For the opportunity to review Carl Zeiss Planar 1,7 / 50 T * (Contax) many thanks to Roman Kononov, who sent I have a lens from another area.
Review of Carl Zeiss Planar 1,7 / 50 T * (Contax)
The Carl Zeiss Planar 1,7 / 50 T * is an excellent fast fifty lens with manual focusing. Carl Zeiss Planar 1,7 / 50 T * visually does not stand out in any way from the huge number of fifty dollars that were reviewed by Radozhiva. True, I found one interesting point - rubber aperture control ring, this is very rare. Carl Zeiss Planar 1,7 / 50 T * uses Contax / Yashica mount.
Clarification of the front lens Carl Zeiss Planar F 1,7 50 mm T * (Contax)
The lens has a pronounced T * enlightenment. Such a violet-lilac enlightenment not only pleases the eye of the lens owner, but also really helps to achieve a bright picture with good contrast.
Enlightenment of the rear lens and the appearance of the petals of the Carl Zeiss Planar F 1,7 50 mm T * aperture (Contax)
The lens has a blinking aperture device. Focusing is smooth, the focus ring rotates about 160 degrees. Perhaps the focus ring does not have such a large stroke, for example, like Auto mamiya / sekor 1: 1,4 f = 55mm, but the movement of the ring itself is very smooth and pleasant. The focusing ring is rubberized. But the minimum focusing distance disappointed me a little - MDF is 60 cm. Usually fifty dollars have a smaller MDF, for example Yashica Auto Yashinon-DX 1: 1,7 f = 50mm has an MDF of 50 cm. CZ Planar 1.7 / 50 T * has a focus distance scale in meters and feet, and, of course, a depth of field scale. The aperture is adjustable from F / 1.7 to F / 16 (1.7, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16), between the values of F / 1.7 and F / 2.8, you can set another intermediate value equal to F / 2.0.
Lens view Carl Zeiss Planar F 1,7 50 mm T * (Contax)
It was a little disappointing that for such a price the CZ Planar 1.7 / 50 T * has only 6 aperture blades forming regular hexagons. Aperture blades are matte black. The lens creates the effect of a 6-ray star when used on closed apertures, here example. My copy has serial number 7281885.
'Zeiss' Planar and 'Gel.' Arsenal :)
The lens is assembled well, on the body you can find the inscription 'Lens made in Japan'. You can read a lot of useful information about the Planars from Dmitry Evtifeev, for example, here.
MC Helios-81N 2/50 (Nikon F mount, Ukraine, Kiev, Arsenal plant) and Carl Zeiss Planar 1,7 / 50 T * (Contax mount, Japan). My Helios 'poses' near the 'immortal'.
I used Carl Zeiss Planar 1,7 / 50 T * using the Contax-Canon EOS adapter without a chip. The Canon CZK keeps focusing on infinity when using a conventional adapter without a lens. How to use manual focus lenses on modern Canon digital cameras here. To mount the lens on the Nikon Central Control Arm with the ability to focus on infinity, you have to sweat.
Sample photo on Carl Zeiss Planar 1,7 50 T * Contax on the CZK
Sample Photos
It’s a pity, I don’t have the opportunity to drive the CZ Planar 1.7 / 50 T * on a full-format camera yet. On DSLR APS-C Kf = 1.6x Canon 350D the lens is very sharp across the entire field of the frame at any aperture value. The lens has good color reproduction and contrast. The lens is practically not afraid of back and side light and flare. On open diaphragms you can still trace chromatic aberration, but this is characteristic of all fast lenses of this class.
Catalog of modern Carl Zeiss lenses can look at this link.
Comments on this post do not require registration. Anyone can leave a comment. Many different photographic equipment can be found on AliExpress.
