Zeiss 50mm ZM f/2

[Xmas]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You might think it risible, but I have owned both lenses, have you?

 

As stated, despite owning both I found the performance of the Planar so good I sold the lux asph. I currently own a a 90 elmarit-M, 24 lux asph, 21 2.8 Biogon, 28 Biogon, 35 Biogon, 135 Canon L, 85 1.2L and a number of other superb optics. Yes, the planar is plenty sharp and it means in relative terms. Considering the company it keeps this relative comparison should have some usefulness. Its one of the sharpest lenses I have ever used and wide open is superb. If the OP was not interested in subjective commentary, he would not have asked for photos, but instead looked at MTFs wouldn't he? I dont have pics to hand but though seeing as I have owned both the lenses he is talking about, my comments might be of interest.

 

You cannot compare two manufacturers MTFs and they should be taken with a pinch of salt anyway as what your eye tells you might not quite stack up with the MTFs (a la 28 biogon). It does not talking too long using and shooting lenses to figure that one out and frankly I am surprised how many people still get hung up on MTFs and compare nuances in the curves between brands.

 

Yes, I believe Leica MTFs are computer calculated and not measured. I may be wrong.

 

Hi

 

First of all I'd claim that humor is subjective, and I thought the sentence humorous.

 

I decided not to buy the 5cm lux asph, on the basis of the published data from Leica and comparative tests. I have the type IV cron, Planar, and a '94 Elmar, as well ac the CV 5cm f/1.5, CV 5cm f/2.5 and pre asph lux. I've not found any thing wrong with the Planar.

 

Not buying something you are gonna leave on the shelf saves money.

 

The comparative test indicated the ASPH lux had more veiling flare than a 5cm f/1.4 Nikon lens, this was close up where the ASPH would be expected to be good/better, but it was a high contrast scene. The published data that the lux was no better at f/5.6, it would be exceptional for it to be better.

 

The Elmar is smaller and lighter, and not that different on the MTF charts, from the Planar or cron, at f/5.6, Now days the summarit f/2.5 is probably better.

 

I'm real impressed by Wilfredo's shots, but (almost) all of mine are grabs and have more shake... so I'd not detect bad lens performance, most of the time. Some of Euqene Smith's shots were similar to Wilfredo's and he used a type I cron, an antique, so the lenses may be good enough. Some times I use antiques from the '60 as well.

 

The MTF machines are used by the lens designers, they design on a PC, ray tracing and optimize, built a prototype and MTF it. If it fails on the first MTF pass they might not take it outside the factory for a picture, it should not fail. If it passes all the MTF tests (not just the published ones), they might build a preproduction batch for camera testing in the wild. It only takes one pic to be bad to force the designer e.g. to add a baffle or alter the periphery of a lens, to reduce flare

 

When a lens is in production they might MTF random samples from each batch. The cost of lens returns is so high. Donno if they use MTF as a pass/fail on each lens, might be faster then chimping with a M9.

 

Noel

[shootinglulu]

I love my Planar 50, it has real pop and gives consistently good results on my m8.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2576/4094937669_b2d5a5d378_b.jpg

[Doc Henry]

... continuation for Wilfredo .

some portrait with the Zeiss Planar 50 in this link :

 

summilux.net :: Voir le sujet - ZM 1,5 50 ou Summicron 50 ?

 

Regards

Henry

[picture]

This is my final unhelpful comment on this subject:

 

The Planar is fantastic and I agree with all the good things people say about it,

but I would swap it for a Cron in a heartbeat.

 

And all the graphs and pixel peeping evidence (that I love) mean nothing when I look at the Photograph.

 

A Cron photo "looks" 12.28% better than a Planar photo.

 

Here's a link to a graph that proves it.

[keithdunlop]

The UPS man will be bringing me my "new" M6 and Zeiss 50mm ZM f/2.0 on Friday. If there is still interest in this thread, I'll post something shortly.

[Guest leicawanabe]

ZM are awesome lenses. I have just a few Leica lenses left after going over to ZM, ZF. Never looked back except in my pocket to see something in there called change

 

Zeissimages.com is a very nice site. Thanks for posting.

[andrew748]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm confused and i'm not sure if this will be helpful or not....

 

I got Mr eBay to sell me a 50mm 1.7 Planar contax yashithingy fit to use on my Canon 40D because everyone bangs on about how superb this legendary Planar family is.

 

initial impresions:

 

not particularly sharp wide open or at 2.8 compared to my 50mm Summicron.

suffers from hideous colour fringing

not as well made (robust as my Leica Rs).

I pretty much hate the Planar already and will chuck it back on eBay when i am thouroghly convinced that it is a poor as i believe it to be.

If someone would like to suggest a series of tests for me to perform with both lenses i'd be more than happy to comply and post the results.

If as i suspect i've got the wrong end of the stick, then forgive me for wasting your time.

[batmobile]

Andrew,

 

You cannot compare your 50 1.7 SLR lens with the 50mm ZM planar - completely different lenses.

 

The 50 ZM planar is widely regarded as one of the finest 50mm lenses available and in the opinion of some, the finest 50mm f2 bar none. Sean Read and Erwin puts seem to lean towards the latter though Erwin wrote about the planar while still coming to terms with how good the ZMs are and you can still feel the conflict in his writing... he does not want to say that it is optically better than the Summicron, thoght you might detect this reading between the lines. Anyway, its hair splitting at that point anyway. Summicron/Planar - who cares. At this level, lenses are so good, one just needs to walk out the door and go use it.

[tgray]

Anyway, its hair splitting at that point anyway. Summicron/Planar - who cares. At this level, lenses are so good, one just needs to walk out the door and go use it.

 

Agreed. Except on the price. Which makes the Planar a no-brainer to me.

[andrew748]

Andrew,

 

You cannot compare your 50 1.7 SLR lens with the 50mm ZM planar - completely different lenses.

 

The 50 ZM planar is widely regarded as one of the finest 50mm lenses available and in the opinion of some, the finest 50mm f2 bar none. Sean Read and Erwin puts seem to lean towards the latter though Erwin wrote about the planar while still coming to terms with how good the ZMs are and you can still feel the conflict in his writing... he does not want to say that it is optically better than the Summicron, thoght you might detect this reading between the lines. Anyway, its hair splitting at that point anyway. Summicron/Planar - who cares. At this level, lenses are so good, one just needs to walk out the door and go use it.

 

coolio batmobile

I thought I was probably getting it wrong

forgive my intrusion

[keithdunlop]

As promised, here's my contribution to the Zeiss 50mm f/2.0 Planar samples.

 

The following shot was taken with my "new" M6, f/2.0 at 1/125, HP-5 at 400, developed in DD-X, and scanned with an Epson 4990. The scan is pretty soft, but under the lupe the negative is exceptionally sharp at the focus point. So far, I'm really pleased with the lens.

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!

[wilfredo]

That's a really lovely photo. I was up in your neck of the woods last week, too bad the timing was off.

[keithdunlop]

Wilfredo,

 

Hit me up anytime you're in the neighborhood!

 

Keith

[wilfredo]

Keith,

 

Will do. BTW, I took a look at your photojournalism. You have some fantastic images there.