Zeis Planar 50mm 2.0

[FTI]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

After much - too much - contemplation, I decided to buy the Zeiss 50mm Planar. 650 EUR - rather than the summicron equivalent. Too many reviews comparing the two did not ultimately really extol one over the other.

 

Being familiar with Zeiss lenses on Nikon, I was surprised to still be wowed by this little gem on the m8.2. It looks the part, by no means looks cheap. The 1/3 aperture clicks is really cool. I love having just that little more control then compared to the Elmarit.

 

Anyhow, some initial observations (for those interested in this lens):

 

- doesn't come with the lenshood (kinda surprised me actually) a new one is about 80 EUR

- I had a hard time finding a uv/ir filter; so I bought a Leica 43mm filter at 135 EUR!!!!! and the problem is that the 43mm is an awkward size

 

So I've got my m8.2, 28mm elmarit, and 50mm Zeiss planar. For the time being (emphasis added).... I am happy. In the meantime, I've decided to start saving for a summilux asp.

[FTI]

Arggh... I new I forgot to add things.

 

- no focus shift as far I can see whatsoever at varying distances (more importantly at close distances)

- and i can't believe they still have the crappy lenscap on this zeiss. I hated the Zeiss lenscap with a passion on the Nikon. So much so, I used Nikon caps for my Zeiss lenses. The problem is that the Zeiss lens caps just don't have enough spring resistance and they come loose too easily whereby leaving your lens/filter vulnerable. Does anyone have any suggestions for a good 43mm lenscap?

[Keith (M)]

ZM lens caps seem to be something of a Marmite item! I have four ZMs and rarely have a problem with fitting or removing them and (so far) have not lost one. One good point is that they can be fitted or removed with the lens hood in place, which is not true for some of my Leica glass.

[TomB_tx]

The older Summilux was also 43mm. I bought a cheap aftermarket 43mm "vented" shade that works quite well on the Planar, but won't let the cap fit inside it. However, the shade offers enough protection.

[jlancasterd]

… the shade offers enough protection.

 

I agree – I keep the Zeiss lens hood on my Planar at all times and leave the lens cap off. I also do the same with my Zeiss 24mm, Voigtlander 90mm and Summarit 35mm. All are fitted with the appropriate UV filter to guard against accident. I have very little trouble with dust, rain or finger prints getting onto the filter surfaces, but they are easily cleaned with a blower (usually my mouth…) and a microfibre cloth when it does (occasionally) become necessary.

 

The 50mm Planar is a superb lens, sharp right into the corners on my M9, as is the Zeiss 24mm.

[Double Negative]

Congrats on the Planar - it really is a very, very nice lens. The Summicron is also a good choice, but considering the price difference, perhaps not THAT much nicer. I'm sure you'll make many nice photos with it.

 

I wrote a review of the Planar T* 2/50 ZM a while back, if anyone's interested. In a 50mm shoot-out I did with three other lenses - it easily bested them all.

[FTI]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks Double Negative. Your review was the last one I read before I made up my mind.

 

Many thanks1:)

[rscheffler]

The Planar will flare with strong backlight just outside the picture frame, therefore I would suggest getting a lens hood for it. There are a number of very cheap alternatives available for under $10 that will be sufficient, such as from rainbow imaging. The Voigtlander LH-6 hood for their 35 and 40 f/1.4s fits the Planar as well as ZM 35 f/2.8 (I don't have the f/2 to confirm, but if it takes the same Zeiss hood as the 35 f/2.8, then the Voigtlander will also fit).

[Double Negative]

The Planar will flare with strong backlight just outside the picture frame, therefore I would suggest getting a lens hood for it. There are a number of very cheap alternatives available for under $10 that will be sufficient, such as from rainbow imaging. The Voigtlander LH-6 hood for their 35 and 40 f/1.4s fits the Planar as well as ZM 35 f/2.8 (I don't have the f/2 to confirm, but if it takes the same Zeiss hood as the 35 f/2.8, then the Voigtlander will also fit).

 

I can't say I've ever really had a problem with flare, even with the sun in/just out of the frame - but then I always use a hood with it. Typically, the ZMs are very good regarding flare in my experience.

 

Third-party hoods are a good, cheap alternative to the Zeiss options. The only downside is the ZMs use a bayonet mount for the hoods, making installation and removal quick and easy... Something you'll compromise on with screw-in hoods. Check out the 43mm metal hoods from "Heavystar" on 'bay. On the downside, the [Zeiss] hoods don't reverse for storage in your bag.

[kahveorta]

I use a Voigtlander LH-6 hood. Fits perfectly on the bayonet, looks almost identical to the Zeiss one.

 

I hate the Zeiss lens caps as well. So I use a Nikon 62mm cap on the hood

[Double Negative]

Interesting. Good to know that the LH-6 hood fits so well! I suppose it kind of makes sense, being from the same factory and all.

 

Don't even get me started on those ZM caps.

