p.giannakis
Pan Giannakis
You can consider me impressed.
As some of you remember, I got a Carl Zeiss Pancolar 50f/1.8 – 8 aperture blades, zebra version, the so called “radio-active” version. This one is significantly different lens compared to the subsequent 6 aperture blades, zebra/MC versions. Have a look <here> this page has all the information you need about the Pancolar.
I sent mine to Luton cameras to have it serviced. When I got it back I thought I should compare them to the Takumar 55f/2 and the two different versions of Helios I have (44-2 and 44-M4). I will leave the pictures of the 44-M4 out of this post as most came out soft and slightly out of focused. The only one that was acceptable was one shot at f4. I suspect I have a faulty sample.
Most of us are familiar with theTakumar 55 (f/1.8 or f/2). It is an outstanding lens, very difficult to criticise it. Sharp from wide open, gets sharper when stopped down, very nice out of focus area. On the other hand, the Helios 44-2 enjoys a lot of popularity on the internet due to it's swirly bokeh and good sharpness in the centre. Once stopped down centre gets sharper but edges will never impress you. Personally, I have never been a great fan of the Helios although I have used it a lot in the past and gave me some pictures I really like.
The Pancolar is what you will get if you marry Takumar's sharpness with Helios' character. The biggest fault I find with the Pancolar is that due to slight yellowing, it is the most difficult of the three to focus. It might not seem like a lot of yellowing but with cameras and dark focusing screens, it is noticibly more difficult to focus.
All pictures are shot with the Praktica LTL and an Agfa APX100, developed in Rodinal. Many thanks to my ever-willing model which doesn't miss a chance to pose for me every time I get a new lens.
First picture is the Pancolar, second is the Takumar, third is the Helios.
All lenses are wide open – that is the Pancolar is at f/1.8 and the rest at f/2. The Pancolar has slightly better contrast (possibly due to the slight yellowing) and i think it renders a bit more detail. The Helios swirls around like a washing machine – nice effect but you can get tired of it quickly. The Takumar is more neutral in this respect – there is a slight swirl but not too much. The Pancolar has a swirl but if you stop to f/2.8 it goes away completely.
At f/4, the difference between the Takumar and the Pancolar is negligible. Both are very sharp although I think the Pancolar has a slightly more contrast and tiny more detail (or not?).
I absolutely love the character of the Pancolar when using wide apertures. There is a slight glow but is plenty sharp. The swirl is not always obvious as you might think.
By f/2.8 the lens is very sharp and contrasty. It renders highlights so nicely.
Together with the Zuiko silvernose 50f/1.4 and the Rokkor 58f/1.4, I consider the Pancolar as one of the most characterful lenses. But unlike the other lenses, the Pancolar keeps a very nice balance between having character and being a sharp and contrasty lens.
As some of you remember, I got a Carl Zeiss Pancolar 50f/1.8 – 8 aperture blades, zebra version, the so called “radio-active” version. This one is significantly different lens compared to the subsequent 6 aperture blades, zebra/MC versions. Have a look <here> this page has all the information you need about the Pancolar.
I sent mine to Luton cameras to have it serviced. When I got it back I thought I should compare them to the Takumar 55f/2 and the two different versions of Helios I have (44-2 and 44-M4). I will leave the pictures of the 44-M4 out of this post as most came out soft and slightly out of focused. The only one that was acceptable was one shot at f4. I suspect I have a faulty sample.
Most of us are familiar with theTakumar 55 (f/1.8 or f/2). It is an outstanding lens, very difficult to criticise it. Sharp from wide open, gets sharper when stopped down, very nice out of focus area. On the other hand, the Helios 44-2 enjoys a lot of popularity on the internet due to it's swirly bokeh and good sharpness in the centre. Once stopped down centre gets sharper but edges will never impress you. Personally, I have never been a great fan of the Helios although I have used it a lot in the past and gave me some pictures I really like.
The Pancolar is what you will get if you marry Takumar's sharpness with Helios' character. The biggest fault I find with the Pancolar is that due to slight yellowing, it is the most difficult of the three to focus. It might not seem like a lot of yellowing but with cameras and dark focusing screens, it is noticibly more difficult to focus.
All pictures are shot with the Praktica LTL and an Agfa APX100, developed in Rodinal. Many thanks to my ever-willing model which doesn't miss a chance to pose for me every time I get a new lens.
First picture is the Pancolar, second is the Takumar, third is the Helios.
All lenses are wide open – that is the Pancolar is at f/1.8 and the rest at f/2. The Pancolar has slightly better contrast (possibly due to the slight yellowing) and i think it renders a bit more detail. The Helios swirls around like a washing machine – nice effect but you can get tired of it quickly. The Takumar is more neutral in this respect – there is a slight swirl but not too much. The Pancolar has a swirl but if you stop to f/2.8 it goes away completely.
At f/4, the difference between the Takumar and the Pancolar is negligible. Both are very sharp although I think the Pancolar has a slightly more contrast and tiny more detail (or not?).
I absolutely love the character of the Pancolar when using wide apertures. There is a slight glow but is plenty sharp. The swirl is not always obvious as you might think.
By f/2.8 the lens is very sharp and contrasty. It renders highlights so nicely.
Together with the Zuiko silvernose 50f/1.4 and the Rokkor 58f/1.4, I consider the Pancolar as one of the most characterful lenses. But unlike the other lenses, the Pancolar keeps a very nice balance between having character and being a sharp and contrasty lens.
Last edited:
