these days. It also helps that is exceedingly sharp stopped down, at least the macro version.

Did you notice that old german glass are more interesting, generally speaking, than the japanese?

But the Japanese lenses became more interesting, at the same time they became better later on - which is why most everyone manufactured there. If the golden era for German lenses is 40 early 60s, for japanese lenses it's 70 to 80s.

fferreres wrote:

xtam667 wrote:

Juyal wrote:

Superb comparison. Surprisingly, the expensive Planar is the least good. The radioactive lens is incredible and is widely available. All other versions are also fantastic. For me, the Pancolar is the winner.

Interesting how much this is about personal preferences. I have the f1.8 radioactive Pancolar, and some others in this bunch, but they mostly sit on the shelf. I generally use the Heligon and especially the Quinon these days. It also helps that is exceedingly sharp stopped down, at least the macro version.

Did you notice that old german glass are more interesting, generally speaking, than the Japanese?

But the Japanese lenses became more interesting, at the same time they became better later on - which is why most everyone manufactured there. If the golden era for German lenses is 40 early 60s, for Japanese lenses it's 70 to 80s.

I have a 35 mm 2.4 flektagon and it renders the image very uniquely. Especially east German lenses are unique in characteristics and are warm in tone. Don't know why west German lenses are more sought-after lenses. Japanese lenses (exceptional for Takumar, and Nikkor 50 mm 1.2, etc which are unique ) are sharp but lack uniqueness.

But then again, I think that what we call a unique character today is yesterday's fault. And Japanese lens industry probably rectified the faults/ characters.

It is an interesting point - after the pursuit of perfection character is lost.  So to regain perfection re-introduce a "characterful" flaw ....

Juyal wrote:

fferreres wrote:

xtam667 wrote:

Juyal wrote:

Superb comparison. Surprisingly, the expensive Planar is the least good. The radioactive lens is incredible and is widely available. All other versions are also fantastic. For me, the Pancolar is the winner.

Interesting how much this is about personal preferences. I have the f1.8 radioactive Pancolar, and some others in this bunch, but they mostly sit on the shelf. I generally use the Heligon and especially the Quinon these days. It also helps that is exceedingly sharp stopped down, at least the macro version.

Did you notice that old german glass are more interesting, generally speaking, than the Japanese?

But the Japanese lenses became more interesting, at the same time they became better later on - which is why most everyone manufactured there. If the golden era for German lenses is 40 early 60s, for Japanese lenses it's 70 to 80s.

I have a 35 mm 2.4 flektagon and it renders the image very uniquely. Especially east German lenses are unique in characteristics and are warm in tone. Don't know why west German lenses are more sought-after lenses. Japanese lenses (exceptional for Takumar, and Nikkor 50 mm 1.2, etc which are unique ) are sharp but lack uniqueness.

But then again, I think that what we call a unique character today is yesterday's fault. And Japanese lens industry probably rectified the faults/ characters.

I like East Germany lenses the most, and the distance and limitations they faced made very bright people come up with very clever things. I also note the warmer tones and different rendering. It's like the have a different aesthetic.

Tom Caldwell wrote:

It is an interesting point - after the pursuit of perfection character is lost. So to regain perfection re-introduce a "characterful" flaw ....

😀 vicious cycle

fferreres wrote:

Juyal wrote:

fferreres wrote:

xtam667 wrote:

Juyal wrote:

Superb comparison. Surprisingly, the expensive Planar is the least good. The radioactive lens is incredible and is widely available. All other versions are also fantastic. For me, the Pancolar is the winner.

Interesting how much this is about personal preferences. I have the f1.8 radioactive Pancolar, and some others in this bunch, but they mostly sit on the shelf. I generally use the Heligon and especially the Quinon these days. It also helps that is exceedingly sharp stopped down, at least the macro version.

Did you notice that old german glass are more interesting, generally speaking, than the Japanese?

But the Japanese lenses became more interesting, at the same time they became better later on - which is why most everyone manufactured there. If the golden era for German lenses is 40 early 60s, for Japanese lenses it's 70 to 80s.

