Zeiss Planar, Mint condition but shows some nasties (pictures inc)

Hi

 

I have bought on 7 days conditional acceptance a Zeiss Planar 50mm 1.7 .

Looking directly through the glass it does seem in very good condition but

view the transmitted light from an angle and I see this horrid looking mess.

(These shots were taken with the lens hand held to the light and the camera

also hand held....they are not pin sharp with all that shake but they do show

these conditions I have written about. Both about 600kb).

 

There seems to be a general discolouration about the internal surface. I think

this is called either "haze" or "fungus"? For now I will call it haze. The

haziness seems to be absent in places and apparently in a discernable pattern

There are also other marks that are very narrow...almost like something has

scratched the haze away.

 

 

http://i32.tinypic.com/egpyz4.jpg = here the absence of haze shows like a

dark cloud towards the bottom of the lens.

 

 

http://i28.tinypic.com/3310y2s.jpg = here the 'narrow marks' are shown better.

 

 

I have looked similarly at my Nikon E lenses (50mm and 28mm) and a Canon 50mm.

Yes this method of inspection shows up dust amazingly but even these old

lenses are totally free from anything like I have seen in the Zeiss. I'm

really wanting to know what these marks are and any advice regarding this

lenses "mint" description. I think I should return it even though these

problems can only really be seen when looking from a sideways angle.

 

What do you say?

 

I will try an HTML posting next for the pictures.

Ah good I see html has been applied to the links by photo.net

It's probably fungus. Regardless, you should return it right away and try again. If it's not "clean and clear, with no chips, scratches or cleaning marks", then you really don't want to buy it; unless it's a really rare collection piece, which is not the case here.

I agree with James - looks like fungus. Although your test is a fairly severe one as practically all lenses will have some dust and marks somewhere inside them, these marks look to be beyond the normal. I would return it.

>> you should return it right away

 

I agree.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

This lens is full of fungus. Really bad fungus. It covers nearly the entire surface of the element(s).

 

Return it!

... and if this is what qualifies as "mint" from this seller, I would shudder to think what would be rated as "good"!

Personally, I'd just buy a brand new Canon 50/1.8 II. Just because a lens has "Zeiss" written on it doesn't make it a better lens.

Well, Bob, it was not the name "Zeiss" which made their lenses famous, but the contrary. In this case, the Planar 50/1.7 is at full aperture indeed visibly superior to the Canon EF 50/1.8, really no question for me. From f/2.8 differences, if any, are minimal. If this is reason enough for someone to live without autofocus, is another question, which everyone has to answer for himself. Also, not being among the best examples of the fine Zeiss mechanics, the Planar 50/1.7 is much, much better built than the Canon EF 50/1.8, which is, in my opinion, pretty flimsy, although it may sure suffice for many of us.

To Brian W. Thomas: I think you'd better give this copy back to the seller as soon as possible.

Hi

 

Thank you all so very much for your feedback on this. All the lenses I have bought previously have been inspected by myself prior to purchase. And I have never seen anything like this before so thank you for putting me in the picture. This was an ebay item and I will email the seller tonight just to get the ball rolling on returning it. This whole thing is even more perplexing when I tell you the seller is aparently a classic camera vendor with very good feedback! Hum...go figure.

 

I will update this thread on the outcome - see where your help brings me.

 

Bob Atkins. Hi Bob, I do have an EOS 50/1.8 but it suffers from front focus. This is apparently quite common with this lens. See here for info and how to attempt a DIY fix http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=21351476 ) I also agree with Max that it feels so flimsy and I much prefer a good old manual focus lens. I don't have a split focus screen but have done plenty of microscopy in my time and the closest you normally get there is a matte screen..without much matte! :)

 

Thanks all.

 

Bri

I have the Zeiss 50 1.4 and the Canon too. At 2.0 and up there is very little difference, so much so that I really don't carry the Zeiss around unless on a week trip where the shooting will be all on a tripod. The real advantage of the Zeiss (other than it's a beauty mechanically compared to the Canon) is more precise manual focusing gearing and the superior depth of field markings. For these reasons, for tripod work, the Zeiss is the no-brainer choice.

