Here's a comparison of AE and MM versions of the Contax Planar 50/1.4 CY, at f/2. The Ninja Star effect is reduced by over half at f/2.8 (based on "point height"), and completely gone by f/4.
wfrank wrote:
You refer to the hexagon:ish shape? Some older (AE..) version may have had the ninja type but the MMs got the hex.
Curious about what effect the hex would carry compared to the ZE/ZFs (I guess) rounded blades.
Hello Wilhelm!!!
Yes I refer to hexacon shaped highlights. The ninja-star in AE is even worse (my opinion).
There are two effects what Hexacon aperture shape causes:
1) Major: boke highlights shape is hexacon vs. round = personally I prefer round, and to me hexacons look ugly
2) Minor: when you have non-rounded aperture you have straight edges in aperture => depending on angle of structures in boke your edge definition of boke varies
2nd effect is rather difficult to explain verbally. Luckily I'm decent coder so I made small presentation to demonstrate the 2nd effect as I have hard time describing it verbally: https://vahonen.info/temp/boke_aperture_shape.html
With default values the square aperture is drawing 45 degree angle boke structure with matching aperture rotation angle = hard edge definition.
If aperture is rotated (or boke structure) we can see that with square aperture boke structure hard edge changes to softer (use "angle"-slider to demonstrate)
With circle aperture the boke structure can have whatever angle, and the edge definition will remain constant.
Notice! ZE/ZF rounded blades will NOT always provide perfectly round aperture, sometimes edges of aperture shape start to show, example.
Yes I refer to hexacon shaped highlights. The ninja-star in AE is even worse (my opinion).
There are two effects what Hexacon aperture shape causes:
...
Samuli
Thanks a lot for the effort Samuli, much appreciated! Get it. :- )
Being a long time CY (MMJ/G) user I have to add the CY colors on the plus side. Often they immediately identifiy images being taken by them. Surprisingly consistent over the different focal lengths and zooms. With regards to the bokeh I might also mention the the slight weirdness - something that is particular to the CY Planar 50/1.4. Often likable though not always. Here's a BW example.
Oh man after 6 years this thread is still kickin....
I still have my 1.4/50 planar classic and i am keeping it, the lens is amazing if you know how to use it.
Now with EOS R, it’s even more easier to focus when you use that new focusing helper from canon, it resembles like a split screen but without the split.... just arrow indicators, just match them up and it’s accurate.
I am afraid manual lens revival will be on the rise.... drives pricing up.
bushwacker wrote:
Oh man after 6 years this thread is still kickin....
I still have my 1.4/50 planar classic and i am keeping it, the lens is amazing if you know how to use it. I have one copy in use and one copy which has been removed only once for few hours from original plastic bag to check it's functioning OK and since then stored to wait that my primary copy fails (I use EF-version due to not being able to adapt "wrong" focus direction = EF has electronics, it will fail sooner or later in my use as it's often very moist in Finland). In my list of best ever lenses this is somewhere in top 5.
Samuli Vahonen wrote: I have one copy in use and one copy which has been removed only once for few hours from original plastic bag to check it's functioning OK and since then stored to wait that my primary copy fails (I use EF-version due to not being able to adapt "wrong" focus direction = EF has electronics, it will fail sooner or later in my use as it's often very moist in Finland). In my list of best ever lenses this is somewhere in top 5.
Samuli
I might get another copy brand new while Zeiss is in a good mood dropping prices.... that will be my backup for the future.
My question for you is the 2/50 makro classic/milvus how bokeh landscape shots? How does it perform.? Same as this planar with low contrast OOF areas?
OR for now i’ll stick with this planar it’s good for my taste. Some here say 2/50 mk has uniformed contrast even wide open.
bushwacker wrote:
My question for you is the 2/50 makro classic/milvus how bokeh landscape shots? How does it perform.? Same as this planar with low contrast OOF areas?