Personal impressions
This is one of the sharpest fifty dollars I've ever photographed with. 'Planar Killer' Asahi OPT. CO., SMC Takumar 1: 1.4 / 50 noticeably loses to the CZ Planar 1.7 / 50 T *. The CZ Planar 1.7 / 50 T * fully fulfills its price tag with its image quality, though it's a shame the lens doesn't have a 'flat aperture'. For fans of manual focusing optics, the price of the CZ Planar 1.7 / 50 T * may seem too high. Usually, amateur photographers are used to the fact that mostly manual focus optics are old and cheap.
View of Carl Zeiss Planar 1,7 50 T * Contax on the central locking
Conclusions
Carl Zeiss Planar 1,7 / 50 T * (for Contax) is a great fifty dollars. Carl Zeiss Planar is Carl Zeiss Planar.
Material prepared Arkady Shapoval. Training/Consultations | Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram
What is the market price for such a miracle?
Well, for example, here ...
http://aukro.ua/listing.php/search?sg=0&string=Planar+1.7
In my opinion, such a price is nonsense. Judging by the photo, Nikon's fifty is not particularly worse at a lower price. Besides, there is autofocus. So why pay more than 2000 thousand for glass, which can only be taken slowly while walking? After all, it is not particularly suitable for traveling, or for photo shoots or wedding shooting, due to the slowness of manual adjustment ...
Not everyone needs to shoot weddings :) Nikon 50mm F / 1.8D at times loses in sharpness at F / 1.8
And I like it when the closed diaphragm does not form a circle. I like rays on light sources, and I have nothing against bokeh with “nuts” :)
By the way, yes, "not circles" and "not bagels" in bokeh looks very nice. In videos, if you look closely, the bokeh is viewed by “nuts”, you can even count the number of aperture blades of the lens installed on the video camera.
Yeah, I also sometimes pay attention to bokeh in films and count the petals :)
I have been waiting for a review of this lens for a long time. Dmitry Evtifeev has at least "grab a gati" on this glass of information, but your Arkady's opinion is also very interesting.
Many thanks for your work!
Arkady! Something too many recent articles about old lenses.
Nobody forces you to read them. Arkady, thank you for the titanic work and good luck.
Sergey, if you were even a little versed in photography, you wouldn’t write such nonsense. This planar is the standard that most manufacturers of optics are equal to and the language will not turn to call it obsolete.
Thanks to Arkady again)))
What users provide me with for review, articles are published about that.
Arkady You are just fine, be healthy and may luck and luck always smile at you.
Sometimes users offer new serious lenses :) ... Eh, if we could buy them in packs, these Nikkors, then they would offer a choice of packs, and not one at a time from different parts of the country :).
Can anyone use modern Carl Zeiss on Nikon cameras? Give a link where you can see photo works or read the practice of use. Thanks!!!
Arkady, thanks for the article!
While the lens on your test I got a full-frame camera. And this lens turns into an ordinary almost wide (
If it is interesting I will take pictures with this lens and continue the article. True, people like you will not succeed ... but test, for example, certain flowers from a certain distance. Although it’s not really in your spirit, you don’t like taking photographs of photo worlds and other test still lifes. On the other hand, the same object
Good luck
I think many will be interested. Just upload photos to any resource, and in the comments share links to images. The same applies to your 14 / 2,8.
Arkady, I kept my promise
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rostovr/sets/72157635006568725/
I ask you not to judge harshly, of which there are not many good photos. Summer is over and everything is in yellow on Khortytsya ... plus evening. Landscapes with the back sun had to be drawn, without this in any way (there is no gradient). And so you can say with not much processing)
Bower hasn’t even dressed yet, and honestly there was no inspiration. But if I have wishes, I will fulfill it.
Arkady, you write about the big MDF. I didn’t measure with a ruler, but I took close-up pictures of flowers from close and did not feel discomfort
I write that it is not big, but more than other fifty kopecks.
I just shared my impression.
Arkady, thanks for the review. You have to start writing a book with such extensive material on glasses.
