Review: Carl Zeiss Planar 1,7/50 T* (C/Y)


The Carl Zeiss Planar 1,7/50 is reputed to be one of the sharpest normal lenses and also the cheapest Carl Zeiss you can buy. In this in-depth review I put it to the test.

Sample Images

You can find these images in full resolution in this Carl Zeiss Planar 1.7/50 flickr set.



Diameter 59 mm
Length 36 mm
Filter Thread 55 mm
Weight 195 g
Max. Magnification 1:10
Close Focusing Distance from the sensor 0.6 m
Number of aperture blades 6
Elements/ Groups 7/6

More information in Zeiss’ official data sheet.

At the time of this review the Carl Zeiss Planar 1.7/50 usually sells for around $120-140 at (affiliate link). 
In Germany you can buy it for 65-100€ at (affiliate link). 

The younger MM version usually sells for a little bit more than the older AE version.


There are two versions of the Zeiss Planar 1.7/50 T*.

The older AE version introduced in the mid 70’s. It  will not allow program and shutter-priority with film cameras. It was made in Japan from the beginning while other C/Y lenses were manufactured in Germany  before production was moved to in Japan (als called AEJ). Unlike with the 1.4 version ninja-star-bokeh is not an issue with the 1.7/50.

The younger MM version was sold from 1984 to 2005. It can be identified by the green color of the f/16 marking. Some people report improved coatings with the MM version but I have so far not seen a test to support that.
If you want to leitax your lens to Nikon F-mount or Sony A-mount you need to buy the MM version.


The Zeiss Planar 1.7/50  can of course be used on a wide range of Contax and Yashica film cameras but I know little about those so I can’t tell you any details.

You can also buy adapters to use it on  Canon EOS cameras but in some cases the mirror will hit the back of the lens. Check out this site for more information.

To use a C/Y lens on a Nikon F-mount camera you need to replace the mount of your C/Y lens. Check out Leitax for more information. I can recommend their products, they are very well made.

The easiest way to use a C/Y lens on a digital camera is to buy a mirrorless camera. I can only recommend to buy a full frame camera so the Sony Alpha 7 series cameras are your only choice (unless you have too much money and want a Leica SL). Check out this article for more information about how to use manual lenses on the Sony a7-series.

Build Quality

This was a “budget” Zeiss lens and the build quality is not up to the standards of the more expensive Planar 1.4/50. The inner barrel, the filter thread and the mount are made from metal but the focus- and aperture ring are made from plastic. Because you touch plastics when you use the lens and because both rings are not well damped the Planar 1.7/50 feels a little cheap. That the markings are not engraved only adds to that impression.


Size, Weight and Handling

The Zeiss Planar is well well balanced on the Sony a7II. There are of course a bit smaller and lighter lenses but for handling the Planar is just the right size and weight.

The focusing ring travels about 70 degrees from 0.6 m to 1 m and a further 80 or so degrees to infinity. I think this is a very good transmission, focusing was easy at any distance. The focusing feel is quite okay: Precise enough but a little less smooth than I like.

The aperture ring has stops at f/1.7, f/2.4 and f/2.8. Between f/2.8 and f/16 it has full stops. It isn’t too hard to select half-stops because the focusing ring travels quite far but is isn’t that well damped.

Lens Hood

I don’t own a hood for the Zeiss Planar 1.7/50 but according to there were two different hoods: The Metal Lens Hood No.4 and the Soft Lens Shade 55mm G-11.  

Since the Planar is quite flare resistant getting a lens hood wasn’t a priority for me.


The 55mm filter thread is made from metal

The front of the lens does not rotate so polarizers are easy to use.

Image Quality


At f/1.7 vignetting is significant at 2.1 stops but that is usual for a 1.7/50 lens. At f/2.8 it is reduced to about 0.9 stops and by f/4 vignetting is down to 0.4 stops which should be irrelevant for almost any application.