If you think so, then that's good enough. I've not tried the Zeiss Planar on an EOS, but I have tried a number of 50mm lenses including the Pentax Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 50/1.4 which is also a Planar design and which Mike Johnston called "his favorite lens" (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-11-24.shtml). I've also tried Contax and other Pentax 50mm lenses including the 55/2.0 which I've seen described as the best of all the Pentax 50mm (ish) lenses in terms of pure optical quality.

 

Quite frankly I'd say none of them are really worth the trouble. They were all pretty good but the cheap and plastic Canon 50/1.8 is right up there with them in terms of optical quality, plus it has AF and stops down automatically!

 

Just about any old manual focus 50mm lens is better built than the totally plastic Canon 50/1.8 of course, but you can't tell what the lens was made of when you view the print. Nor do you probably care.

"Just because a lens has "Zeiss" written on it doesn't make it a better lens."

 

Bob, perhaps in a few cases this may be true, but most certainly not all cases, or even a majority of cases.

 

Case in point: The Canon 24-70L and 24-105 lenses enjoys a wide popular base of users who love those lenses ... I'm not one of them. IMO the 24-70 is big and clumsy, and while relatively sharp, achieves that sharpness with edge contrast that produces weird fringing effects when brights butt up against darks, and both

lenses feature way too much barrel distortion at the wider end.

 

However, I do need that focal length range for some of my work. So I replaced it with a Conurus converted Zeiss/Contax N24-85/3.5 which optically outperforms both Canon lenses visibly, and according to MFT charts. The Zeiss color and micro contrast sharpness is apparent, there is less issue with fringing, and much less

distortion. BTW, the Conurus mount is not an adapter, but a Canon mount adapted to the Zeiss lens that preserves all functions including AF (which is comparable to the Canon lenses), auto aperture and even produces exif info to accompany the Canon files.

 

I also use Zeiss/Hasselblad FE lenses via an adapter on a Canon 1DsMKIII, a Camera that outstrips some Canon lenses but sings with the Zeiss FEs mounted ( like the 110/2 and 250/4FE).

 

BTW, Conurus is, or will be also offering an AF Adapter for using Contax 645 lenses on a Canon EOS digital body.<div></div>

Hiya,

 

Bob says "Personally, I'd just buy a brand new Canon 50/1.8 II. Just because a lens has "Zeiss" written on it doesn't make it a better lens"

 

...then Bob says "I've not tried the Zeiss Planar on an EOS"

 

How can someone comment with any authority when they have not tried the lens themselves in the way the OP wants to use it?

 

In addition, I have seen several PN'ers on here try and criticise Zeiss and indeed German products in general, on quite a few occasions and I am intrigued to know why, especially when some of them clearly speak from a position of ignorance (Bob excluded)...

 

It is quite clear that the Zeiss lenses DO hold significant advantages for many users, especially in regard to IQ and build.

 

cheers Steve.M.

<P>Hi Steve, Marc, hope you're both well.<br>

Hey, 3 posts in a row from old contax.info forum members, got to be PN record.</P>

<P> The answer to your question is simple Steve, this is a Canon forum, and many members are so in awe of their Canon gear they cannot contemplate anything else bettering it.</P>

<P>I find it's best to ignore the nay sayers, and just give the advice that people like you, Marc and myself know to be true. It's for others to work out who's talking sense.<br>Personally I always listen to those with actual experience of the lenses in question, I find they tend know a bit more about the subject. ;-)</P>

<P>BTW, send the 50/1.7 back, they're so common you don't need to use anything but genuinely mint examples</P>

Hi,

 

Cheers Matt (& Marc)...I ALWAYS ignore nay sayers, trust my own judgement and do my own thing.

 

BTW just tried the Zeiss 45/2.8 Tessar (for the first time) in Seville and it was a lovely little thing and the colours were amazing. I have also just bought into the Canon digi system and are very impressed especially with the ergonomics of the cameras, but I have always just regarded them all as tools to reach an end result..

