Ektar vs Planar T*

Encinalense

Encinalense

Established
Local time
3:22 PM
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
72
Location
Pune
View My Gallery
Image 1: Planar T* 50/1.7 on a Yashica FR-I; Fuji Reala

FRI174.jpg


Image 2: Ektar 44/3.5 (on a Signet 35); Fuji Reala

Signet192.jpg


I had just replaced the beamsplitter in the Signet 35. This was a test roll to check the focus alignment. Looks like the exposure was a little longer on the Kodak (and that's probably that finicky danged Synchro 300 shutter). But I'm pleased with the comparison, otherwise.
 
Hard to know what to make of this, as I don't know if both lenses were shot wide open, or stopped down. I can tell that the Ektar shot is sharper than the Planar shot, but then it's reasonable that an f/3.5 lens might be sharper wide open than an f/1.7 lens shot wide open.

Or am I missing something?
 
I must be out of my league here, as I don't know what an Ektar or a beamsplitter are, but the 2nd photo looks sharper, or contrastier or something. The fact that the focal lengths are different makes it hard to judge too.
 
Ektars are the best lenses ever made. And this opinion comes from a french Ektar lover.

Anyone who has never tried a Kodak Medalist, with its 105 f/3.5 5 elements (Heliar type) or a Chevron (78mm f/3.5 4 elements) or an Aero Ektar (178mm f/2.5 7 elements) doesn't know what a sharp lens is.

I know, I'm a little bit affirmative 😛, but I really like these lenses...:angel:

Kodak Chevron, Provia 100 :

picsousaintgoussaud2007.jpg
 
I know the reputation of the Ektars. However, I have a 50mm f/1.4 T* Planar that is sharp. Wide open it will produce better results than you have shown in your first photo. Acutally, even better than what I see in your second photo.

The problem is I don't know what you did to acquire the two photos you are showing. Of course, the web isn't necessarily the best place for a comparison of two lenses either. Can you give us some details of how you got these two photos?
 
I'm looking for my notes and can't find them -- but I can say that I took the first shot, with the Planar, at an f-stop and speed that were available on the Ektar and then duped the settings for the Ektar (also a nice way of avoiding using my $5 lightmeter); I thought I remembered shooting both stopped to f4 at 1/100. But they might have been 5.6. I also shot both at the same zone on the lens barrel (seems like it was 10 ft). Neither was very carefully composed.

The Planar strikes me, on looking long and closely, as having a bit more sharpness a bit closer to the lens (and the 5mm focal length difference does of course skew this a bit). It seems like this difference might be diminished by a better exposure from the Kodak, though.

I've gotten great sharpness from that 1.7 all the way open, too -- it's far and away the nicest SLR lens I have (in a very -- obviously! -- modest collection). And it is tough to make a comparison on the web. I was just kind of tickled by how well the Ektar is performing, given its relative age and cost and recent adjustments, etc.
 
Encinalense - I don't own any Ektars to compare, but The Zeiss T* lenses should all be good. The only one I have is the 50mm f/1.4 as I could not justify buying more, as much as I like them, when I had 28mm, 50mm normal and 50mm macro, and 135mm Fujinon lenses. That lens coupled with a Contax 139Q sure gave some nice photos. Works well on my FX 103 I got to replace the 139Q as well.

As to the Ektars, didn't Ansel Adams use those on his 8x10 cameras? I am sure he could use whatever he wanted, so he must have thought well of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom