Contax/Yashica Carl Zeiss- 50mm f1.7 or the 50mm f1.4?

Jonnysound · Dec 7, 2017

Contax/Yashica Carl Zeiss- 50mm f1.7 or the 50mm f1.4?
I have the 1.7 version, would it be recommend to sell it and buy the 1.4? Is that worth getting for an extra f0.3? (I don't want both). I don't know. I was just thinking about doing that. (Though i could do with a 28mm prime zeiss. I have zeiss jena 28-70mm that cost only £25)

At 1.7: https://ibb.co/mjvi5G

voceumana · Dec 7, 2017

I can only offer generic advice, since I don't own either. A 1.7 lens will usually be better corrected for distortion over a 1.4, and it will probably be significantly lighter--maybe by 200 to 250 gm.

But, of course, the 1.4 is faster. Do you often shoot in very low light--if you do, the the answer is obvious; if you want the lightest setup possible, then go for the 1.7.

jjphoto · Dec 7, 2017

I love the contax 1.4 but i regularly use it wide open. If you typically shoot stopped down then don't waste your money and just buy a slower lens.

blockend · Dec 7, 2017

I use Yashica 50mm 1.7, 1.9 lenses and f2, Canon's 1.4 and 1.8, and Nikon's 1.8 and f2 variants, and all of them are eminently suited to their task. Unless you crave the extra 1/3 of a stop, I'd roll with what you already have. Don't underestimate Yashica's single coated DSB range. Although I have a set of multicoated ML's, the DSB lenses render very nicely.

OlyMan · Dec 7, 2017

Unless you need the extra speed I don't think it's worth it. The optics of both lenses are great to start with.

Patrick Robert James · Dec 7, 2017

I've had both in my life. I currently have the 1.7. Really no difference. Just keep the one you have and save some $$.

ic-racer · Dec 7, 2017

I have 3 or 4 examples of both Planars in Rollei SL mounts and the 2.0, 1.7 and 1.4 ML lenses. If you shoot wide open indoors, you might like the 1.4. I do shoot wide open indoors quite a bit and one of these days I'd like to get a 1.2 ML as there are no 1.2 Planars.

Larry Cloetta · Dec 7, 2017

They are both 7 elements in 6 groups, but the lens designs are otherwise different, the 1.7 being cheaper to produce, apparently. I had both, simultaneously, for years, but now only have the 1.4. The character of the lenses is different, though both are excellent. It's not a case of "they have the same rendering, but you can use the 1.4 in spots where there is a tad less light, but other than that they are the same", because they are not the same. The 1.7 is a little sharper out toward the edges than the 1.4. but on axis the f/1.4 Planar has slightly higher peak resolution, about 155 lpm versus 140-145 lpm.
Those two traits taken together give different renderings; the main difference in the two lenses is more than speed, and after all, as others have mentioned, 1.4 vs. 1.7 isn't that much of a difference in speed.
I found myself preferring the 1.4 having nothing to do with speed, but they are both excellent, and inexpensive for what they are, both of them.

Fixcinater · Dec 8, 2017

The 1.4 focuses closer, and there is less plastic in it. I had both, and kept the 1.4 and it's become one of my favorite 50mms across all the systems I own/have hoarded in the past.

naaldvoerder · Dec 15, 2017

I kept the 1.4 version just because it feels a bit more sturdy and luxurious. Couldn't notice any difference in sharpness though..

removed account4 · Dec 15, 2017

get rid of the slowpoke and get the fast lens
life's too short to not have all that bokeh

dynachrome · Dec 15, 2017

Yes. There is a 55/1.2 Planar. It was made as a 100th Anniversary edition.