 

cheers Steve.M.

How about the right tool for the right job, can Bob and the rest of the Contax devotees both be right? OF course, under different circumstances, an AF lens will be greatly an advantage if you or your subject or both are moving. If all you do is shoot static subjects from a tripod then I can see where the Zeiss glass will be an advantage at times. There are so many other things that enter into image quality let alone non technical variables. I was amazed at one point to find out that my $300 Voigtlander 40mm f2 lens could not only compete with my 35L but surpass it at times, but and it is a big BUT, it does not always matter and in most instances of not being on a tripod with a static subject it was not the optic that was the limiting factor but me. Can I predictably manually focus under circumstances as above? When using middle or small apertures for larger DOF, did it matter at all which lens was used in the final large print say 24x36...not so you could tell by just looking at the print....Just one mans' opinion...and experience..buy what you need it is just a tool....

Here is the sellers reply to my wanting to return this lens within the 7 day approval period

 

<p></p>

<a href="http://tinypic.com" target="_blank"><img

 

src="http://i25.tinypic.com/2mbdzb.png" border="0" alt="Image and video

 

hosting by TinyPic"></a>

I do not have a good feeling about trying to legitimately deal with this seller considering his remarks above, the remarks on the auction http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=280204258820&ssPageName=STRK:MEWN:IT&ih=018 and the condition of this lens. I've never had a seller so outrightly refute the facts.

"Bob says "Personally, I'd just buy a brand new Canon 50/1.8 II. Just because a lens has "Zeiss" written on it doesn't make it a better lens"

 

...then Bob says "I've not tried the Zeiss Planar on an EOS"

 

The two statements are not contradictory. I would indeed by the Canon lens and the work "Zeiss" doesn't make a lens better than anything else.

 

In an optical bench test I think it's quite possible you may see higher numbers from a Zeiss 50/1.7 than a Canon 50/1.8. You might see higher numbers from a Nikon 50/1.8 too or a Pentax.

 

However once you put them on a digital SLR with a sensor that has a maximum resolution of maybe 75/lp/mm and once you put the resulting images though a digital optimization process, I'm not so sure you'll see any objective difference. Yes, MTF at lower frequencies counts, as does overall flare resistance and contrast, but those effects are usually small and digital optimization can cover a lot of sins.

 

I'd like to see a test where person "A" took the shots with the two lenses, then handed the image files (without identifying them) to person "B" for digital optimization and printing, who made prints from both files and handed them to a group of people "C" who judged their relative quality without prior knowledge of which shot was taken with which lens. That's a test I'd put some faith in.

 

If you were shooting ISO 6 35mm B&W microfilm, with all shots taken on a tripod using MLU and a cable release and making 48x72" prints, then I'd agree that you might get quite a bit more out of some 50mm f1.8 lenses than others, especially if you were shooting with all of them wide open. If you're shooting with a DSLR with a theoretical Nyquist reloution limit of 85 lp/mm and a practical resolution limit of maybe 75 lp/mm for high contrast detail and you're making more normal sized prints, I'm inclined to conclude that the differences between 50mm f1.8 lenses is very small, based on my own sampling of 4 or 5 50mm lenses (but not the Zeiss Planar).

 

If you want more info take a look at http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2007/02/great-50mm-lenses.html where Mike Johnston writes...

 

 

"That said, what follows is a list of some of the best 50mm lenses I know of. I'm leaving off the Zeiss ZM 50/2 Planar that I wrote about yesterday, as I really don't know where it belongs relative to this list yet. (Probably somewhere in the middle.)....

 

....A lot of people who read it aren't going to like this, but in many cases, nobody can tell the difference. I wish I had the funding to do a double-blind experimental study along these lines (well, okay, not really), but I've tested the proposition pretty rigorously, and I can tell you that even many photographers can't reliably distinguish good expensive lenses from good inexpensive lenses just from looking at pictures (although a lot of them think they can). And when it comes down to the general public, fuggedaboutit?people just don't see."

