50mm fingerprints: Summicron vs Zeiss Planar?

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...I have on the other hand seen in out of focus parts of Planar images signs of overcorrected spherical, which may make for a less than creamy bokeh. This choice of correction makes for the well-known ring-shaped point highlight discs beyond the plane of best focus, while the discs on the hither side show the opposite radial distribution of light...

Would you have any pics or links showing this effect out of the Planar 50/2? I've never used this lens so far. Just curious.

Edited August 29, 2009 by lct

[lars_bergquist]

I have never used the lens so I have no picture of my own to show. But early published pictures have shown the phenomenon very clearly. How serious it is, is of course a matter of taste. The Planar is a very good 50mm lens, though not a spectacular one.

 

The old man from the Age of the Tessar

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[lct]

... I have seen horrid bokeh from a cron V4 on many occasions...

Would you have any pics or links showing this?

I've been using the 11819 Summicron for 30+ years and i don't remember having got such 'horrid' bokeh until now. Just an example at f/2 here.

 

[lct]

I have never used the lens so I have no picture of my own to show. But early published pictures have shown the phenomenon very clearly...

Would you refer to those pics ?

REVIEW - ZEISS 50mm F2 PLANAR ZM The new Carl Zeiss classic ZM lenses for the Leica M system and Zeiss Ikon

[batmobile]

This really is a fantastic thread. The ZM planar is good, but no great... the 50 summicron is clearly better... the planar has dodgy bokeh... the 35 V4 never produces iffy bokeh (when ALL lenses can under certain conditions - this was my point, not that the V4 is bad in any way, only that all lenses can be provoked).

 

A good shot of the V4 with somewhat 'energetic bokeh' can be seen in the Mancuso tests, where the summarit produces much smoother bokeh wide open and the V4 bokeh is somewhat 'wired.' Does this prove the bokeh is bad on this lens? No, of course not!

 

I think the only way to be objective here is to be completely dedicated to the Leica cause and to criticise other lenses based on tiny images plucked from the web where there is no information on post processing or comparison images shot on leica lenses. You have to use those few images to prove that the non-leica lenses are no good, while completely ignoring the fact that there are examples out there whihc would have you thinking every lens can be a dog. The iffy Leica shots are forgotten because they must have occurred under exceptional condition and the ZM/CV lenses would of course have done far worse.

 

Then one has to refuse to criticise everything Sean Reid says, and indeed his tests, having never seen them, while maintaining that you know better because you own the Leica lens and you 'cannot imagine anything is better' while completely ignoring comments from people who actually own the lenses in question. After all, they are only talking up their ZM/CV lenses because they could not afford the Leica glass.

Edited August 29, 2009 by batmobile

[lct]

Don't you mistake 35 for 50mm lenses here? Anyway i'm just asking questions here, and waiting for evidences i.e. pics not words personally.

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...Then one has to refuse to criticise everything Sean Reid says, and indeed his tests, having never seen them, while maintaining that you know better because you own the Leica lens and you 'cannot imagine anything is better' while completely ignoring comments from people who actually own the lenses in question. After all, they are only talking up their ZM/CV lenses because they could not afford the Leica glass.

Not sure if this sentence is directed at me but you give me the feeling to be a reader more than a photographer with all due respect. I don't want to be rude at all since i was like this 20 or 30 years ago when i had the time to read reviews and all that sort of things. The internet didn't exist then but discussions were essentially based on what such and such reviewer could think about a lens or a body. Now i have not the time to do this any more and i've learnt to think by myself as far as i can. Reason why i simply ask for evidences i.e. pics or links to pics if any. Nobody's forced to respond to me.

[batmobile]

Don't you mistake 35 for 50mm lenses here? Anyway i'm just asking questions here, and waiting for evidences i.e. pics not words personally.

 

lct, I am genuinely not sure what you mean.