[TomB_tx]

I just tried the LH6 hood and it does fit well. But I've been using this $6.69 "Easyfoto" 43mm screw-in metal hood from Amazon. It's a vented straight cylinder, not angled, but is therefore samller back diameter and intrudes less on the viewfinder. A 55mm snap-in cap does fit it perfectly. The same company has an angled version that is even cheaper.

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!

Of course, if you use a filter a bayonet hood like the Zeiss or Voigtlander would be better.

[jdlaing]

I have one and I really like it. I sprung for the Zeiss hood.

These solar panels are made by the same company that makes the lens glass.......

 

M9 Zeiss 50mm f2.8

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!

[Guest]

Can't see this lens having a tab, also looking at the download on the Zeiss site.

Does it have a "bump" then like the Biogons?

[Double Negative]

Can't see this lens having a tab, also looking at the download on the Zeiss site.

Does it have a "bump" then like the Biogons?

 

Yes - a "nub."

 

Zeiss ZM Lenses (overview)

[Deliberate1]

I bought one of these on ebay for $6 delivered. It has not arrived yet, but is worth a gamble....

43mm Vented Curved Hood Zeiss C Biogon T* 35mm f2.8 ZM | eBay

[Olsen]

I can't say I've ever really had a problem with flare, even with the sun in/just out of the frame - but then I always use a hood with it. Typically, the ZMs are very good regarding flare in my experience.

 

Third-party hoods are a good, cheap alternative to the Zeiss options. The only downside is the ZMs use a bayonet mount for the hoods, making installation and removal quick and easy... Something you'll compromise on with screw-in hoods. Check out the 43mm metal hoods from "Heavystar" on 'bay. On the downside, the [Zeiss] hoods don't reverse for storage in your bag.

 

 

Agree. I had a ZM 50 mm 2,0 Planar for a while. I deeply regret selling it. It was far better than the Leica 50 mm 1,0 Noctilux (the 'old' one with built in sunshade) and the Voigtländer 50 mm 2,5. Particularly, it performed high contrast pictures under difficult circumstanses. Like sea & snow scenes.

[WillD]

Has anyone used the Sonnar as well as the Planar? I have heard that the Sonnar has a slightly more classic look, and has some back focusing issues, but would be interested to hear the views of the Forum and see any examples.

 

Thanks

[Double Negative]

Has anyone used the Sonnar as well as the Planar? I have heard that the Sonnar has a slightly more classic look, and has some back focusing issues, but would be interested to hear the views of the Forum and see any examples.

 

Thanks

 

Of course; I've got both. I did post links above, but maybe you missed it.

 

For more info and even a comparison:

Planar T* 2/50 review

C Sonnar T* 1,5/50 review

Lens Shoot-out (50mm)

 

Very different lenses until around f/4-5.6 where they're both relatively "modern and sharp."

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[MarkP]

Will,

 

I bought the ZM 1.5/50 C-Sonnar as a second 50mm lens to supplement my 1.4/50 Summilux ASPH. I would strongly recommend it.

 

I have a 1.0/50 Noctilux on 'indefinite' loan from a friend but as it will need to be returned some day (and although I really like the lens I don't want to buy one myself) I wanted a more 'classic' rendering but fast and light lens compared to the razor sharp Summilux. Other options included the Summicrons and Summarit but I really wanted the faster lens.

 

The Sonnar is an excellent lens, although if I could only keep one of my lenses it would still be the Summilux ASPH. As described, it is a little 'dreamy' or painted when wide open, and extremely sharp by f5.6. Lovely contrast and colour rendition (although I mainly shoot for B&W) and out of focus areas. A number of Forum members have one it instead of the Summilux, both because of it's attributes (and the bonus benefit of it's very reasonable cost).

 

The lens is set for film when it leaves the factory (as expected as Zeiss make a film but not digital M-mount camera). For no cost Zeiss will adjust the lens for digital use which effectively fixes the focus issues. The turnaround time by Zeiss was remarkably short, something Leica could learn from. This explanation and disclaimer is from the Popflash website regarding the ZM 1.5/50 C-Sonnar and sums up the situation:

all production since 1997 is focus optimized at f/1.5 for film based cameras to a FFD distance at 27.86mm.

 

this adjustment works well for film based cameras, but causes a noticeable shift on digital rangefinder cameras - since their FFD is longer than film-based M-mount cameras (basically they do not meet the standard M-mount spec). When the optimized lenses are tested with digital rangefinder cameras at a close focus distance of 0.9m and at f/1.5, they front focus by about 2cm

 

because of the differences between film and digital rangefinder cameras - which we cannot control - it is impossible to have a focus optimized C Sonnar for both systems.

 

For customers who want their lens adjusted for digital rangefinder cameras, Zeiss Germany have set the FFD to a distance of 27.90. This provides good results on digital cameras, but will cause a focus shift on film cameras for the reasons mentioned above

 

If an individual customer wishes to have their C Sonnar optimized for use with a digital camera, the customer can send the lens into Zeiss Germany for adjustment.