Flare Resistance

The flare resistance of the Zeiss 1.7/50 is exceptional if you compare it to other lenses from the same era and still competetive with weaker modern lenses. There is only a little veiling flare which causes contrast loss and only minor ghosting in very demanding situations. This sets the Zeiss apart from many other 50mm lenses, my Minolta MC 1.2/58 is much worse and the Canon nFD 1.4/50 not much better. It is even a little better than the Zeiss 1.4/50


The Planar shows some barrel distortion, a setting of +3 corrects it very well in Lightroom.

Chromatic Aberrations

I can see no lateral CA which isn’t that uncommon for a 50mm lens but still very welcome.

Axial CA are another topic though. At f/1.7 they are very strong. Stopped down to f/2.8 they reduced a lot and by f/4 they are mostly gone as these 100% crops show:


At f/1.7 bokeh isn’t very smooth, out-of-focus highlights have a well defined edge, stopping down to f/2 reduces vignetting and cat eyes but doesn’t do much else. Stop the Planar down to f/2.8 and bokeh becomes quite smooth. The aperture shape only becomes distracting from f/4. The transition zone is pretty smooth.


Also highlighted should be the very smooth transition zone.


The Zeiss Planar 1.7/50 has only 6 aperture blades therefore it is hardly surprising that you need to stop down to f/11 for somewhat defined sunstars. With just 6 rays there are not very attractive.


The Zeiss Planar has a significant amount of spherical aberration at f/1.7 which reduces contrast to pretty low levels. From f/2.8 contrast is very good across almost the entire frame.

Field Curvature

Planar is a name created from the German word plan which means flat, hinting at low field curvature. Well, the field curvature might be low by 1897 standards, by modern standards it is not. At wider apertures I see pretty strong M-shaped field curvature. If you focus on the center of the image the midframe region will be focused significantly behind the center.

This finding is very relevant if you want to get the best possible results out of the Planar. If you focus on the center and recompose results you throw away a lot of the Planar’s potential sharpness. Taking a bit more time to focus directly will result in significantly better results. Another scenario where you should consider the field curvature is if you want to photograph a flat scene. Here you shouldn’t just focus on the center but better about a third into the image. This is the soon-to-be-famous Roger’s point. This will reduce sharpness in the center slightly but overall your image will be sharper.


The full aperture series can be found at flickr.

f/1.7: Very good resolution but lower micro contrast in the center. The midframe region is quite soft, as are the corners.

f/2.8: The center is excellent, the midframe region is quite sharp as well but the corners are soft.

f/4: Most of the image is excellent to very good now, only the extreme corners after r= 18 remain soft.

f/5.6: Almost of all of the image shows excellent sharpness now, noly the last few pixels in the corners are a bit soft.

f/8: On a higher resolution camera you will see a very small drop in sharpness in the center, the extreme corners are a bit sharper than at f/5.6

f/11: The whole image is a bit less sharp.

The short version: I wouldn’t hesitate to use f/1.7 for portraits or when I need the speed but images won’t stand up to huge enlargements and contrast will be lower. Stopped down to f/2.8 sharpness is very good to excellent across most of the frame but you should take the field curvature into consideration. For excellent landscape images I would recommend f/5.6 or f/8.

Close Focus Performance

The Zeiss 1.7/50 has a close focusing distance of 60 cm which results in a reproduction ratio of 1:10 which is below average for a 50 mm lens.

The Planar does not feature floating elements so performance suffers quite a lot at shorter distances.  I would avoid anything under f/2.8 and for best results you need to stop down to f/8 but even then the Planar is clearly less sharp than at longer distances.


These are alternative lenses for the Sony a7/a9 series.