 

I was talking about 50mm lenses, but made reference to the V4 cron because a comment was made about the 50 planar's bokeh being bad because of some web images somewhere and so I mentioned that somewhat iffy images can be found online for pretty well all lenses, but of course some have more than others. I exemplified this by using the mancuso tests as they show some pretty energetic bokeh from the king of bokeh at f2 (compared to the summarit) which shows how careful one has to be using one or two images as the basis for the look of a lens. We all know the V4, whether you believe it a legend or ordinary, tends to be very much at the more pleasing end of the bokeh scale in most people's eyes, yet it can produce bokeh that looks a little less than brilliant once in a while.

 

I have no brand bias at all. I decide based on what I see, which is why, as you know, I decided the CV 35 pancake is a cracking little lens. Not perfect, but it has a lot in its favour and does not produce universally rough bokeh as some claim as a basis for overlooking it.

 

I would love to upload examples of the little CV and the biogon as very many regard the biogon as sharp yet smooth and many Leica fans have latched onto the idea of the CV having poor bokeh. That was not what I found after extensive testing side by side, but as I am home a few weeks a year and have lots of things to do, printing comparison shots is low on the list. I am happy for people to ignore my personal findings based on the lack of images, but at least these comments come from using one. most of the negatives come from those who either have not, or have done a couple of shots (with no side by sides against any other lens) and concluded it is not for them. Based on the mancuso shots a person might do a few f2 shots in their garden with their V4 cron and decide it is not for them, but that would not be the whole story would it?

Edited August 29, 2009 by batmobile

[lct]

lct, I am genuinely not sure what you mean. ...

I meant that Guy's tests concerned 35 not 50mm lenses IIRC. Would you have a link to his 50mm tests if any?

Edited August 29, 2009 by lct

[batmobile]

I meant that Guy's tests concerned 35 not 50mm lenses IIRC. Would you have a link to his 50mm tests if any?

 

I don't but mancuso + summarit are search terms that brings up most of his tests. He did the 50 summarit/lux asph test but cant recall if there was a cron in there. I dont think so.

 

Sean Reid did excellent 50mm tests with the lux asph, planar, cron, summarit etc Also the 35 summarit, asph, biogon, lux asph, CVs etc

[lct]

So you have no experience of the Summicron 11819, right? And you don't know what Guy may think of its bokeh do you? And you don't remember what other reviewers could say about this particular point either, OK? Neither do i. All i can do so far is showing my pic above and repeating that with my 30+ years experience of this very lens, i have not seen the least hint of the 'horrid' bokeh you refer to. Fair enough no?

[batmobile]

Not sure if this sentence is directed at me but you give me the feeling to be a reader more than a photographer with all due respect. I don't want to be rude at all since i was like this 20 or 30 years ago when i had the time to read reviews and all that sort of things. The internet didn't exist then but discussions were essentially based on what such and such reviewer could think about a lens or a body. Now i have not the time to do this any more and i've learnt to think by myself as far as i can. Reason why i simply ask for evidences i.e. pics or links to pics if any. Nobody's forced to respond to me.

 

 

No, it was not directed at you lct, but was much more general. We have discussed different opinions before very much in the open and I am not one for sniping at individuals. I will however offer my opinions on groups of individuals who throw expertise about when it has no application outside their own Leica collection. There can be an elitist pack mentality - kinda like tag team where those disagreeing with the Leica psalm get beaten.

 

I would like to think I am helping prevent less experienced people be misled on what matters and what really is an issue and what is not. Some may think I am a bluffer or arrogant, but I can live with that because there will be enough who find my wrangling to have a ring of truth, or will find out later on. More importantly, my work is what it is and remains unaffected by what others think of my heresy.

 

I read/write when I cannot photograph, but I am very much engaged in photography in the field. I am sure you can understand that as a film shooter I simply do not have time to upload images as my paltry time at home is spent rushing to get work to where it needs to be, for me, rather than proving to a pack of hyenas that a lens that it is not as bad as their ignorance tells them it is. I know how Sean Reid feels, really.