I absolute hate "classic" makro-planar 2/50 (most likely Milvus 2/50 as well, it should be same optical design). Some people liked it forum and because of that I purchased a copy, but it's worst Zeiss (excluding Jena lenses) lens I have ever shoot with. Worst "feature" is the field curvature, even with Canon 5DmkII it had very severe outward field curvature (=you focus subject in 3 meters and trees 50m away on both top corners are sharply in focus, but the ground on bottom corners vanishes from focus as focus plane is 50m inside the ground). This is even worse with Sony.
DOF to boke transition zone is very rough. Contrast in boke is about same as in focus plane (this was first Zeiss lens to do that, Zeiss was famous for having large focus plane contrast compared to boke contrast - now almost all new lenses suffer from this disease except lenses like APO-summicron 2/50 which is designed to have more contrast in focus plane). And if this was not enough also light distribution inside boke highlights was concentrated to edges of boke balls.
Focus plane of makro-planar 2/50 is sharp and color correction is decent (minus the corners due to field curvature). However to me landscapes taken with this lens lack "punch" and Zeiss colors. Of the few thousand (my own + this forum) landscapes I have seen from this lens there was only two photos, which had pleasing rendering style in landscape photo (other was one of the Boris (Bobu) Norway photos, other I have already forgotten by whom and where).
Usage was also nightmare as it had "Zeiss makro focus ring" = million degrees focus throw but where it's meaningful everything happens within one or two degree turn. Super slow to focus as one needs to rack back and fort multiple times for accurate focusing due to impossible short focus throw on 3-10m range.
For makro shooting it's really good lens, if I would shoot more than few frames / year I might have kept this lens due to it's electronical aperture. Now I take my makros with S-Planar 2.8/60 and it many times it would be really nice to have electronica aperture.
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
I absolute hate "classic" makro-planar 2/50 (most likely Milvus 2/50 as well, it should be same optical design). Some people liked it forum and because of that I purchased a copy, but it's worst Zeiss (excluding Jena lenses) lens I have ever shoot with. Worst "feature" is the field curvature, even with Canon 5DmkII it had very severe outward field curvature (=you focus subject in 3 meters and trees 50m away on both top corners are sharply in focus, but the ground on bottom corners vanishes from focus as focus plane is 50m inside the ground). This is even worse with Sony.
DOF to boke transition zone is very rough. Contrast in boke is about same as in focus plane (this was first Zeiss lens to do that, Zeiss was famous for having large focus plane contrast compared to boke contrast - now almost all new lenses suffer from this disease except lenses like APO-summicron 2/50 which is designed to have more contrast in focus plane). And if this was not enough also light distribution inside boke highlights was concentrated to edges of boke balls.
Focus plane of makro-planar 2/50 is sharp and color correction is decent (minus the corners due to field curvature). However to me landscapes taken with this lens lack "punch" and Zeiss colors. Of the few thousand (my own + this forum) landscapes I have seen from this lens there was only two photos, which had pleasing rendering style in landscape photo (other was one of the Boris (Bobu) Norway photos, other I have already forgotten by whom and where).
Usage was also nightmare as it had "Zeiss makro focus ring" = million degrees focus throw but where it's meaningful everything happens within one or two degree turn. Super slow to focus as one needs to rack back and fort multiple times for accurate focusing due to impossible short focus throw on 3-10m range.
For makro shooting it's really good lens, if I would shoot more than few frames / year I might have kept this lens due to it's electronical aperture. Now I take my makros with S-Planar 2.8/60 and it many times it would be really nice to have electronica aperture.
bushwacker wrote:
Care enough to name your top 5.... and why.?