MDF is really big. Therefore, if you need to shoot separately the "face" of a cat close up, then I use Carl Zeiss Planar 50 / 1.4 :)
But for everything else, a great lens. the aperture blades are few, but they don’t stick, like in the Soviet ones. I read that the decrease in the number of petals in the Zeiss is connected with this. Better less, but better.
Arkady, well done, keep it up!
Stunned, I didn’t see such a plasticity and volume in any lens, although the regular reader of Arkady, but not a single glass before gave such a beautiful picture, thanks to Arkady for the trouble, I went for a walk on advertising;)
where did all the advertising go?
Good afternoon! Tell me where you can find out how to "transfer" this lens to Nicon D 5100?
http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/9167/19088437.c/0_b026b_7ffed25c_XXXL.jpg
This is from the new Planar, 50mm F1.4 ZA SSM - autofocus
Great lens! Makes me very happy! I just had to tinker with the alteration to Nikon.
Thank you so much, Arkady, thanks for the reviews!
There are a lot of old manual lenses. There are not so many worthy of them. A few days ago I finally bought a Carl Zeiss Planar 50 1.7. Guys, this is a thing !!! Prior to that, I used Helios 44, Zenitar 50 1.7, Jupiter-9, 37A, etc. So, now I will get rid of them on the sly - they are all no match for Carl Zeiss! This is another galaxy)))
I'll get up the nerve and give advice to all doubters - instead of buying and trying all possible Soviet and GDR lenses, you should buy only 1 - Carl Zeiss Planar 50 1.7. Buying other lenses, you will still spend the amount for which it is worth buying 1 and a real one)))!
Regarding the lenses from the GDR, I disagree, one Meyer-Optik Görlitz Orestor 135 mm f / 2.8 is worth it, though it's not that focal :)
Thanks a lot for the review. By the way, I have already become a habit - before buying a lens, first ask your opinion. I have a Pentax K-30 (photos in Yandex, login fiodor.wasilich). I recently sold my Helios-44K-4 and now I regret it. Now I want to buy a Carl Zeiss Planar 1,7 / 50 T * or Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar 50 / 1.8. I watched the reviews, the impressions of 1,7 / 50 were better, but it is also more expensive. Also for the Pancolar 50 / 1.8. there was an adapter. Question: In your opinion, does it make sense to overpay for the Carl Zeiss Planar 1,7 / 50 T *, provided that you need to buy an adapter for it (by the way, what adapter is needed in this case, for the Pentax K-30)?
I "rummaged" through the Internet and found out that it is impossible to put the Planar 1,7 / 50 T * through an adapter on the Pentax, but the PK and C / Y mounts are almost identical and it is possible to convert the C / Y mount to the PK, so for now I’m wondering if it is Togo…..
Hello dear lovers and pros!
Who will tell you what adapter is needed for Carl Zeiss Planar 1,7 / 50 T to install it on Fuji X-A1, can I see confirmation of manual focus, and also can I control the Exposure.
Thank you in advance.
C / Y-FX
GOOD DAY. TODAY ACQUIRED CZ TESSAR T 2.8 50 MM WATCH JUST WAS
SOMETIMES THERE IS A PROBLEM IN THE DIAPHRAGM - EVERYTHING WAS FAILED LIKE NEW
LAY FOR A LONG TIME WITHOUT HERE AND THE PROBLEM. BE SO FAVORABLE DOWNLOAD THE LINK TO
lengorn@mail.ru or here - DISASSEMBLY AND ASSEMBLY OF THE LENS CLEANING LUBRICATING YOURSELF
I DO NOT UNDERSTAND NEED A HINT. THANKS! I HAVE SUCH INFORMATION BUT HERE
HAS EASILY HALF HALF A DAY AND DOES NOT FIND. Sorry I DIDN'T ATTEND IMMEDIATELY.
Please tell me which adapter is needed for this lens to the Fuji X E2 camera. thank you in advance.
C / Y-FX
Thanks in part to this review, I bought this glass. The condition is excellent, but there is a bit of dust inside, although it does not affect the quality (did not notice) but it is annoying. Is there a resource for disassembling / cleaning this lens? Thanks.
