p.1 #1 · Zeiss Planar 1.4/50 C/Y - where was it made and a few other questions
Hey folks,
I am in the process of reviewing the Planar and I was wondering if it was always made in Japan as my copy is (AE, serial number starts with 64) or if it was ever produced in Germany.
I also read that some late copies had 8 aperture blades but there was no picture to support the claim and I read it just once so it is probably not true.
I would also like to know in which year the MM version was introduced.
p.1 #2 · Zeiss Planar 1.4/50 C/Y - where was it made and a few other questions
I have never seen personally or on ebay a copy made in Germany.
So it's quite unlikely. I refer to the contax ones of course. The Rollei qbm mount ones are made in germany.
p.1 #3 · Zeiss Planar 1.4/50 C/Y - where was it made and a few other questions
I forgot about the Rollei version it should of course be mentioned in the review as well. I know very little about Rollei is there a good page to read about it? Are there different version with qbm mount? On ebay I found a few which look very similar to the C/Y version but also this one which looks very different.
p.1 #4 · Zeiss Planar 1.4/50 C/Y - where was it made and a few other questions
The one in the link is the more common one actually.
The ones you refer to must probably be those that look like the Rollei hft 50 1.8 made in singapore (looks exactly like those, just probably bigger). Like this one: http://www.ebay.de/itm/311541840469
Note also how the older version says HFT, and the new one Rollei-HFT.
If I would buy one I would get the older version (the one in your link). The newer rollei version (at least for the 50 1.8) is not great mechanically.
I seem to recall seeing also the old version without HFT, but can't swear to it.
I came across two types of QBM 50/1.4 Planars, - the earlier,full metal,made in Germany or Sinapore and the latter,more plasticky,made in Singapore.Both are HFT.
The 50/1.8 Planar had more incarnations - I've met full metal,non HFT Germany made,full metal HFT Germany/Singapore and plastic 50/1.8 Singapore HFT.The last one was also produced as Voigtlander Color Ultron 50/1.8 in QBM and m42 mounts.
p.1 #6 · Zeiss Planar 1.4/50 C/Y - where was it made and a few other questions
Phillip Reeve wrote:
I am in the process of reviewing the Planar and I was wondering if it was always made in Japan as my copy is (AE, serial number starts with 64) or if it was ever produced in Germany.
The Y/C Planar 1.4/50 was never produced in Germany. (Possibly with the exception of prototypes.)
I also read that some late copies had 8 aperture blades but there was no picture to support the claim and I read it just once so it is probably not true.
It is not true.
I would also like to know in which year the MM version was introduced.
p.1 #9 · Zeiss Planar 1.4/50 C/Y - where was it made and a few other questions
Thanks for the input so far
So the complete lineup was changed to MM in 1984? Good to know.
For Minolta we have this super handy list with all the relevant data but so far this is the only manufacturer where I know of such a list.
That source on red user claims that the 2.8/28 (and some others) were improved with the change to MM but when I did the research for my 2.8/28 review I could find no evidence to support that claim.
p.1 #10 · Zeiss Planar 1.4/50 C/Y - where was it made and a few other questions
I think I have read about different MTFs for AE vs. MM for certain lenses, but I am not sure. However, the coating (the color of it) changed continuosly even within the AE and MM types of lenses.
p.1 #11 · Zeiss Planar 1.4/50 C/Y - where was it made and a few other questions
Phillip Reeve wrote:
That source on red user claims that the 2.8/28 (and some others) were improved with the change to MM but when I did the research for my 2.8/28 review I could find no evidence to support that claim.
The AE has ninja star bokeh when stopping down slightly (F2, F2.8 iirc).
The MM aperture blades form a rounded hexagon.
I bought the AE a few years back not realising this. I sold it quickly after and now have the MM that I'm happy with
p.1 #14 · Zeiss Planar 1.4/50 C/Y - where was it made and a few other questions
zipcode wrote:
The one in the link is the more common one actually.
The ones you refer to must probably be those that look like the Rollei hft 50 1.8 made in singapore (looks exactly like those, just probably bigger). Like this one: http://www.ebay.de/itm/311541840469
Note also how the older version says HFT, and the new one Rollei-HFT.
If I would buy one I would get the older version (the one in your link). The newer rollei version (at least for the 50 1.8) is not great mechanically.
I seem to recall seeing also the old version without HFT, but can't swear to it.
my older, all metal, made in (west) germany version still says rollei-hft: http://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3841/14644754780_a12e47ac9a_o.jpg
the all metal version is definitely better from a mechanics/ergonomics perspective than the plasticky/thinner feeling late rollei and c/y versions (though i hear the all metal versions are a serious pain to disassemble and CLA).
p.1 #15 · Zeiss Planar 1.4/50 C/Y - where was it made and a few other questions
Phillip Reeve wrote:
Thanks for the input so far
So the complete lineup was changed to MM in 1984? Good to know.
For Minolta we have this super handy list with all the relevant data but so far this is the only manufacturer where I know of such a list.