E. von Hoegh · Dec 15, 2017

All other things being equal, slower is better. The more area of internal surface, the more flare, the less contrast. The fastest lens I use is f1.8 on a Kiev.
My very favorite is the f:2 Nikkor-H.

ac12 · Dec 15, 2017

In the past I would have gone straight for the f/1.4 lens. But we were so influenced by manufactuer ads that we did not think logically.
Today, being more logical, the actual lens speed difference between f/1.4 and f/1.7 is less than a stop. And does that less than a stop of light REALLY gain you much? The answer will depend on where and what you shoot, it may or may not. If you are a regular LOW light shooter, it very well may make a difference.

Personally would not pay significantly more for a f/1.4 lens over a f/1.7 lens, because it buys me very little real difference.

RalphLambrecht · Dec 16, 2017

jjphoto said:
I love the contax 1.4 but i regularly use it wide open. If you typically shoot stopped down then don't waste your money and just buy a slower lens.

+1

RattyMouse · Dec 16, 2017

ac12 said:
In the past I would have gone straight for the f/1.4 lens. But we were so influenced by manufactuer ads that we did not think logically.
Today, being more logical, the actual lens speed difference between f/1.4 and f/1.7 is less than a stop. And does that less than a stop of light REALLY gain you much? The answer will depend on where and what you shoot, it may or may not. If you are a regular LOW light shooter, it very well may make a difference.

Personally would not pay significantly more for a f/1.4 lens over a f/1.7 lens, because it buys me very little real difference.

The actual aperture value should enter very little into the decision making process. What matters is the overall lens design. A difference here makes more than enough difference to justify the more expensive lens.

Case in point: the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 lens vs the EF 50mm f/1.2 lens. Here the aperture difference is even smaller yet the image quality difference is massive. Shoot both lenses at f/1.4 and you can clearly tell that they are very different lenses. The EF 50mm f/1.2's bokeh will be smooth as butter while the f/1.4 lens will look busy and harsh.

The difference in aperture value will mean nothing, yet the lenses could not be more different.

Alan Gales · Dec 16, 2017

I bought the 1.7 lens because it came with my brand new 139q and it was all I could afford at the time. I was in college in the 80's. I asked about the f/1.4 lens at the camera store. The 1.4 lens was marked made in Germany where the 1.7 lens was marked made in Japan. They told me that the barrel of the 1.7 lens was made in Japan but the Zeiss glass was made in Germany but shipped and installed into the Japanese barrel in Japan. The barrel quality of each was said to be equal. The 1.7 lens was said to be just slightly sharper but both lenses were spectacular.

I eventually owned the 50mm, 35mm and 100mm Japanese marked lenses and the 25mm and 180mm German marked lenses. All performed flawlessly for me for many years. I eventually sold them on Ebay to fund my large format equipment.

The salesmen in the camera store never mentioned a difference in bokeh. We didn't even know the word back then! We just called it out of focus part or maybe blur. If no one here can answer your question then you could always buy the 1.4 lens and try it out. You may lose a little if you decide to sell it and keep your 1.7. Just consider any money loss as a cheap rental fee.

Marco Gilardetti · Dec 19, 2017

Alan Gales said:
The salesmen in the camera store never mentioned a difference in bokeh. We didn't even know the word back then! We just called it out of focus part or maybe blur.

I completely agree with that. Someone may be offended by this, but I actually tell quite precisely a newby by an old-timer based on wether he/she uses the overused word "bokeh" or not. Just as I tell true records enthusiasts by newbies depending on the fact that they call them "vinyls" rather than LPs, 33s or simply records.

At least in my experience, there has been a huge gap, I would say approximately from 1970 to 2000 but the years may vary elsewhere, during which the quality of the out-of-focus areas was commercially completely disregarded. I can't remember a single ad pointing to the quality of the out-of-focus areas obtained with the XY lens across those years. For one reason or another, it definitely hasn't been a sale argument for decades.

Alan Gales · Dec 19, 2017

Marco Gilardetti said:
I completely agree with that. Someone may be offended by this, but I actually tell quite precisely a newby by an old-timer based on wether he/she uses the overused word "bokeh" or not. Just as I tell true records enthusiasts by newbies depending on the fact that they call them "vinyls" rather than LPs, 33s or simply records.

