Planar vs Pancolar: eternal battle - A simple, unscientific test/comparison

Ian Grant said:

Some of this was to satisfy the US occupied sector and the US export market rather than West Germany as a whole, which is why you see U.S.S.R. OCCUP on some East German cameras & accessories. More a US/Russia cold war thing than reality. There weren't these issues here in the UK where the original German (East) names continued to be used.

Click to expand...

As I said the Zeiss issue with trade- and brand-name existed in West-Germany. Clearly to be seen by manufacturer/importer price lists, ads etc. and on the actual lenses.

Import can be better protected by tariffs or even absolute restrictions than by banning trade- and brand-name, what even would not have been legally possible by authorities as such in West-Germany.

BradS said:

This makes sense. There are other examples of exactly this. The Asahi/Honeywell Spotmatic names come to mind but there are many others.

Having the cameras branded Honeywell (the Importer/distributor) rather than Asahi was to stop a grey market, at a time when the exchange rate was close tt $2 to £1 Spotmatics were around the same figure in £'s and $'s so there could be a considerable saving buying from a grey importer. Prior to that exchange rate there were Import Duties and then a 331⁄3% Luxury Tax (pre an initial 10% VAT in 1973) here in the UK.

This goes on today were some Canon cameras have different names for te US market.

Click to expand...

BradS said:

The cold war was our reality. Many of us grew up in fear that one or the other would start a nuclear war.

Click to expand...

Yes I remember too, and we are back there in a slightly different way today, well this week's anti satellite missile tests, cyber-warfare in the form of massive hacking of US government agencies, and a US President indebted to the hilt to Russian and Chinese banks.

Ian

Sharpeness comparison
Here the images show a 100% crop in of the in-focus areas only; corner sharpness will not be treated.


A1) 1/250s @ f/5.6 | Rollei-HFT Planar 50mm f/1.8 - 100% crop


A2) 1/250s @ f/5.6 | Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar MC 50mm f/1.8 - 100% crop



B1) 1/125s @ f/8 | Rollei-HFT Planar 50mm f/1.8 - 100% crop


B2) 1/125s @ f/8 | Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar MC 50mm f/1.8 - 100% crop



C1) 1/60s @ f/11 | Rollei-HFT Planar 50mm f/1.8 - 100% crop


C2) 1/60s @ f/11 | Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar MC 50mm f/1.8 - 100% crop



D1) 1/250s @ f/4 | Rollei-HFT Planar 50mm f/1.8 - 100% crop


D2) 1/250s @ f/4 | Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar MC 50mm f/1.8 - 100% crop



E1) 1/250s @ f/1.8 (lens hood used) | Rollei-HFT Planar 50mm f/1.8 - 100% crop


E2) 1/250s @ f/1.8 (lens hood used) | Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar MC 50mm f/1.8 - 100% crop



F1) 1/60s @ f/4 | Rollei-HFT Planar 50mm f/1.8 - 100% crop


F2) 1/60s @ f/4 | Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar MC 50mm f/1.8 - 100% crop



H1) 1/125s @ f/2.8 | Rollei-HFT Planar 50mm f/1.8 - 100% crop


H2) 1/125s @ f/2.8 | Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar MC 50mm f/1.8 - 100% crop


(I did not focus exactly the same in some images, one is also a bit blurred and I am very sorry)


My very modest opinion
For me, it seems that, when in focus, at aperture of f/2.8 - f/4 or larger, Pancolar is a little bit better; from f/4 - f/5.6 to smaller apertures, I prefer Planar, with its micro-contrast, which is clearly superior.
However I will not prefere one above the other for the sharpness, because I know they are very very sharp lenses, but I will choise and exchange them only for the tone and look, the main things at which this confrontation was aimed.


Thank you all for the comments and please, leave your sincere opinions.

Thanks Gabrielle.