If you ask tomorrow you may get different answer but here we go for today, not in any particular order, it would be way too difficult to place these into order:
Carl Zeiss Planar T* 1.4/50 ZE- for "perfect" boke rendering starting from f/2.2-2.8 depending on focus distance, also focus plane has nice "punch" and f/5.6-8 is really good
Carl Zeiss Biogon T* 2/35 ZM (I never got it working with standard super thick sensor cover glass Sony, but it's ok with Kolari v2 thin mod + 3000mm PCX) - maybe the best rendering style of all lenses when closed down f/2.8-3.2. Technical performance also excellent at landscape apertures, and landscape rendering style is very Zeiss. However I absolute hate shooting with 35mm focal length, so even being "top lens" it will not get much use.
Carl Zeiss Planar T* 2/135 ZE (I have "classic" but Milvus should be exactly same) - one of the few modern lenses which don't have awful rendering style despite being technically good performer. EDIT: Forgot to mention that rendering style both boke and landscape scenes is excellent, landscapes have plenty of "punch" and despite flattening perspective photos come out non-flat. Excellent colors. Super good technically on focus plane.
Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art - technically almost flawless lens, hardly any difference between f/1.4 and f/2.8 on focus plane - boke has issues, but many times I have been able to trick the lens to render also boke decently. EDIT: For landscapes not optimal, there is tendency to render scenes little "thin" and there is no Zeiss "punch" in the landcapes rendering.
Behind these is the medium tele groups, and I have way too much difficulties saying which one of them would be the 5th to be included to above group:
Leica APO-Summicron-M 90mm f/2 (for it's super beautiful rendering @ f/2.4, f/2 sucks and f/2.8 somehow doesn't produce similar results as f/2.4 - I'm still "evaluating" this lens final verdict is not yet out...)
Zeiss Loxia 2.4/85 (for super strong focus plane rendering, shares the same landscape rendering style as ZE classic 1.4/50 & Biogon 35 - boke has little issues with too big contrast (in boke) and small tendency to be too busy, also I hate the straight aperture blades, as the lens needs to be closed to f/3.2-3.5 for optimal boke and there aperture shape is not even close to round)
Sony FE 85mm f/1.4 GM (for it's almost flawless technical performance starting from f/1.7 and excellent boke, despite being modern design this lens in most scenarios has good balance between focus plane and boke contrast - also I love the 11 blade aperture, in practice boke highlights are round without visible aperture blade shapes in the main shooting aperture (=f/1.7) - for landscapes this lens is not nice, sure it's technically very good, but landscape rendering style tends to render scenes quite flat).
What I would most need is a good 28mm. I have failed to find good one, so I shoot my wide end mostly with Sigma 24-35mm f/2 Art lens as it's best I have been able to find for 28mm. Sigma is very good lens, but it's gigantic size and weight for being "just" f/2. I really hope that the Sigma's new 28mm Art will be perfect for me. I will never buy the Otus 28mm as it's so fragile (we have had few ridiculous incidents here in FM-forum and outside internet stuff both of my friends who had it broke the focusing mechanism without big impacts [1) tripod fell in evergreen forest without lens ever hitting the ground but instead fall dampened by the undergrowth 2) camerabag dropped 30cm - both of these incident types happen to me manu times every year, so there is zero change that Otus 28 would survive with me]). And I'm not convinced that I like Nikon 28mm f/1.4 rendering style. If f/4 would be enough it would be easy, both Zeiss Distagon T* 2.8/28 (w/ Kolari thin mod camera) and Biogon T* 2.8/28 (w/ Kolari thin mod camera + PCX lens) would be OK [most likely ZM series Biogon 28 as well, it should be very close to G 28], as well as ZE "classic" 2/28 with some limitations, but it's field curvature was difficult with Canon and it's even worse with Sony.
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
If you ask tomorrow you may get different answer but here we go for today, not in any particular order, it would be way too difficult to place these into order:
Carl Zeiss Planar T* 1.4/50 ZE- for "perfect" boke rendering starting from f/2.2-2.8 depending on focus distance, also focus plane has nice "punch" and f/5.6-8 is really good
Carl Zeiss Biogon T* 2/35 ZM (I never got it working with standard super thick sensor cover glass Sony, but it's ok with Kolari v2 thin mod + 3000mm PCX) - maybe the best rendering style of all lenses when closed down f/2.8-3.2. Technical performance also excellent at landscape apertures, and landscape rendering style is very Zeiss. However I absolute hate shooting with 35mm focal length, so even being "top lens" it will not get much use.