At least in my experience, there has been a huge gap, I would say approximately from 1970 to 2000 but the years may vary elsewhere, during which the quality of the out-of-focus areas was commercially completely disregarded. I can't remember a single ad pointing to the quality of the out-of-focus areas obtained with the XY lens across those years. For one reason or another, it definitely hasn't been a sale argument for decades.

Yeah, same here in the US. I don't remember lens ads talking about it either. I do remember books telling newbies to use a wide aperture to "blur" the background for portraits.

Most kids in my country today don't know what a 33 or 45 is. I remember my Dad owning 78's. Hey, I hear the Rolling Stones are supposed to put out a new Album soon!

jjphoto · Dec 20, 2017

Marco Gilardetti said:
... I actually tell quite precisely a newby by an old-timer based on wether he/she uses the overused word "bokeh" or not. ...

You need to re assess the perceived precision of your bokeh 'spider senses'. I am an old timer, I started buying cameras and lenses back in the 1980's, and frankly I consider the bokeh of a lens just as I would any other of a lenses qualities. I often shoot wide open, because I like the separation and interest this can achieve, so I use fast lenses with very narrow DOF but more importantly with the kind of bokeh that I want for the subject matter at hand. The choice of background and foreground OOF rendition is one that you can easily make if you choose to do so and many people do, often with several lenses of the same focal length, but with different rendition. For those who typically shoot stopped down the bokeh of a lens might be quite meaningless so I can see how many would completely ignore it.

Your assessment that bokeh is only a consideration of the young and ignorant completely ignores its importance in cinematography where bokeh has always been a primary consideration, and not just since the early 2000's. When a lens with harsh bokeh is used for cinema the effect is extremely distracting and quite terrible (almost painful to see).

Marco Gilardetti said:
...At least in my experience, there has been a huge gap, I would say approximately from 1970 to 2000 but the years may vary elsewhere, during which the quality of the out-of-focus areas was commercially completely disregarded. I can't remember a single ad pointing to the quality of the out-of-focus areas obtained with the XY lens across those years. For one reason or another, it definitely hasn't been a sale argument for decades.

I collect old (still) photography books and magazines and it's quite true that it has not been a significant consideration prior to the early 2000's. Occasionally there might be a reference to over or under corrected spherical aberration in lens tests which serves to describe the OOF area, however these kinds of comments tend to be few and far between.

Marco Gilardetti · Dec 21, 2017

JJ, did you really read my post before writing? I am an english-as-foreign-language writer, but usually my messages are understood. I can't remember any of my messages being so deeply misunderstood by anyone before. Please read it once again, and if you will still really think that I said what your reply implies, tell me and I will reword my sentences.

blockend · Dec 21, 2017

Very wide aperture lenses were bought for their low light gathering capabilities, their sharpness stopped down compared to an equivalent lens at full aperture, or to show off. The nature of out of focus details was a consideration among studio professionals, but not one I ever heard based on maximum aperture, or size of bokeh balls. For instance some preferred old designs like the Jupiter 9 or Biotar types to more "modern" renderings. These were not typically very wide aperture types. Very wide aperture lenses were seen as hamstrung optically at their maximum aperture, a necessary compromise for specific situations. The practice of habitually shooting soft pictures with a tiny depth of field is a millennial thing.

RattyMouse · Dec 21, 2017

Marco Gilardetti said:
At least in my experience, there has been a huge gap, I would say approximately from 1970 to 2000 but the years may vary elsewhere, during which the quality of the out-of-focus areas was commercially completely disregarded. I can't remember a single ad pointing to the quality of the out-of-focus areas obtained with the XY lens across those years. For one reason or another, it definitely hasn't been a sale argument for decades.

I can believe this. Some of the older lenses from this time have truly awful bokeh. Harsh, not pretty, certainly not a property to advertise about a lens.

Contax/Yashica Carl Zeiss- 50mm f1.7 or the 50mm f1.4?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency