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

[gabriele_v]

Hello,
I am Gabriele and I am from Italy. I don't know if this is the right section of the forum to post this, if so, please tell me.



Introduction

The comparison I have done is between Rollei-HFT Planar 50mm f/1.8 (7 elements in 6 groups, my version is made in Singapore) and Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar MC 50mm f/1.8 (6 elements in 5 groups). Both lenses have 6 aperture blades and multicoating treatment of the elements (and both were recently cleaned and relubricated).
No doubts about the fact that they are both superb lenses.


A bit of history of the two lenses

<< The Planar 50mm f/1.8 from 1970, despite the not excessive brightness, adopted a complex and "overqualified" optical scheme compared to needs, [...] overall it looks like an excessively project complex for the starting conditions, which in any case rowed against the same interests of Zeiss Ikon, supplying the competitor Rollei a truly excellent lens. >> (from http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/Zeiss_Planar_50mm_story/00_pag.htm).

<< Pancolar is a brand of a series of optics manufactured by VEB Carl Zeiss Jena, built on the optical scheme of the double Gauss like the Planar. Both the Pancolar 55mm f/1.4 (for the Pentacon Super 1967-1972) and Prakticar 50mm f/1.4 (Praktica bayonet in 1978-1980) were built with modifications to the optical scheme (7 elements in 6 groups). The Pentacon Super Pancolar 75mm f/1.4 is instead 7 lenses in 7 groups. The export lenses were branded "aus Jena" to avoid legal disputes related to the use of the name Carl Zeiss. >> (from http://www.bensaver.it/photography/lens/pancolar_50mm_f1,8.htm).

You can see that the Planar 50mm f/1.8 for Rollei isn't a usual Planar, it is an unusual one.

I suggest also http://allphotolenses.com/ for general informations.


Practical using of the lenses

When using the lenses you can notice that the Rollei Planar has a better overall manifacture of the body, better aperture ring, but a stiffer focusing ring; the Pancolar is also very well made, the aperture ring makes you feel the clicks less, but focusing ring is smoother and, in my opinion, it is easier to focus.
A lens would be perfect if it had the overall quality and the aperture ring of the Rollei Planar, and the focusing ring of the Pancolar.


Explaining how I did the comparison

I took my Rolleiflex SL35 with its Rollei-HFT Planar 50mm f/1.8, which I alternated with the CZJ Pancolar MC 50mm f/1.8, used with an adapter. I used tripod and cable release for all the shoots and I took the same picture with both lenses, using the same time - aperture settings, trying to focus on the same point, though I did not get it all the times. The metering was done with the camera meter set to 160 ASA, privileging dark areas when shooting backlight or similar scenes.
I used Kodak Gold 200, developed by my usual lab and then I scanned the negatives using a Plustek 8100 and SilverFast (positive raw files at 7200dpi, multi-exposure, 48bit, no crop, no adjustments or filters) and inverting them with Negative Lab Pro, synchronizing all the couples of respective pictures, without applying any colour correction and using the Linear Gamma profile. I exported the files as tiff to modify them in Photoshop, where I halved the image size to get the real resolution of the scanner, I removed the colour noise (a value of 30 with Camera Raw was used), I set the white and black points, I modified the tonal range to try recovering details in shadows and lights (using Camera Raw; only luminosity was affected, not colour), I converted to sRGB at 24bit and finally a sharpening mask adopting the same values for all the images.
I ended up with pictures of 300dpi, 5400x3600 pixels, which I down-scaled at 72dpi, 1200x800 pixels following the suggestions of the forum staff.


The images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

E1) 1/250s @ f/1.8 (lens hood used) | Rollei-HFT Planar 50mm f/1.8 - (obscured for privacy)

E2) 1/250s @ f/1.8 (lens hood used) | Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar MC 50mm f/1.8 - (obscured for privacy)

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

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

G1) 1/500s @ f/1.8 (focusing at 45cm, lens limit) | Rollei-HFT Planar 50mm f/1.8

G2) 1/500s @ f/1.8 (focusing at 45cm, lens limit is 35cm) | Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar MC 50mm f/1.8

[TO BE CONTINUED]

-external links for information only-

 

[gabriele_v]

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

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

-Please, before reading this, see the images and make a personal opinion-

Personal digression
It is clearly visible that Pancolar has a warmer tone compared to Planar and so, obviously, Planar has a cooler tone compared to Pancolar.
Pancolar has a better bokeh for me, due to the fact that it can focus to 35cm against the 45cm of the Planar; I can also say to you that Pancolar bokeh can be more "swirly", Planar not as much; Pancolar between f/2 and f/3.5 has a ninja-style - similar aperture, (which becomes exagonal at f/4) and in my opinion it helps the rendering of the bokeh.
Planar, indeed, has a better (only very slightly better) multicoating treatment in my opinion, more similar(-ish) to that of modern lenses, which helps in preserving the contrast in backlit scenes (Pancolar do it well, but Planar a bit better), and I think also that this is the secret of that exceptional micro-contrast for which Planar is famous for.
But Pancolar is not to be thrown away: there is something in the rendering of fine details (see picture F2, in the spider web) and also in the highlights transition (not transition between midtone and highlights, but between the darker and the brightest highlights; see E2, F2 and G2; maybe only a personal sensation) which pleases me, and I think that this could be the reasons why, for me, it feels slightly better to see the focusing (a matter of very little or, again, maybe only a personal sensation, which one can, perhaps, feel after a long period of using both lenses).
Of course the tone of the lenses can have an influence on how we feel detail in the highlights and in the shadows.