Zeiss Planar 1.4/50 T* (C/Y mount) – The 1.7’s big brother offers much better build quality, focuses closer, is a little heavier and it costs quite a bit moreOptical performance is similar. Wide open performance of the 1.7 is a little sharper which is hardly surprising and stopped down the f/1.4 is somewhat sharper but I wouldn’t call the differences significant. The 1.4 has a little softer bokeh but the aperture shape is more annoying. The 1.7 has a little better flare resistance. For most applications I would prefer the 1.4 but for landscape photography the light weight and slightly better flare resistance of the 1.7 might make it more attractive.

Sony FE 1.8/55 ZA – Optically it offers smoother bokeh (in some aspects at least), very good corner sharpness from f/1.8 and better flare resistance. Stopped down to f/5.6 the difference will be minimal. The Sony lens of course offers AF but the manual focusing experience sucks. The FE55 is also quite expensive at $999. As a general purpose normal lens the FE55 is hard to beat on much more practical than the Zeiss.

Zeiss Loxia 2/50 – Smaller, sharper and more expensive. This modern manual lens is even more pleasant to handle and my recommendation for anyone who is willing to pay good money for a very pleasant experience. The bokeh of the 1.7/50 is about as smooth but the Loxia has 10 aperture blades so you won’t have to deal with annoying hexagons at f/4 and below.

Sony FE 1.8/50 – The Sony has AF (which is very slow), smoother bokeh and it is significantly lighter. Build quality feels a lot less solid and manual focus is a lot more enjoyable with the Zeiss. The Zeiss is a bit sharper at wider apertures.

Zeiss Milvus Distagon 1.4/50 – Four times as heavy, ten times as expensive. But you get great bokeh and sharp corners from f/1.4, flare resistance is also exceptional. Handling is nicer with the small old Planar.

Minolta MC 1.7/55 – Both lenses complement each other quite well. The dirt cheap Minolta is a bit lower in contrast and flare resistance it pretty bad. But it offers smoother bokeh and great build quality.

Canon new FD 1.4/50 – The Canon is a bit sharper at f/1.7, it has 8 aperture blades and it costs about half of what the Zeiss costs. Sharpness stopped down is very similar but the Zeiss has better contrast and flare resistance.



  • flare resistance
  • sharpness from f/2.8
  • size and weight
  • bokeh (at f/2.8)

  • price
  • build quality and handling
  • bokeh (wide open)
  • axial CA
not good

  • close focusing distance of 60 cm
  • soft corners at f/1.7
  • only 6 aperture blades
  • sharpness at close distances

Optically the Planar 1.7/50 is a typical normal lens. Wide open it shows quite a bit of “character” which is a kind way to say that it very visible aberrations which reduce contrast and sharpnes. It is sharper than most other normal lenses at f/1.7 but still quite far from the perfection of a modern lens like the FE 1.8/55 and bokeh is a bit harsh. Stopping down to f/2 reduces these issue a little but for excellent image quality one has to stop down to f/2.8 where most of the image is very sharp. For landscapes with detail in the corners I would recommend to stop down to f/5.6 or f/8 where the Planar delivers excellent results. As mentioned the Planar is a bit sharper than many other normals but the difference isn’t that obvious. More obvious is the good flare resistance which is very unusual for a lens of this age.

Unusual for a Zeiss is the average build quality for a lens of its age. It won’t have an effect on the quality of your images but it detracts a little from the user experience. Still it is much more pleasant to handle than most modern lenses. A bit annoying is the close focus distance of 60 cm, I don’t know any other 50 mm lens from the same time which does not focus at least to 45 cm.

I would recommend the Zeiss to those who need a light hiking lens with good but not great flare resistance for a more or less affordable price. I think there are better and more affordable general purpose normal lenses like the Canon nFD 1.4/50 but if your focus is on landscape I would have a look at the Zeiss Planar.

All in all the Zeiss Planar 1.7/50 is a versatile lens with good enough image quality wide open. It really shines from f/2.8 where image quality is very good across most of the frame and by f/5.6 landscape photographers won’t find anything to complain about. The price/performance ratio is still quite good but not as good as that of similar lenses.