Carl Zeiss Planar T* 2/135 ZE (I have "classic" but Milvus should be exactly same) - one of the few modern lenses which don't have awful rendering style despite being technically good performer. EDIT: Forgot to mention that rendering style both boke and landscape scenes is excellent, landscapes have plenty of "punch" and despite flattening perspective photos come out non-flat. Excellent colors. Super good technically on focus plane.
Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art - technically almost flawless lens, hardly any difference between f/1.4 and f/2.8 on focus plane - boke has issues, but many times I have been able to trick the lens to render also boke decently. EDIT: For landscapes not optimal, there is tendency to render scenes little "thin" and there is no Zeiss "punch" in the landcapes rendering.
Behind these is the medium tele groups, and I have way too much difficulties saying which one of them would be the 5th to be included to above group:
Leica APO-Summicron-M 90mm f/2 (for it's super beautiful rendering @ f/2.4, f/2 sucks and f/2.8 somehow doesn't produce similar results as f/2.4 - I'm still "evaluating" this lens final verdict is not yet out...)
Zeiss Loxia 2.4/85 (for super strong focus plane rendering, shares the same landscape rendering style as ZE classic 1.4/50 & Biogon 35 - boke has little issues with too big contrast (in boke) and small tendency to be too busy, also I hate the straight aperture blades, as the lens needs to be closed to f/3.2-3.5 for optimal boke and there aperture shape is not even close to round)
Sony FE 85mm f/1.4 GM (for it's almost flawless technical performance starting from f/1.7 and excellent boke, despite being modern design this lens in most scenarios has good balance between focus plane and boke contrast - also I love the 11 blade aperture, in practice boke highlights are round without visible aperture blade shapes in the main shooting aperture (=f/1.7) - for landscapes this lens is not nice, sure it's technically very good, but landscape rendering style tends to render scenes quite flat).
What I would most need is a good 28mm. I have failed to find good one, so I shoot my wide end mostly with Sigma 24-35mm f/2 Art lens as it's best I have been able to find for 28mm. Sigma is very good lens, but it's gigantic size and weight for being "just" f/2. I really hope that the Sigma's new 28mm Art will be perfect for me. I will never buy the Otus 28mm as it's so fragile (we have had few ridiculous incidents here in FM-forum and outside internet stuff both of my friends who had it broke the focusing mechanism without big impacts [1) tripod fell in evergreen forest without lens ever hitting the ground but instead fall dampened by the undergrowth 2) camerabag dropped 30cm - both of these incident types happen to me manu times every year, so there is zero change that Otus 28 would survive with me]). And I'm not convinced that I like Nikon 28mm f/1.4 rendering style. If f/4 would be enough it would be easy, both Zeiss Distagon T* 2.8/28 (w/ Kolari thin mod camera) and Biogon T* 2.8/28 (w/ Kolari thin mod camera + PCX lens) would be OK [most likely ZM series Biogon 28 as well, it should be very close to G 28], as well as ZE "classic" 2/28 with some limitations, but it's field curvature was difficult with Canon and it's even worse with Sony.
I am new to this forum and have been using the ZF lens since 2012 and I have been happy with it until now. During my last assignment I was shooting 9 rolls of film..... I developed them, which went fine and started scanning.... and guess what: all images were not sharp all. It seems like as if the focus shifted by about 30cm to the front of the subject. I was shooting mainly at f4.
Basically nine rolls of film wasted. I am more than angry at myself. This has never happened before to me. I am trying to slavage some images but many are just not usable.
Has any one had a similar experience? I was using my Nikon F3HP and Kodak Tmax 400. Scanned on a Minolta 5400.
