One example that springs to mind is the Flektogon 2.4/35, a friend has one and lent it to me for a weekend, I wasn't impresssed, my Panagor 2/35 is just as good, probably slightly better and my Canon FL 2.5/35 is definitely the equal of the Flek. I really think that people obsess about the name Zeiss and the T* red letters, I prefer to be objective and consider every lens on it's merits regardless of who made it. There are so many other factors that contribute to a great shot that the 1% difference in performance is one of the very last considerations to take into account.īe interesting to compare the Rollei 1.8/50 to my Hexanon 1.7/50 which I plan to do soon. 3x for 1% more performance? Silly decision in today's world imho. If the Rollei and Zeiss are virtually the same, unless money is no issue, the Rollei has to be the better buy, cost me 30ukp in superb condition, to buy the Zeiss version would cost 3x that or more. Iangreenhalgh1 wrote: Thanks for the link to your samples IAZA, they make the Rollei look like a great lens, despite being in ugly condition. Last edited by IAZA on Wed 1:04 pm edited 1 time in total Nex5, Olympus EPM1, yashica half 14, Canon eos 650 want to see samples of mine? please click My lenses Here's my 50/1,8 planar which has very ugly lookĪs for HFT coated Zeiss has different result compared to T*, like Ahamb said, it has more reddish than Zeiss T* (C/Y & Z series. IAZA wrote: I have Zeiss QBM planar 50/1,8 no HFT or T* coat which has same look to that Rollei 50/1,8, some people say same with Voigtlander 50/1,8 QBM too. I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! In actual use, have people discerned any difference between the two in performance? Zeiss themselves have said that T* and HFT are the same in effect, just they differ in the production method, HFT being a development of T* process to enable mass production. Rollei Planar was made in Singapore by Rollei to a design licensed by Zeiss - is the design the same as the Zeiss Planar or is it different, if different, how does it differ? The 1.8 and 1.7 quoted max apertures don't indicate much, manufacturers often bend the truth a little in this regard and Zeiss could have rounded down to get 1.7 while Rollei rounded up to get 1.8, Zeiss could well have chosen to label their piece 1.7 to differentiate it from the Rollei piece in the minds of consumers. Iangreenhalgh1 wrote: I'm interested in the actual differecnes between the lenses.