That source on red user claims that the 2.8/28 (and some others) were improved with the change to MM but when I did the research for my 2.8/28 review I could find no evidence to support that claim.
Last August I tested 3 copies of C/Y Distagon 25/2.8,from the earliest to latest,to find out for myself whether their IQ differs really on the A7/R.
Those good/clean copies had different SN numer, i.e. 58xxAE,63xxAE and 72xxMM.
The MM copy was the best,by means of the sharpest corners,lowest level of CA,best colour and microcontrast plus lowest veiling wo.The 63xxAE was slightly inferior,but still acceptable compared to th 72xxMM
I rejected the 58xxAE - it was clearly the worst of the bunch and much below my modest "digital" expectations.
Conclusions:
1.Something must have been changed over years in the construction of 25/2.8 Distagons to account for that significant difference.
2.If one has to buy the 25/2.8 C/Y,the best buy is the MM,or the AE with the highest serial numer
My records concerning 28/2.8 Distagons C/Y AE versus MM were similar,though I tried them on Canons 5D2/3,not Sonys A7/Rs,7 years ago.
I'm not an opinion leader and my testing methods may have some faults,but basing on my (very) practical (and extensive) experience,I strongly suport the opinion of 25/2.8 and 28/2.8 mm wa lenses in the C/Y lineup being improved over changing from AE to MM.
p.1 #16 · Zeiss Planar 1.4/50 C/Y - where was it made and a few other questions
Try late 8,xxx,xxx serial numbers for those. Especially above 8,4xx,xxx. Late 90s to early 2000s T* coatings, plus some slight glass quality tweaks, based on sourcing and availability and so forth. Basically, those few % improvements add up fast. Plus better lens assembly from experienced workforce.
It's like the Leica Elmarit-R 2.8/24: sure, it's a Minolta design based on multi sources of glass, so it's a bit below the usual Leica standards, and you can see it in the 3-Cam and older versions. But if you get a ROM one that was made in the last few production years, the improved coatings and substituted glass improve its performance noticeably.
One other difference between AE and MM versions that I've seen, is that some AE lenses have "Ninja star" aperture blades at moderate apertures, while the corresponding MM lenses don't (where the MM versions exist). I attached photos of the Ninja star blades on a CZ 135/3.8 C/Y that I once owned, and the "baby Ninja" stars on the 100/3.5 that I still own.
p.1 #18 · Zeiss Planar 1.4/50 C/Y - where was it made and a few other questions
I believe I read on the Reduser website that the formula for the MM version of the 135mm 2.8 also was improved over the AE. I've also read (on several websites) that there was an improvement on copies of the 50mm 1.7 starting with serial numbers beginning with an 8. With Zeiss C/Y lenses it seems like a good idea to get an MM version and a late serial #.
p.1 #19 · Zeiss Planar 1.4/50 C/Y - where was it made and a few other questions
Sam_W wrote:
Try late 8,xxx,xxx serial numbers for those. Especially above 8,4xx,xxx. Late 90s to early 2000s T* coatings, plus some slight glass quality tweaks, based on sourcing and availability and so forth. Basically, those few % improvements add up fast. Plus better lens assembly from experienced workforce.
It's like the Leica Elmarit-R 2.8/24: sure, it's a Minolta design based on multi sources of glass, so it's a bit below the usual Leica standards, and you can see it in the 3-Cam and older versions. But if you get a ROM one that was made in the last few production years, the improved coatings and substituted glass improve its performance noticeably....Show more →
i would have to see some kind of proof of this. i'll believe coating changes improve flare resistance and contrast, but my experience with leica and zeiss lenses is that there is no real difference over the lifetime of a lenses production in performance unless there is an actual design change. usually glass changes are due to a type no longer being available, this seems more likely to compromise performance if there is not an associated lens redesign.
as far as lens assembly goes, both zeiss and leica seem to have been lowering their build standards for the last 60 years (though not as much as their japanese counterparts). older lenses were better built and sturdier with a few exceptions. on the other hand, the more a lens has been used the more chances it's had to be knocked out of spec and having disassembled a number of lenses, it seems to me that zeiss lenses are much more finicky than leica in terms of how they're assembled making them easier to knock out of spec during cleaning or just bouncing around.
p.1 #20 · Zeiss Planar 1.4/50 C/Y - where was it made and a few other questions
sebboh wrote:
.. it seems to me that zeiss lenses are much more finicky than leica in terms of how they're assembled making them easier to knock out of spec during cleaning or just bouncing around.
I was completely with you until this point. I've owned more Zeiss than Leica (27 vs. 9), and I haven't noticed any tendancy for the Zeiss lenses to be more "tender". I don't baby them.
P.S. my experience with Zeiss lenses is limited to ZE, Contax C/Y, Rollei QBM, Jena M42, Hasselblad C, and LF. I haven't used Otus and Milvus, which may have introduced some serious issues with respect to robustness, but that's only recently, and only for people with very deep pockets.
