I have Rollie 50/1.8, almost mint now for a month. Among them the C/Y and the G that have a better reputation.Īnother magazine did not get a better copy, lower serial number: Planar designs after that period returned to 6 element Planar constructions for the 2.0 and 1.7 versions. Manufacturing of the Rollei Planar has been shifted for lower labor costs, fabrication tolerances may have been worse than desired at both locations though. Both the Rollei and the Contarex line of cameras at that time were hardly profitable for resp. According Marco Cavina with 7 different glass qualities, some special, not in the Schott catalog. What may have been the cause is that the number of elements in that 1.8 Planar is high and the lens needs a lot of precision in manufacturing.
I've got a Voigtländer Color Ultron 1.8/50 which shares mechanical and optical properties with the Planar 1.8/50 and while it offers very good IQ across the field, i discovered that its build quality is much worse than that of my other (japanese) standard lenses - so fabrication tolerances might be wider. No photographer's gear list is complete without the printer mentioned ! No experience with either lens but I still wonder whether this magazine got a dog from Rollei for testing I have two Contax 1.7/50 (an MMJ and an AEJ) and iirc I found my Singapore Rollie HFT to have more color/contrast than the Contax's. I read a lot of threads stating the Singapore HFT was actually superior to the Contax 1.7/50.(I also read a lot of threads stating the opposite).
0 kommentar(er)