Need to make some changes... While scanning I discovered that the same error appears on the Zeiss Distagon 2/25....
I am new to this forum and have been using the ZF lens since 2012 and I have been happy with it until now. During my last assignment I was shooting 9 rolls of film..... I developed them, which went fine and started scanning.... and guess what: all images were not sharp all. It seems like as if the focus shifted by about 30cm to the front of the subject. I was shooting mainly at f4.
Basically nine rolls of film wasted. I am more than angry at myself. This has never happened before to me. I am trying to slavage some images but many are just not usable.
Has any one had a similar experience? I was using my Nikon F3HP and Kodak Tmax 400. Scanned on a Minolta 5400.
Need to make some changes... While scanning I discovered that the same error appears on the Zeiss Distagon 2/25.... ...Show more →
The 50 has some focus shift but certainly not 30cm........
I am new to this forum and have been using the ZF lens since 2012 and I have been happy with it until now. During my last assignment I was shooting 9 rolls of film..... I developed them, which went fine and started scanning.... and guess what: all images were not sharp all. It seems like as if the focus shifted by about 30cm to the front of the subject. I was shooting mainly at f4.
Basically nine rolls of film wasted. I am more than angry at myself. This has never happened before to me. I am trying to slavage some images but many are just not usable.
Has any one had a similar experience? I was using my Nikon F3HP and Kodak Tmax 400. Scanned on a Minolta 5400.
Need to make some changes... While scanning I discovered that the same error appears on the Zeiss Distagon 2/25.... ...Show more →
The mirror in the camera is probably out of alignment. So, not the same distance to the matte screen as to the film.
Thank you for all your answers. Yes, I have a mild astigmatism but it should not affect my focus.
It has taken me some time to investigate my problem further.
Here are somethings I did and maybe this will explain something. Hopefully someone has an idea on this.
I took my F3HP and the Planar 1.4/50 to a local repair shop. The owner, an 85-year-old French man, investigated by using glasses with milk-bottle bottoms and some sort hand-made loupe to check the image on the film plane. He focused through the viewfinder and checked the focus, releasing the shutter, and checking then the film plane. He said there would be nothing wrong.
Even though the guy was well aged, he seems to have a good reputation in reparing cameras. Thats why I went there.
Ok, with all that trust. I went happy shooting again. Again what a big failure. Lot of crappy images again. Shooting 20 rolls and again 90% not sharp. Far off from focus. (I didn't have any change to develop films while being on that trip.)
During the trip, I somehow scratched rear element got very lightly while chaning lenses. Because of the scratch I wanted to repair the lens but upgraded to a Milvus makro-planar 2/50 after coming back home.
Now, it has becomes interesting:
Just because of curiosity I set a target about 1 meter away from the film plane. When focusing from infinity to makro the focus on the target was always at 1 meter. When focussing from makro position to infinity, the focus would be reached 4-5mm after 1 meter mark.
So the focus will not be reached at the some spot when focussing from different directions. Could this be an issue?
sylverphoto wrote:
Thank you for all your answers. Yes, I have a mild astigmatism but it should not affect my focus.
It has taken me some time to investigate my problem further.
Here are somethings I did and maybe this will explain something. Hopefully someone has an idea on this.
I took my F3HP and the Planar 1.4/50 to a local repair shop. The owner, an 85-year-old French man, investigated by using glasses with milk-bottle bottoms and some sort hand-made loupe to check the image on the film plane. He focused through the viewfinder and checked the focus, releasing the shutter, and checking then the film plane. He said there would be nothing wrong.
Even though the guy was well aged, he seems to have a good reputation in reparing cameras. Thats why I went there.
Ok, with all that trust. I went happy shooting again. Again what a big failure. Lot of crappy images again. Shooting 20 rolls and again 90% not sharp. Far off from focus. (I didn't have any change to develop films while being on that trip.)
During the trip, I somehow scratched rear element got very lightly while chaning lenses. Because of the scratch I wanted to repair the lens but upgraded to a Milvus makro-planar 2/50 after coming back home.