I have a 35 mm 2.4 flektagon and it renders the image very uniquely. Especially east German lenses are unique in characteristics and are warm in tone. Don't know why west German lenses are more sought-after lenses. Japanese lenses (exceptional for Takumar, and Nikkor 50 mm 1.2, etc which are unique ) are sharp but lack uniqueness.

But then again, I think that what we call a unique character today is yesterday's fault. And Japanese lens industry probably rectified the faults/ characters.

I like East Germany lenses the most, and the distance and limitations they faced made very bright people come up with very clever things. I also note the warmer tones and different rendering. It's like the have a different aesthetic.

Yes more towards artistic side.

blåland wrote:

Juyal wrote:

Tom Caldwell wrote:

It is an interesting point - after the pursuit of perfection character is lost. So to regain perfection re-introduce a "characterful" flaw ....

😀 vicious cycle

The Sigma 45mm f/2.8 is such an example. It was a step in the right direction but I think it failed to deliver the character. It's like an artificial character rather than natural beauty like some of the Pentax Limited lenses. In my opinion.

Thanks for this insight. What do you think of new Nikon Z 40 mm 2? Some Youtubers says it has character like a vintage lens. Or may be its another sigma 45 mm (the point you cited above)

Juyal wrote:

fferreres wrote:

Juyal wrote:

fferreres wrote:

xtam667 wrote:

Juyal wrote:

Superb comparison. Surprisingly, the expensive Planar is the least good. The radioactive lens is incredible and is widely available. All other versions are also fantastic. For me, the Pancolar is the winner.

Interesting how much this is about personal preferences. I have the f1.8 radioactive Pancolar, and some others in this bunch, but they mostly sit on the shelf. I generally use the Heligon and especially the Quinon these days. It also helps that is exceedingly sharp stopped down, at least the macro version.

Did you notice that old german glass are more interesting, generally speaking, than the Japanese?

But the Japanese lenses became more interesting, at the same time they became better later on - which is why most everyone manufactured there. If the golden era for German lenses is 40 early 60s, for Japanese lenses it's 70 to 80s.

I have a 35 mm 2.4 flektagon and it renders the image very uniquely. Especially east German lenses are unique in characteristics and are warm in tone. Don't know why west German lenses are more sought-after lenses. Japanese lenses (exceptional for Takumar, and Nikkor 50 mm 1.2, etc which are unique ) are sharp but lack uniqueness.

But then again, I think that what we call a unique character today is yesterday's fault. And Japanese lens industry probably rectified the faults/ characters.

I like East Germany lenses the most, and the distance and limitations they faced made very bright people come up with very clever things. I also note the warmer tones and different rendering. It's like the have a different aesthetic.

Yes more towards artistic side.

To be fair the yellowing caused by radioactive ingredients can be seen in Japanese lenses too but is absent in the MC Pancolar I included in the test for example.
This characteristic wasn't there from the beginning but came with time.
The radioactive Pancolar in the test was treated with a led light for a month but it didn't do much as you can see. But it helped a little. I have another one that I plan not to try to clear the yellowing on.

Thank you for such a wonderful comparison. It's very helpful. Will wait for more East German/ Soviet lenses reviews. 😊🙏

The Pentax was designed from the ground up to be used for shooting “solids” (the “perfect lens” we have now applies only when o a flat plane, a flat plane is the goal) and for pictures to be appreciated by actual humans (print and panels of people look at samples). Lastly, it was designed to have this character evolve. In large part, the very expensive Surime primes seems inspired by them but cost a huge lot more. The Signa Art? No Art. Pure computation, state of the art design, high contrast.

Great comparison, Thanks!  Subjective is definitely the rule in comparisons like these--in all the groupings, I prefer the Schneider Xenon 50/1.9, and by a good margin.  Can't say why, exactly, but the overall look is the most pleasing to me.  I'm lucky to have a couple of copies myself, one fair-to-good, one Magical!