 

I have found my understanding of what matters in reality, and where issues lie, diverging considerably from certain opinions on this forum (but not all). A lot of opinions come from people who use squeaky clean unmarked cameras in nice places under very 'convenient' circumstances and whose work cannot transcend the technical merits or weaknesses of their kit. For some, the technical defines their images. This is very unhelpful for people who aspire to work more creatively and for whom cameras, and lenses, are tools to create work that stands on its own two feet and does not need validation with "Leica MX, Cron asph, F2' beside it. It is also bad for people who could save a lot of money buying a ZM planar (and not everyone has money to burn) rather than a summicron, when the two are perhaps functionally interchangeable (or darned close - take your pick).

 

I get animated precisely because I use my equipment in the field and find myself both amused and bemused by the assertions of those who evidently have no real experience of these circumstances and for whom Leica expertise/fanaticism is their reason for being here. They are armchair critics/generals who don't even have a basis for the technical opinions they hold because half the time they have not even use the lenses or kit they criticise (they would not dream of buying a non-Leica lens bec they are so inferior) or read the very capable reviews of those who have tested them objectively! I will not offer opinions if I have no basis for them, but when I do have the experience I will not sit by while people talk beyond theirs.

 

This discussion is the reason so many supremely capable photographers ignore these forums or remain fiercely anonymous. There are some who cannot be told what they do not want to hear, despite the evidence, and sadly will drown out the message to make sure nobody else can hear either.

Edited August 29, 2009 by batmobile

[batmobile]

So you have no experience of the Summicron 11819, right? And you don't know what Guy may think of its bokeh do you? And you don't remember what other reviewers could say about this particular point either, OK? Neither do i. All i can do so far is showing my pic above and repeating that with my 30+ years experience of this very lens, i have not seen the least hint of the 'horrid' bokeh you refer to. Fair enough no?

 

I think you are confusing points. I have no idea what a 11819 - you will need to use laymans terms. I don't memorise brochures.

 

I do know what Guy thinks of its Bokeh. I read his article. I also know what I think of its bokeh. It is great, but the F2 frames show, it can be less than some might want it to be. I for one found the bokeh at f2 far less impressive than I had expected and far less smooth than the Summarit at 2.5. My point, which you seem to have missed entirely, is that I was explaining the foolishness of using one image to tarnish a lens i.e. I found that one image quite unpleasant in terms of bokeh but I am not daft enough to base my entire assumption on that one frame. Overall, I hold a very favourable opinion, unsurprisingly. Which part of this did you not understand? Try reading what I said rather than what you want me to have said.

[lct]

This isn't getting us anywhere, batmobile. The OP said that he has a 50 summicron #11819 that he likes and asked about our impressions of this lens compared to current Summicron and the Planar 50/2. Then you stated that the Summicron's bokeh can be 'horrid' without having the least clue about what you say apparently. I suggest that we just agree to disagree if you don't mind.

[batmobile]

I referred to the V4 Cron (which I thought would be understood as the 35 V4 cron of 'king of bokeh' fame) in order to make a point about how one can leap to conclusions based on the odd web image, even for a lens with legendary bokeh as the 35 cron V4. I was not referring to any 50 summicron negatively, but responding to what I percieved to be ignorance of the performance of the 50 planar by people who have never used one or seen objective side by side tests with the current summicron, which was the crux of the issue the OP wished clarified. My mistake for being unclear. I was trying to tackle the ridiculousness of the argument that the planar was 'obviously' inferior to the current summicron based on:

 

Price prejudice

Comparing different manufacturer's MTFs

Random, dislocated images on the web

 

Rather than:

 

Having used a Planar and compared it with very fine lenses (like the 50 asph lux, as I have)

Having read quality objective tests of the planar or comparisons with the current 50 Cron (as shown by Reid Reviews or Putz.

 

I apologise if my V4 Cron reference confused matters.

[lars_bergquist]

Would you refer to those pics ?

