Zeiss - Summicron 50mm

[wilfredo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Has anyone compared the 50mm Summicron and Zeiss f/2 ZM (not the Sonnar) wide open? Especially for portrait shots? Care to post something? And please don't refer me to another website I've seen just about everything except what I'm asking for, f/2 shots specifically.

 

Thanks!

[Advertisement]

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

[stevem7]

Zeiss will be sharp, more 3D pop and brighter, warmer colors (think disney). The Zeiss will also appear to give you more shallow DOF.

 

Leica will be sharp, more classic rendering and more neutral color.

 

Leica is much better built. I have had two Zeiss 50 samples and both were a bit loose in teh focus with excessive play.

 

In the end, it all comes down to wether you like the Zeiss look or the Leica look. I'm sure someone will chime in with samples.

[wilfredo]

I often see the claim that Leica is much better built than Zeiss but based on the one Zeiss ZM lens I owned, a silver version 18mm lens, I am left baffled by this. I own two DSLR Zeiss lenses and they couldn't be more solid. Perhaps this claim refers to size, ease of use?

[Xmas]

Hi

 

Lets try pernickety...

 

(many) of the ZM lenses have focus rings with free travel and many people cannot stand this, you can get one of these real cheap and they work ok...

 

I cant even spell pernickety

 

Noel

[wilfredo]

Hi

 

Lets try pernickety...

 

(many) of the ZM lenses have focus rings with free travel and many people cannot stand this, you can get one of these real cheap and they work ok...

 

I cant even spell pernickety

 

Noel

 

Is this some kind of knob you attach to the lens?

[wilfredo]

Zeiss will be sharp, more 3D pop and brighter, warmer colors (think disney). The Zeiss will also appear to give you more shallow DOF.

 

Leica will be sharp, more classic rendering and more neutral color.

 

Leica is much better built. I have had two Zeiss 50 samples and both were a bit loose in teh focus with excessive play.

 

In the end, it all comes down to wether you like the Zeiss look or the Leica look. I'm sure someone will chime in with samples.

 

 

I like the idea of more 3D pop.

[Glacier]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

> I've seen just about everything

 

You already know that the Zeiss is higher contrast, warmer in color rendition, has inferior build and can be had for less money.

 

So we'll move on to the intangibles.

 

I own both lenses. I have shot extensively with the Summicron and rarely with the Planar.

 

The 50 'cron is a masterpiece. Wide open, the bokeh and rendition are second to none else that I have seen. Highlights are drawn in a meditative fashion, there is the Leica glow, and portraits taken with window light take on what I can only describe as a translucent plasticity.

 

When I look at each one of the qualities I claim for the Summicron in the above paragraph, the Zeiss falls short. Yes, the tangibles like rounded OOF highlights, the color, the resolution and the sharpness may all be there, but either the 'cron pixie dust is missing or - if I must speculate at a less ethereal level - perhaps all the tangibles are not present in compelling enough proportions, together, in consistent enough fashion, across most lighting conditions. I don't know. I do know that the 'cron images are the ones I keep coming back to, to take 'one more look'.

 

But perhaps the biggest proof of the 'cron's draw over the Planar is that in spite of owning both for a long time, I rarely reach for the Planar. After torturing myself with trying to give the planar 'fair air time', I have made peace with myself and let the 'cron do what it does best. In the end, the proof is not in MTF charts, or Internet forums, or comparison shots. The proof is in the image and how you react - at a visceral, non-cerebral level - to it. An image made by the cron always brings a smile to my face. This lens simply paints light beautifully.

 

PS All images above are f/2.0 as requested except for one which was a 2.5 if I remember right

[lars_bergquist]

Glacier's posting may require explanations of some fancy words:

 

"Leica glow" = undercorrected spherical aberration.

 

"Translucent plasticity" = flare.

 

But what "highlights are drawn in a meditative fashion" means I cannot understand for the life of me. It seems that here, we are moving from photographic technique -- a hardnosed, quantitative, measurable technology -- into pop philosophy, where anything goes.

 

It should be said that Glacier's pictures are not very appropriate illustrations. The first one is an example of both 'glow' and stray light, the baby is just low contrast, and the toy with the unsharp background is an example of decent bokeh.

 

I sold my Summicron years ago because I could not tolerate its excessive susceptibility to various flare and other stray light phenomena. I had simply lost too many pictures to them. So directly it arrived, I bought the Summilux ASPH instead. Not for the extra speed, but because it is dependable.

 

The old man from the Age of Evidence

[Glacier]

Lars, thank you for taking the time to comment, but I think you are just reinforcing my point. I am unable to identify anything tangible to explain the 'cron's superior images. Perhaps it is "uncorrected spherical aberration" and the rest (thanks to your superior vocabulary). Still, the fact remains that the 50 'cron's images - while perhaps technically inferior - are emotionally superior.