At the time of this review the Carl Zeiss Planar 1.7/50 usually sells for around $120-140 at (affiliate link). 
In Germany you can buy it for 65-100€ at (affiliate link). 

If this review was helpful to you, please consider using one of my affiliate links. I will earn a small commission on your purchase and it won’t cost you anything. Thanks!

Carl Zeiss Planar 1.7/50 T* Sample Images

All images are processed in Lightroom from Raw. Many more full resolution samples in my Zeiss Planar 1.7/50 flickr album.

Other Articles

This site contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase using any of the links marked as affiliate links, I may receive a small commission at no additional cost to you. This helps support the creation of future content.

The following two tabs change content below.
I have two hobbies: Photography and photographic gear. Both are related only to a small degree.

Latest posts by Phillip Reeve (see all)

45 thoughts on “Review: Carl Zeiss Planar 1,7/50 T* (C/Y)”

  1. Hi Phillip

    A very nice review as always. You have make sell all my Canon equipment, and I am now buying an A7II. I also like the “craftmanship” of using manual lenses, and this blogs is always very informational and inspirational.

    I am checking prices for a manual lens, but the link to shows that the cheapest Zeis 50 1.7 is 139€.

    I think I can find Canon nFD 50 1.4 for less than 100€. At the same price, would you recommend the Canon too? I have a Zuiko 50 1.8 that I use with my Sony a6000, but I am not able to get very sharp images with it.

    1. 139€ is a lot, as is 100€ for a nFD 1.4/50 (which is my jack-of-all-trades 50 mm recommendation). I think with two weeks patience you should be able to win an auction for 100€.

      1. Hi my name is Rubin. I pick up the lens recently for my Sony a7iii and try to do some research. I saw you website and saw the amazing photos you took with it. But was wondering what where your settings for getting those kind of photos and color. Did you use a flat profile? Or do any editing to the photos and what should I do to get the same results. Because I absolute love the shots you took with it and the way they turned out. Thank you.

  2. Great review.
    3D pop – i know always difficult.
    But on your picture nr 48, the fourth before the posts here,
    green with green tree, the tree really looks like jumping out of the picture, i doubt that you can have the same effect with a Canon or (i’m not 100% sure) with the zony 55mm.
    That is what i miss on most other 50ies.

  3. Thanks for the review. I actually like few-pointed sunstars as I find the 12-legged-ones to look rather like insects. That bokeh isn’t so precious but that was expected

    Am thinking of getting a Pentacon 50 1,8 to complement the rather competent-for-landscape-and-with-neutral-bokeh-just-as-you-wrote MD 50/2.

  4. I know these could be considered a strange comment and question… Anyway, did somebody have experience by using it with a focusing helicoid for macro shooting?

    When I switched to Sony I kept the previous Nikkor 50mm ƒ/1.8 D – a very sharp lens for what I can see – and tried with an E-mount adapter that includes a focusing helicoid. I’m pleased by the results – honestly, when comparing aberrations to those of native E-mount macro lenses, I don’t see anything worse; in any case, they can be almost always well corrected.

    What I’ve been asking myself for a while is whether there is another 50mm legacy lens that offers same sharpness and maybe smoother bokeh. Would the Planar 1,7/50 T* be interesting in this perspective?

    PS I also use the Helios 44-2 as a macro lens, and I like its bokeh, but it also has got its own character, which doesn’t fill all scenarios.


  5. Phillip,

    Thanks so much for this one. I feel as though I can finally put to rest my internal struggle of the Minolta 50 f/2 vs Zeiss CY 50 f/1.4 vs Zeiss CY 50 f/1.7. From what I can tell, the effort and money that it would take to go from the Minolta to this lens would result in a nearly negligible difference, since I’m typically a landscape guy. Seems as though it would be best to save my money and go for the Loxia 50 or the CV 65 to gain an appreciable difference in sharpness/contrast/build quality.