REVIEW - ZEISS 50mm F2 PLANAR ZM The new Carl Zeiss classic ZM lenses for the Leica M system and Zeiss Ikon

Exactly. The 'rolled-up condom' highlights in the background show up especially clearly in the first two pictures.

 

To go this way was probably a deliberate decision by Zeiss. Designing a lens is always a matter of trying to arrive at the best compromise, where what you gain in the control of one aberration is not entirely outweighed by what you lose somewhere else. Again, the Planar is a very competent lens. And a combination of good build quality and reasonable price is also worth something. I would not be unhappy with this lens.

 

The Summilux ASPH on the other hand is a wonderlens. But the size, the weight and the price are all in a different league.

 

In the last analysis, the result depends as much on you as on your gear. In front of me hang two 50cm (20") size black and white prints from negs taken through the fixed Tessar lens of an ancient Zeiss Super Ikonta IV. They deserve their wall space. Good taking and printing technique meant more than the limitations of the venerable four element lens.

 

The old man from the Age of the Tessar

[lars_bergquist]

Batmobile, I agree that the VC pancake 35 is a cracking little lens. And while all lenses can be provoked, and while there is no generally agreed 1 to 10 scale of 'bad' to 'good' bokeh, or even no consensus about what good bokeh is, I must also agree that the v.4 35mm Summicron was 'king of bokeh' only in comparison with the v.3 lens, which was very busy in the o.o.f. parts of its images. Modern ASPH Leica lenses are in fact smoother. (When people complain of their 'harsh bokeh' they do not even know what bokeh means -- they simply find the lenses too sharp for their taste.)

 

I should add that I do own both the VC and the Summicron. The 'cron is remarkably good on the M8. but the corners of the full format are nothing to write home about at 2.0 or 2.8.

 

All lenses have their particular limitations. You just have to find out about them so that you do not inadvertently stub your big toe against them.

 

The old man from the Age of the Tessar

[batmobile]

I think the images overall show very decent bokeh, but this is subjective of course. What we do not know, is how the same series of images would look shot on a current summicron and thats quite important. This is the only real basis for comparison: like for like shots. It is easy to have prejudices and assume your fave lens would have done better, when in fact it might not have. It should also be noted that some people only shoot under certain conditions and so their assertion that they have 'never seen X or been disappointed with Y' does not mean the issue is not real with their wonder lens. Again, Like for like tests reveal quite a lot. Not everything, but they can upset assumptions quite quickly...

 

Re asphs vs pre aphs, I disagree with your comment. I think many asphs see a more abrupt drop off in focus beyond then focus plane but a busier and 'less calm' bokeh overall. The asphs may in some case seem to be 'more out of focus oof' but that does not mean smoother or more appealing - once again, this is personal. Its interesting to see that according to Reids test of the new 24 3.8 it does not have this trait, nor do the newer 21/24 luxes. It would seem Leica has designed their new offerings with this in mind. Good for them.

[lct]

...I apologise if my V4 Cron reference confused matters.

No problem. Just had a glance at Flickr: The ZM Planar 50mm Pool

From those pics, the Planar looks like a very competent lens, certainly sharper than my 11819 'cron at f/2 with perhaps a bit less flare. As suggested above it is obviously a more contrasty lens the bokeh of which can be quite smooth when there are no highlights in the background. Otherwise, as often, those highlights are too sharp like in this pic from the same album. Hardly a subjective matter IMHO.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[batmobile]

No problem. Just had a glance at Flickr: The ZM Planar 50mm Pool

From those pics, the Planar looks like a very competent lens, certainly sharper than my 11819 'cron at f/2 with perhaps a bit less flare. As suggested above it is obviously a more contrasty lens the bokeh of which can be quite smooth when there are no highlights in the background. Otherwise, as often, those highlights are too sharp like in this pic from the same album. Hardly a subjective matter IMHO.

 

But again, we have no idea how a current cron would have fared so all we can do is guess.