 

Im this case I think Mike has it right. (In case you don't know Mike, he was the East Coast editor of Camera & Darkroom from 1988 to 1994 and the Editor-in-Chief of PHOTO Techniques from 1994-2000)

Hi,

 

Brian: I know this seller. He is a so-called recognised Contax dealer and has been for some years. His name is Carsten and he works out of some premises in Harrogate.

 

Many Contax users have had very good service from him, but I had to get involved with trading standards re his advertising a couple of years ago. He seems very dogmatic and he is also behind the times as he hardly ever checks emails and his website is usually WAY out of date, because he rarely updates it. I also have seen dubious descriptions of his on ebay. He quite often has a 25/2.8 described as 'MINT' in the title line, but when you read the small print, he mentions it has a coating mark. This to me, is clearly misleading...he seems not to be up front about condition and tries to hide issues with items in the small print...this should tell you something about him and the way he deals.

 

You are in a strong position to sort this out in your favour simply because he has premises and is a recognised business.

 

1. If you want to lose your postage both ways, then by all means accept his offer of a refund. I think this is unacceptable due to the clearly dubious condition description. However many ebay sellers do refuse to pay post when refunding. You may want to direct him to this thread and suggest he reads it.

 

2. You can do a paypal chargeback IF you paid with paypal. You should also open an ebay dispute to officially state the issue.

 

3. You can (and should) contact you local trading standards office..they are part of the local council and are usually very helpful. They should investigate this and contact the local Harrogate trading standards office. If you want ALL your money back, including postage I suggest you will have to take this route.

 

4. If you paid with paypal (I hope you did), you open a 'not as described' dispute. If they find in your favour, they will insist you return the item, but the seller will have to refund the full amount to you inc the original postage paid.

 

If you want any more help, please email me direct.

 

cheers Steve.M.

Hi,

 

Bob..thanks for the hefty reply. It was the words you used that bothered me:

 

"Just because a lens has "Zeiss" written on it doesn't make it a better lens"

 

The assumption seems to be that Zeiss users simply 'assume' Zeiss lenses must be better. I can assure you that both myself and I am sure Marc Williams, Matt sallis and many others are quite capable of making our own judgements. There does sometimes seem to be a certain 'attitude' re Zeiss on PN that is not positive nor healthy.

 

You have quoted many, many figures in your reply, but most serious photographers know that there is more to this than mere numbers will allow to be seen.

 

You and a magazine editor may not see any noticeable difference, but the fact is that Marc Williams, Matt and many other professionals can...and although this seems to be irksome to some Zeiss nay sayers, it is never the less a fact.

 

You are probably right, I doubt hardly anyone could point out the Zeiss images in a blind test, but that is to miss the point. If a pro CAN see an improvement in his/her images by using certain gear, then they would be foolish not to use it...

 

cheers Steve.M.

<P>The lens was described as mint condition and it is <B>clearly not</B>. That is also definitely NOT "some minor dust".<br>The lens has clearly been taken apart and cleaned incompetently with a dirty cloth, and it is completely unacceptable as a "mint" condition lens.<br>I've never seen a coin fresh from the Royal Mint looking like that!</P>

<P>Luckily as Steve says, in the UK you are very well protected by trading laws and should get all of your money, including postage, refunded. Just because you bought it through ebay, doesn't mean the only protection you get is from ebay, you have the long arm of English law on your side - use it.<br>Good luck.</P>

<P>I'm considering a new car. I know the one above will get me around on a daily basis, and I might not always need the top speed of the lower model, but what the hell, you only live once! ;-)</P><div></div>

Hi,

 

The ebay seller we are having issues with is: Contax2007 ...here is some of his feedback from buyers:

 

http://www.toolhaus.org/cgi-bin/negs?User=contax2007&Dirn=Received+by

 

cheers Steve.

....there seems to be a common link with the negatives...you should always check a sellers feedback carefully and this toolhaus dot org site is free and VERY useful. It shows all the negs & neutrals, so you can spot any common ground between bad feedbacks, which can highlight problems the seller has..