    Again, I really appreciate the comparisons. This site makes being a gearhead easier on the wallet.

  6. Hi Philip. Thank for a great review.
    I currently own a sony a7ii and have a Nikkor 50mm 1.8D which I use with a Metabones adaptor.
    Does the Carl Zeiss Planner 50mm 1.7 T* C/Y require an adaptor to work with my sony?
    If yes or no can you tell me please what benefits I will achieve by using the Carl Zeiss.

  7. Thank you for the review. I own a copy of the C/Y 1.7 50 AE which is a nice lens beside the limitations mentioned in this review. I bought a Auto Yashinon 2.0 5 cm recently in HK for dirt cheap 50$ and compared it to the C/Y 1.7 50 AE. I found that wide open the Yashinon does significantly better as there is no purple fringing!!! Also the color rendering of the Yashinon is better. 3D pop is like the Contax!!! and bokeehhhh is so much better of the Yashinon. On the other hand the Contax seems to be a touch sharper when extremly pixel peeping. The handling of both lenses is not optimal.
    Conclusion: If bokeh, color is important I use the Yashinon – it is significantly better corrected. For landscape the Contax might be better – slightly better sharpness and handling.

      1. Thank you, and sorry about that. You state: “If you focus on the center of the image the midframe region will be focused significantly behind the center”. Are you implying here that there is some difference between the “center” and “midframe”?

  8. It would be very interesting to compare this Planar with the a good sample of the QBM or M42 mount Planar( Ultron) 50 1.8 . I say a good sample because the condition of this lens can be sometimes a concern. It is sharp, very contrasty and has nice Zeiss colours.
    Thank you for your high quality reviews .

    1. from what I read the 1.7 is very close to the 1.4, also because the design is very similar. the 1.8 is a (slightly) earlier design, and is slightly inferior. the slightly has to be taken serious here, the 1.8 is still one of the best fast vintage 50ies, and because of it’s low price my absolute recommendation for a budget lens: you get true Zeiss colours and rendering for 35€!!

  9. This is not a ‘Carl Zeiss Planar’….it is made by Yashica using the name under license only, thus a C/Y mount for Contax, Contax a trade name purchased by Yashica (Kyocera) and placed on their higher end line while Yashica paid license fees for the Planar name and others in optics. Yashica had 2 lens manufacturing arms, one from an earlier purchase of Tomioka (the reason Carl Zeiss licensed their name with Yashica) and the regular lens manufacturing arm Yashica always had. The lens is not reputed to be anything, Photodo (old Photodo) measured the 50 1.4 and 1.7 at F8, both registering the highest numbers ever reached by a lens at the time. Of course at 1.4 wide-open, the Zeiss is inferior to the Summilux and Canon USM 50 1.4 of the time. The 1.7 is superiorly sharper to the 1.4 wide open. If “Sharp” is your goal? Good luck with that I say. In the meantime lenses exist because no single one is all that or near it. For instance, keep your sharp give me color and contrast? Made In Japan by Yashica under a license by Carl Zeiss the construction on the 1.4 is complicated, not all that reliable, well made to a point where complicated with too many parts pushes it down in that regard. The 1.7 is actually an Ultron 7 element design with an advanced 4 group rear; Takumar 50 1.4, Pentax A 50 1.2, Canon EF 50 1.4, Yashica 50 1.4, Tomioka 50 1.4, Porst, Zenitar …. all are the same exact designs. Allegedly, serial numbers above 8,000,000 (AE change to MM time frame) have resolution improvements and if this is true, I’d relate it to improved coatings/process algorithm in my humble opinion. There’s mechanical things that can happen to these two Contax favorites that can’t happen to Pentax, Nikkor, or Minolta MC/MD lens construction…they are not on the same course, in the same league, or competition in that regard. Zeiss held on to their coating process, allegedly batches of lens were measured, the results sent to Germany where coatings for each lens were adjusted to make the entire batch even..ideally there should be no difference between samples. It is not uncommon to find either the 1.4 or 1.7 in need of repair, while not inferior they aren’t bullet proof tanks like Taks, Niks, or Mins at all….