Everything is gorgeous, only a speck of dust and I have it ... How do they end up there? The lens is super!
I don’t think that Takumar 1: 1.4 / 50 loses to this Planar in terms of sharpness, it’s possible on open ones, but Takumar is noticeably lighter, especially the first versions with thorium enlightenment of the front and rear lenses, but I think that after somewhere f4 will be parity, and in terms of drawing, there’s someone here, I like both. Thanks for the reviews, especially the old optics.
I specifically bought a long time ago takumar 50 1.4 with thorium coating (so that it is radioactive). And so from the first shot this takumar was on the slando for sale because it can not be compared with zeiss - especially in terms of plasticity and volume of the picture. Takumar is too sharp in terms of the transition from light to shadow - and the planar is so flexible that I have not seen such plasticity in any other lens. Therefore, they sell takumar and only collect zeiss, but of course, it costs a pretty penny
Carl Zeiss Planar T * 50 mm f / 1.4 C / Y lens
who will tell in comparison with Carl Zeiss Planar 1,7 / 50 T *
Visit Dmitry Evtifeev’s website, he compared them.
Found ... anyone interested here is a direct link. http://evtifeev.com/5695-carl-zeiss-planar-5014-carl-zeiss-planar-5017.html
Roughly the same - first Geliki, then the Japanese, then the Germans. Planar 1.7 is the most predictable lens, even shooting nature in the open. But here's the problem, I tried Leica ... Planar put it up for sale.
I would like to share my experience. Many years ago I had a Contax 167Mt film with this lens. Everything was fine and I shot a lot of it. Then there were good and fast DSLRs with autofocus and I switched to them (mostly Nikons - F90x and then F100) with Nikon 50 / 1.4D. And then high quality zooms. Then various CLCs appeared. Yes, I still worked a lot with the medium format Mamiya 645 Pro with wonderful fixes from the same Mamiya ... Last year I shot with Canon 5D M3 with lenses 16-35.2,8L II, 24-105 / 4L and Canon 28-300 / 3.5- 5.6L (and cursed the Mark 3 for terrible banding in photo processing, although the camera is otherwise very good!). And after all this, I always had the feeling that I could not reach that very Planar 50 / 1.7 in any way, not only in terms of sharpness (by the way, the number of my copy started with 65 and as people say, it seemed to be also not himself sharp from this series of planars!), but also in terms of the image itself. At an aperture of 1,7, the planar produces such a picture that can only be done by Voigtlander 58 / 1.4b, although their pictures are clearly different, but very characteristic and pleasant. And bokeh is a thing! It is impossible to see all this in the scaled-down photographs. And just recently I bought this planar again and put it on the same mark 3 ... everything fell into place, how many years have passed and, it turns out, no one has bothered to do something detailed yet. I suspect that in all these modern fifty rubles, with the exception of very different ones like Nikon 58 / 1.4, manufacturers use simple cheap glasses, and then fool us with novelty and different abbreviations. In short, do not spare money on this particular planar and also on that Voigtlander 58 / 1.4 (it is produced under the native Nikon bayonet and the new version even became similar in design to the old manual Nikons), but the planar's drawing is still better, just describe it in words impossible, you need to feel at least a hundred frames in different conditions. And thanks to Arkady for the article! This is the first time I leave a comment here and I apologize for the verbosity ...
I shoot minifilms and 50K commercials on the Planar 1.7 4, the plastic focus ring frustrates, which wedges if you press it slightly, the aberrations in the form of a blue halo at 1.7 and 2.0 simply turn the skin purple (mixing orange and blue) and they stay almost until aperture 4, but! neither the takumar, of which I have two, nor the sigma nor the canons, are so impressive with the final picture as this lens. Its enlightenment is fantastic, and the sharpness at 1.7 is already sufficient for 4k, I shoot at 2.8 mainly due to aberrations, but the image is very “firm”, the shadows are not dirty, everything is sharp and clean)