[TO BE CONTINUED]
(Sharpness will be in the next post, though they are almost identical)

 

[Dan Fromm]

Not to be a complete idiot, but I don't get the point of your comparison shots. They're all closeup, have no bearing on how normal lenses are most often used, i.e., at distance.

 

[AgX]

The Idea of the OP seems to be that at close focusing the relation of the two lenses to each other are the same as at far focusing. A assumption that seems valid to me.

 

[AgX]

As a side note :
Most Meyer and Zeiss Jena 50mm SLR lenses have a minimum focusimg distance of 35cm. A feature that is often overlooked and yields an image-scale factor of up to 2 against some competing japanese lens.

 

[flavio81]

H2) 1/125s @ f/2.8 | Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar MC 50mm f/1.8
View attachment 261676

Gee, that's very, very ugly bokeh at the background... For both lenses.

 

[Paul Howell]

Seems to me that there are couple of issues at play. In OP's test he is testing for his subjective interpretation, which lens has the most pleasing palette, as far his likes and dislikes go. What we don't know if how accurate either lens reproduce a standard color swab. He used a pretty good consumer grade film, one I use, but not one I would pick for a color test. In the end only the subjective matters, does not seem that OP is shooting a commercial shot where color accuracy matters, such as shooting a fashion shot for a catalog, What he likes is what he likes, I happen to like the Zeiss for most shots, but there are few of frames taken with the Rolli that I would pick as well. Saying that looking at the results does not make me want to run out and get either lens.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The OP has done an interest set of comparison tests, I note that the Rollei-HFT Planar has sharper focus on the corners and IMNOHO* sharper focus in the center.



* IMNOHO ==> In My No So Humble Opinion

 

[Paul Howell]

I don't see it, looks about the same. A test chart would give objective data.

 

[Ian Grant]

The Pancolar is a much older design it's essential the Flexon with newer colour balanced coatings. CZJ's quality control wasn't quite as good as Western companies however having use a Pancolar for a few years I always found it optically superb. I did shoot fungi etc with it while at University on the old E4 High Speed Ektachome with excellent results. I'd expect a bit more variablity between Pancolars than the Rollei Planars. My Pancolar and Prakticamat let me down due to inconsistent exposures, ultimately it was spotted that the lens didn't stop down consistently.

One comment I've made quite a few times is that some of the very best 35mm prints/films I've developed and printed were shot with CZJ lenses 35mm Flektagon, 50mm Pancolar, and 135mm Sonnar using an Exacta Varex 1000 and FP4. There's something about German lenses and their designs that mirrors the Leitz vs Japanese lenses arguments.

Ian

 

[Deleted member 88956]

It is actually a small shame Pancolars were not produced to higher mechanical standards as they would quite easily give ANY Western offering a run for the money. In fact they, would just take off and be gone before anyone noticed. Sadly, many of Pancolars were so subpar in materials and even tolerances (I have two) I can't stop thinking why good lord did not allow "inequality riots" when they mattered in lens manufacturing.

It actually appears Pancolar name was put on many lenses that did not have same, mechanical and even optical, quality behind them. As a result, buying a Pancolar does not mean ... buying one.

As for this test, I do not see a point, while noticing obvious work needed to get it done and then published. It might be of use to those who use them for these kind of shots though.

 

[Paul Howell]

I agree with Ian, German VS. Japanese lens, different palettes.

 

[AgX]

The Pancolar is a much older design it's essential the Flexon with newer colour balanced coatings.

The Flexon is just a renamed Biotar 50mm F2.

This lens design after few years had been recalculated and named Pancolar, but there are samples of the older design already named Pancolar.

 

[Charles Escott-New]

Thank you for the effort you have put in to this Gabriele, I am looking forward to the next series. I would love to see some Italian street scenes taken with these lenses. Buon Natale, Charles.

 

[BradS]

Hi and welcome!
Thanks for the background and comparison....quite interesting.

 

[Ian Grant]

The Flexon is just a renamed Biotar 50mm F2.

This lens design after few years had been recalculated and named Pancolar, but there are samples of the older design already named Pancolar.

The Biotar is a 58mm f2 lens, it was replaced by a new lens the Flexon 50mm f2 a completely different lens design which was later renamed Pancolar with newer better colour balanced coatings. My experience with early CZJ T coated lenses is they are quite cold tending towards a blue bias.