 

It is fair to question at this point whether I am just sold on Leica. No, and here's why. Had this thread been about the Zeiss 35mm Biogon vs the 35mm Summicron, I would have voted Biogon the whole way. In this case, it is the 35 Summicron which tries very hard to impress, yet fails.

[01af]

Glacier's posting may require explanations of some fancy words:

 

"Leica glow" = undercorrected spherical aberration.

Umm ... no.

 

While technical shortcomings, like spherical undercorrection for instance, do have the potential to add to the emotional quality of an image, the Summicon-M 50 mm definitely is not a lens known for any obvious aberrations. To the contrary—up to the introduction of the current Summilux-M 50 mm Asph, the Summicron-M 50 mm used to be the gold standard in 50 mm lenses for 35-mm format.

 

So there is more to things like 'Leica glow' and 'meditative highlights' than just spherical aberration and flare. We shouldn't read too much into this esoteric stuff, but neither must we neglect it entirely. The truth is somewhere in the middle ...

 

 

It should be said that Glacier's pictures are not very appropriate illustrations.

You're right—apart from the fact that those images are very nice (I particularly like the floating Rubic's Cube), they are not very good illustrations for the technical topic at hand indeed. But that's mostly due to the fact that we are looking at measly web reproductions of the images. The actual images may look quite different; I am willing to take his word for it. If 'Glacier' says it's the Summicron images he tends coming back to then I guess this word does have some weight.

 

And by the way—the more I use my Summarit-M 50 mm 1:2.5, the more I feel I see qualities similar to those described by 'Glacier' in the images. I think the 50 mm Summarit is kind of 'younger twin' to the 50 mm Summicron in more than just the obvious aspects ...

[tgray]

There's no doubt the 50 Summicron is a good lens, but I found it a bit boring. Ignoring its two biggest weaknesses (in my mind), its susceptibility to flare and its lack of f/1.4, it's dependable, sharp, and easy to use. So while it's hard to knock for having few weaknesses, it just never excited me. I much prefer the 50/1.4 ASPH - it's even more dependable and does f/1.4 as well. I also like the Nikkor 50/1.4 LTM lens I have more. Not quite as dependable, but a more interesting look. It's also plenty sharp enough stopped down a bit. So I sold the 50 Summicron and haven't regretted it one tiny bit.

 

I would (and do) recommend the ZM 50/2 to people looking to buy a new 50. The ZM is just as sharp and more flare resistant - more useable in my book. If you can find a latest version 50 Summicron for $500-700, then go for it, it's a great buy. But if you are buying new, I just can't see spending $2000 to get a new 50 Summicron when you can get the Zeiss for $800. Then again, we all have different amounts of money and priorities.

 

With regards to flare, I'm not talking about the kind that reduces contrast in bright/dark transitions, but the internal reflection/photoshop effect kind where you get large flare spots across your image. Does this have a specific name?

[giordano]

But what "highlights are drawn in a meditative fashion" means I cannot understand for the life of me.

 

Me neither - but I guess it involves a long exposure.

[wilfredo]

There's no doubt the 50 Summicron is a good lens, but I found it a bit boring. Ignoring its two biggest weaknesses (in my mind), its susceptibility to flare and its lack of f/1.4, it's dependable, sharp, and easy to use. So while it's hard to knock for having few weaknesses, it just never excited me. I much prefer the 50/1.4 ASPH - it's even more dependable and does f/1.4 as well. I also like the Nikkor 50/1.4 LTM lens I have more. Not quite as dependable, but a more interesting look. It's also plenty sharp enough stopped down a bit. So I sold the 50 Summicron and haven't regretted it one tiny bit.

 

I would (and do) recommend the ZM 50/2 to people looking to buy a new 50. The ZM is just as sharp and more flare resistant - more useable in my book. If you can find a latest version 50 Summicron for $500-700, then go for it, it's a great buy. But if you are buying new, I just can't see spending $2000 to get a new 50 Summicron when you can get the Zeiss for $800. Then again, we all have different amounts of money and priorities.

 

With regards to flare, I'm not talking about the kind that reduces contrast in bright/dark transitions, but the internal reflection/photoshop effect kind where you get large flare spots across your image. Does this have a specific name?

 

I have similar feelings about the 50mm Summicron but what I find boring some find exciting so it's all a matter of taste. I gave mine up a long time ago. The Summilux 50mm ASPH is another matter, that's an exciting lens but hey, I like clinical sharpness wide open among other things. I've arranged to test the 50mm Zeiss f/2 Planar and hope to do some shooting with it this weekend.