{"id":10925,"date":"2017-11-22T15:07:34","date_gmt":"2017-11-22T14:07:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/phillipreeve.net\/blog\/?p=10925"},"modified":"2026-01-14T09:29:46","modified_gmt":"2026-01-14T08:29:46","slug":"review-carl-zeiss-planar-17-50-t-c-y","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/phillipreeve.net\/blog\/review-carl-zeiss-planar-17-50-t-c-y\/","title":{"rendered":"Review: Carl Zeiss Planar 1,7\/50 T* (C\/Y)"},"content":{"rendered":"

 <\/p>\n

\"\"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.<\/p>\n

Sample Images<\/h1>\n

You can find these images in full resolution in this Carl Zeiss Planar 1.7\/50 flickr set<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\"\" \u00a0\"\"<\/p>\n

\u00a0Specifications<\/h1>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Diameter<\/td>\n59 mm<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Length<\/td>\n36 mm<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Filter Thread<\/td>\n55 mm<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Weight<\/td>\n195 g<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Max. Magnification<\/td>\n1:10<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Close Focusing Distance from the sensor<\/td>\n0.6 m<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Number of aperture blades<\/td>\n6<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Elements\/ Groups<\/td>\n7\/6<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

More information in Zeiss’ official data sheet.<\/a><\/p>\n

At the time of this review the Carl Zeiss Planar 1.7\/50\u00a0usually sells for around $120-140<\/strong>\u00a0at ebay.com <\/a>(affiliate link).\u00a0<\/em>
\nIn Germany\u00a0you can buy it for 65-100\u20ac<\/strong>\u00a0at ebay.de<\/a> (affiliate link).\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

The younger MM version usually sells for a little bit more than the older AE version.<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Versions<\/h1>\n

There are two versions of the Zeiss Planar 1.7\/50 T*.<\/p>\n

The older AE version<\/strong>\u00a0introduced in the mid 70’s. It\u00a0 will not allow\u00a0program and shutter-priority with film cameras. It was made in Japan from the beginning while other C\/Y lenses were manufactured in Germany \u00a0before production was moved to\u00a0in Japan (als called AEJ). Unlike with the 1.4 version ninja-star-bokeh is not an issue with the 1.7\/50.<\/p>\n

The younger MM version<\/strong>\u00a0was sold from 1984 to 2005. It\u00a0can 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.
\n<\/span>If you want to leitax<\/a> your lens to Nikon\u00a0F-mount\u00a0or Sony A-mount you need to buy the MM version.<\/span><\/p>\n

Compatibility<\/b><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The Zeiss Planar 1.7\/50\u00a0 can of course be used on a wide range of Contax and Yashica film cameras<\/strong> but I know little about those so I can\u2019t tell you any details.<\/p>\n

You can also buy adapters to\u00a0use it on \u00a0Canon EOS<\/strong> cameras but in some cases the mirror will hit the back of the lens. Check out this site <\/a>for more information.<\/p>\n

To use a C\/Y lens on a\u00a0Nikon F-mount<\/strong> camera you need to replace\u00a0the mount of your C\/Y lens. Check out Leitax<\/a> for more information. I can recommend their products, they are very well made.<\/p>\n

The easiest way to use a C\/Y lens on a digital camera is to buy a mirrorless camera. I can only\u00a0recommend 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<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Build<\/strong> Quality<\/strong><\/h1>\n

This was a “budget” Zeiss lens and the build quality is not up to the standards of the more expensive Planar 1.4\/50.<\/a>\u00a0The 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.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Size, Weight and Handling<\/strong>
\n<\/a><\/h1>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

The focusing ring<\/strong> travels about 70 degrees from 0.6 m\u00a0to 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.<\/p>\n

The\u00a0aperture ring<\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n

Lens Hood<\/h1>\n

I don’t own a hood for the Zeiss Planar 1.7\/50\u00a0but according to mir.com<\/a> there were two different hoods: The\u00a0Metal Lens Hood No.4\u00a0<\/em>and the\u00a0Soft Lens Shade 55mm G-11. \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

Since the Planar is quite flare resistant getting a lens hood wasn’t a priority for me.<\/p>\n

Filters<\/h1>\n

The 55mm filter thread is made from metal<\/p>\n

The front of the lens does not rotate so polarizers are easy to use.<\/p>\n

Image Quality<\/h1>\n

Vignetting<\/h3>\n

At f\/1.7<\/strong> vignetting is significant at 2.1 stops<\/strong> but that is usual for a 1.7\/50 lens. At f\/2.8<\/strong> it is reduced to about 0.9 stops<\/strong> and by f\/4<\/strong>\u00a0vignetting is down to 0.4 stops<\/strong> which should be irrelevant for almost any application.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Flare Resistance<\/h1>\n

The flare resistance of the Zeiss 1.7\/50\u00a0is 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<\/a>\u00a0is much worse and the Canon nFD 1.4\/50<\/a> not much better. It is even a little better than the Zeiss 1.4\/50<\/a><\/p>\n