  10. I’d rather use a Minolta 50/2, in fact that’s true because I long ago sold my Contax lenses, keeping only the cool Contax marked lens pouches. Roundness of subjects (3D) is better, sharp/color/contrast are equal or too close to call, speed goes to Contax for those on the SS Obvious …. it’s a Summicron vs Ultron Planar. It’s a matter of preference and personal appeal…in short if you want to spend money needlessly…definitely buy a Contax.

  11. Hi Philippe,
    Would you buy this lens at the eBay price if 130$ ?
    I already have the CV 34-70 f3.4 but it is too heavy and unwieldy and I’m scared to damage to when I I’m the wild. Therefore I’m migrating to all small takumars zuikos and zeiss glass.

    Incidently you wouldn’t have a zuiko 100/2 you would be willing to sell to me 🙂

      1. Hey Phillip, I would love to buy your Zuiko 100/2 if you are still interested in selling it. Unfortunately, I do not live in Europe (America) but I am very willing to pay for shipping.

  12. Hey I thought you should know that the flickr links on this page actually point to the 1.4, not the 1.7!



  13. Great techno review of the lens. One thing I would point out is that many of these lenses are now around 40 years old. As such most will have dust in the elements as well as fogging/haze cause by dried lubricants/dirt etc that is on the inside of the glass. I had my Planars pro serviced, stripped, cleaned and lubed and the results are so so much better. Don’t just think that you can pick up a cheap older lens on E Bay, slap it on your camera and get great top results. What was it John Ruskin said about paying too little for something? I’ve been down that road and these days prefer to pay for something that is going to do the job I bought it for. Thanks for the review.

  14. I’d probably go w/ a Minolta MD 50mm f/2 over this. Just my opinion though. Thank you for the review.

  15. Very nice review. In some forums this lens was mentioned as having good microcontrast, yet you did not mention it. Are there any lenses that you particularly recommend for good microcontrast? Thanks

    1. Different people mean different things when they talk about micro-contrast. Personally I would call lenses with high MTF 40 lp/mm contrast lenses with high micro contrast. In our tests lenses which reach the “excellent” mark in the sharpness category are lenses with high micro-contrast. Going by that definition in it’s time the C/Y 1.7/50 had above average micro-contrast and by f/2.5 or so it is competitive by today’s standards. Today lenses like the Sony ZA 1.4/50 deliver significantly higher micro-contrast from f/1.4 than the C/Y ever reaches. Most lenses today reach the levels the C/Y 1.7/50 reaches. If you specify a focal length, then I could name some lenses with very high micro-contrast.

  16. Hello there!

    You page is a fascinating and very comprehensive source of information that has helped me decide on purchasing 3 or more great lenses in the past, thanks to your reviews. This lens is perfectly assesed and described and I am very happy with it, color rendition is something subjective but I find this one suiting it’s contrast very well.

    I just wanted to extend my appreciation for your hard work (and
    your colleagues) unbiased reviews and opinions.


    Juan Carlos.

  17. You wrote “I don’t know any other 50 mm lens from the same time which does not focus at least to 45 cm”.
    The Nikkor (Nikon) 50/1.8 Ais minimal focus distance is also 60 cm. This lens was released in January 1978.

  18. bonjour, je suis a la recherche d’une bague d’adaptation qui irait sur mon pentax MV vers mon objectif Carl Zeiss planar 1,7/50 t* . Si vous savez où je peux la commander ? merci beaucoup .

    1. Because of the similar flange focal distances of Pentax K and Contax/Yashica an adapter is not possible here.
      There are some that feature a lens element trying to make up for that but the image quality will be abysmal.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *