50mm lenses for M compared by Sean Reid

[UliWer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For many who are not sure about which 50mm lens for the M they should look for, I'd like to draw attention to Sean Reid's comparison of six "mid fast" lenses with the M9:

 

Welcome to ReidReviews

 

Mr. Reid explores the 50mm Summicron and Summarit, the Zeiss Planar, the Voigtländer Color Skopar and two versions of the collapsible Voigtländer Heliar in his usual painstaking way, showing many photographic examples and best of all leaving the reader enough liberty to make up his own's mind.

 

There are no surprises in this test - perhaps most of all, that the "good old" Summicron is still holding well in the compared field. As the test was announced since quite a long time, I had some hopes that the delay was caused by including a new lens - though this is not the case, perhaps just because there are no new versions ahead.

[Advertisement]

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

[algrove]

Agree Summicron is the best, but for the money I'd take the Zeiss.

[WillD]

Unfortunately I couldn't access the review, since I'm very interested in a 50mm to add to my 35mm Cron and 90mm Elmarit. However, the lens I would like to have seen reviewed against the others was the Zeiss Sonnar.

[swamiji]

Agree Summicron is the best, but for the money I'd take the Zeiss.

 

Actually, he rates Summarit better. Less flare, better value, etc. Except for the hood. I was quite surprised.

[colonel]

Actually, he rates Summarit better. Less flare, better value, etc. Except for the hood. I was quite surprised.

 

I'm not. I had the 50mm Summarit it was excellent.

the only upgrade was to the summillux, not the summicron.

[Ozkar]

Actually, he rates Summarit better. Less flare, better value, etc. Except for the hood. I was quite surprised.

 

While the he rates the Summarit as marginally better than the Summicron in some technical areas, he seems to prefer the rendering of the Summicron particularly with respect to bokeh.

[algrove]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Unfortunately I couldn't access the review, since I'm very interested in a 50mm to add to my 35mm Cron and 90mm Elmarit. However, the lens I would like to have seen reviewed against the others was the Zeiss Sonnar.

 

Sean Reid has reviewed the Zeiss 1.5 Sonnar. I don't know, but maybe it has been reviewed on Luminous Landscape.

 

I have that lens and the bokeh is pleasingly smooth to me while being sharp as a tack. I almost did not get it due to complaints about having to have it adjusted even as new by Zeiss for M use. Just goes to show-you can't believe everything on forums. I got mine from B&H and never looked back as far as using it. I also have used on a GF1 with adapter and it worked flawlessly on that too.

 

Due to being so pleased with images made by the Zeiss, I am in no hurry to see how a 50 lux would work out for me.

 

I will look on Sean Reid's site for you to verify he has done a Zeiss Sonnar 1.5 vs other fast 50mm. After looking at his site just now--He did review the Zeiss 1.5 Sonnar in with 5-6 other lenses under the article called "Fast 50mm Rangefinder lenses on M8". I could not get the date of review to pop up, but he mentioned that this lens was "new" from Zeiss. I just wonder if Zeiss maybe changed the calibration of this lens after release and hearing complaints about how creamy it was, i.e. too creamy for some. Anyway, mine draws beautifully on my M9.

[exile]

The 50/1.5 sonnar design is a rangefinder classic. I have it as a 1953 Jupiter 3, but if I did not, I would buy the modern Zeiss without hesitation.

All 50 sonnars are very small and lightweight, yet still fast enough to shoot indoors or get good subject separation. So in my opinion they are perfect for the rangefinder camera - a camera design optimised for small size and begging to be deployed with fast prime lenses because of an inability to use a zoom.

Yes, and then there's the bokeh and the transition to out of focus. Yummy.

[250swb]

As ever Sean has done a great job, and I think particularly so in emphasising that you don't have to use a Leica lens (or even the best Leica lens) to be in good company, and with a piece of equipment that can deliver the goods for far less money.

 

Steve

[Double Negative]

I have both the C Sonnar T* 1,5/50 and Planar T* 2/50 ZM lenses and I have to say - the Planar is an awesome lens at a decent price. Just as good as the Summicron IMO - and Sean's. I tested and reviewed both (see links).

 

I'm a "Zeiss man" so it goes without saying I have the ZMs, and as they say - you can't have enough 50mm lenses... Both quite different and worth having each.

 

Long and short of it - the Planar is a "modern" and "every day" kind of lens. The Sonnar is more "classic" and requires a bit of skill to use (regarding the focus shift). Can't go wrong with either.

[TomB_tx]

Thanks for the link. I subscribed and found his review methods and comments very helpful. After reading his complaint about focus shift on many lenses I looked closer at my old lens collection and checked for shift more carefully. I found my '69 11817 Summicron 50 does have more shift than the earlier version (one less element), and that may explain why it showed some front-focus on my tests, as I tested at f2.0. By f4.0 the focus point is perfect. Perhaps Leica also used to callibrate focus for a middle f-stop instead of wide open. It seems to have nearly as much shift as the F2.0 Heliar that Sean complained about, but my Heliar is correct at f2.0 and then shifts behind slightly. I believe the Heliar is a 5-element design, which must give up something in correction to achieve f2.0.