Now, it has becomes interesting:
Just because of curiosity I set a target about 1 meter away from the film plane. When focusing from infinity to makro the focus on the target was always at 1 meter. When focussing from makro position to infinity, the focus would be reached 4-5mm after 1 meter mark.
So the focus will not be reached at the some spot when focussing from different directions. Could this be an issue?...Show more →
You seem to have some play in the focusing helicoid, but that should not affect the difference between focus in the viewfinder and on the film.
Have you tried other fast lenses with the same camera; and did they perform the same or better? The Planar 50/1.4 does shift focus when stopping down, but not as much as you are describing.
Matte screens in viewfinders are very complicated. To get a decently bright image, it cannot show the true DOF of an f/1.4 lens. The very small prizms only allow a certain angle of light to pass through, which often corresponds to ~f/4-5.6. This makes it incredibly hard to focus a fast lens accurately with the stock matte screen (edit: on a modern camera; your F3 should be fine). OTOH, if you switch to a screen that is "more matte" you will instead get a very dark viewfinder with slower lenses. This is also true for the micro prizms or or split screen in the middle if you have one of those. Optimize it for f/1.4-2 and it will go black at anything past f/2.8. Optimize it for f/4-5.6 and it won't be accurate at f/1.4. Add some focus shift from the lens, and... Well, you can imagine how many parameters that can throw your images out of focus.
You can check what type of focusing aid your screen has, by simply stopping down the lens and see when the prizms go black (use the aperture preview button).
Makten wrote:
You seem to have some play in the focusing helicoid, but that should not affect the difference between focus in the viewfinder and on the film.
Have you tried other fast lenses with the same camera; and did they perform the same or better? The Planar 50/1.4 does shift focus when stopping down, but not as much as you are describing.
Matte screens in viewfinders are very complicated. To get a decently bright image, it cannot show the true DOF of an f/1.4 lens. The very small prizms only allow a certain angle of light to pass through, which often corresponds to ~f/4-5.6. This makes it incredibly hard to focus a fast lens accurately with the stock matte screen (edit: on a modern camera; your F3 should be fine). OTOH, if you switch to a screen that is "more matte" you will instead get a very dark viewfinder with slower lenses. This is also true for the micro prizms or or split screen in the middle if you have one of those. Optimize it for f/1.4-2 and it will go black at anything past f/2.8. Optimize it for f/4-5.6 and it won't be accurate at f/1.4. Add some focus shift from the lens, and... Well, you can imagine how many parameters that can throw your images out of focus.
You can check what type of focusing aid your screen has, by simply stopping down the lens and see when the prizms go black (use the aperture preview button). ...Show more →
Again I got some news:
Because of all the uncertainties I decided to ship the camera with the lens to Nikon. The technician phoned me and said that mirrorbox, mirror and optical paths are in perfect conditions (Only the on/off switch needs to be replaced which has nothing to do with the issue I have). The technician, however, does not know much about the Zeiss Planar and cannot give any advice on that.
Yes, I used a different lens for architecture: Distagon 2/25 which was sharp. Very sharp. But I cannot remember the aperatures I used.
I used the Planar 1.4/50 basically between f2.8 and 4. What you are saying, if I understoos you correctly, I should look for a different screen that is optimized for fast lenses. RIght? The camera now is equipped with a K Screen. The prizm will turn black by 4-56. Once the camera is back from Nikon, I will try the Marko-Planar 2/50. (This will be my new portrait lens, I hope, since it has a classic design and less focus shift than the 1.4/50 planar).
I have one copy in use and one copy which has been removed only once for few hours from original plastic bag to check it's functioning OK and since then stored to wait that my primary copy fails (I use EF-version due to not being able to adapt "wrong" focus direction = EF has electronics, it will fail sooner or later in my use as it's often very moist in Finland). In my list of best ever lenses this is somewhere in top 5.