Ian

 

[AgX]

There had been a Biotar 50mm F2, but seemingly only 100 samples were made before it was renamed to Flexon.

This renaming was result of the brand- and trade-name struggle between the two Zeiss firms.

 

[gabriele_v]

Thank you all for your responses!
I want to remember that this is a simple, unscientific test that I have done and that I think maybe could be helpful for someone who wants to see something about the two lenses. What I am writing are personal opinions based on test and obviously on the fact that I own and use the two lenses since 2018.

Not to be a complete idiot, but I don't get the point of your comparison shots. They're all closeup, have no bearing on how normal lenses are most often used, i.e., at distance.

I have done some shots of a tree at far distance, but they were ruined by the sun peeking through the clouds (some pictures were with sun veiled by clouds, others were full sunny), so I do not consider them valid for the test.
My idea was exactly this written by AgX:

The Idea of the OP seems to be that at close focusing the relation of the two lenses to each other are the same as at far focusing. A assumption that seems valid to me.

Seems to me that there are couple of issues at play. In OP's test he is testing for his subjective interpretation, which lens has the most pleasing palette, as far his likes and dislikes go. What we don't know if how accurate either lens reproduce a standard color swab. He used a pretty good consumer grade film, one I use, but not one I would pick for a color test. In the end only the subjective matters, does not seem that OP is shooting a commercial shot where color accuracy matters, such as shooting a fashion shot for a catalog, What he likes is what he likes, I happen to like the Zeiss for most shots, but there are few of frames taken with the Rolli that I would pick as well. Saying that looking at the results does not make me want to run out and get either lens.

For colours: I have used exactly the same processing for the respective couples of images, so film base is identical, developing is identical, editing is identical, the only changes are lens used and relatively the light conditions (which were quite stable, exept in the long distance shots). I did not use a colour chart because I was not interested about how the lenses were rendering a certain colour, but how the tonality of the two lenses compares against each other. The next test could be done with slide film, colour negative is always dependent from a personal interpretation, which, however, I tried to reduce at the minimum.

I don't see it, looks about the same. A test chart would give objective data.

I don't have a chart for sharpness checking, but I think that sharpness is not a problem for any of the two lenses and that they are very similar performers; if anything, the micro-contrast could be of a different rendition.

As for this test, I do not see a point, while noticing obvious work needed to get it done and then published. It might be of use to those who use them for these kind of shots though.

This was a test I have done for myself and I decided to publish it here as I didn't find others (only one on Youtube, but was between Pancolar with multicoating treatment and Rollei Planar without multicoating; and another one, but between Pancolar and Contax/Yashica Planar 1.7/50).

 

[Dan Fromm]

Gabriele, your test is typical of the ones posted on mflenses.com. At least you shot normal lenses at near distances. Posters there do the same with telephoto lenses. I don't see the point of that either.

 

[Marco Gilardetti]

Hello Grabriele, thanks for posting this, looking at the pictures was amusing.

I'd say both lenses are excellent performers and nearly equivalent to each other in the "in focus" areas (although yes, due to the type of pictures that you have taken, it's a bit hard seeing what happens at corners). About the defocused areas, contrarywise I seem to prefer the Planar as it looks a a liiiittle more mild to my eyes, with a biiiiit less twin-peaks aspect at borders, but of course it's personal taste. As already said by others, though, the rendition of defocused areas is not the strong point of either lens.

 

[Ian Grant]

There had been a Biotar 50mm F2, but seemingly only 100 samples were made before it was renamed to Flexon.

This renaming was result of the brand- and trade-name struggle between the two Zeiss firms.

I'm not sure that CZJ changed any lens names as part of the enforced separation, after all they continued with the Sonnar & Tessar names which both CZJ and Zeiss AG used, and they used Biotar on both the 75mm f1.5 and cine lenses like the 50mm f1,4 for some years (1961 or later) after the Flexon was introduced. I said enforced separation because both Zeiss companies had hoped to re-unite thinking Germany would soon be become one country again.

Ian

 

[ruilourosa]

I always found the naming story in CZJ a bit dubious... If planar name could no be used and they used biometar instead why did they also used Bm for biometars...

they also used flektogon instead of distagon and just S for sonnars...

 

[AgX]

Over here they marketed their lenses that before got the old CZ names as "T", "B" and "BM" under the brand "aus Jena".

If CZJ still used their old names, as you both indicate, then this must have been on markets where there was no tradename or brand issue.
Keep in mind that the legal rights for such names must be protected for each and every country on its own and even repeatedly. Thus the situation may vary per country and time.

 

[Ian Grant]

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.

After all Zeiss AG didn't object to Carl Zeiss Scientific Instruments Ltd in London set up in 1955 who were the importers and distributors of CZJ and Meyer lenses and Praktica & Exacta cameras, as well as binoculars and scientific instruments.

Ian

 

[BradS]

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.
Ian

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

....More a US/Russia cold war thing than reality.
Ian

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