Leica Summicron-M 50/2,0 vs Zeiss Planar 50/2,0

[dazzel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi,

 

I got a question about these 2 lenses.

I today own the Zeiss and I am pretty pleased with it. The reason I bought the Zeiss was because the Leica was out of stock.

 

I now got the opportunity to get my hands on the Leica 50/2.

Is the difference in sharpness etc between these 2 lenses that big?

Should I upgrade? or stay with the Zeiss and save my money for a 35/2?

 

Best Regards

//Carl

[Advertisement]

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

[haroldp]

I have no opinion of the Zeiss 50/2.0 as I do not own one, but I have 50 Summicron (latest), Summilux (asph. latest) and Elmar 2.8.

 

Within it's parameters, the 50 Summicron is as close to a perfect lens as I have ever used.

 

Zeiss have have taken double gauss designs (like the planar or biogon, or Summicron 50) as far as they can go.

 

I have the Zeiss 21/2.8 and love it.

 

I don't think you have a wrong answer on the table.

 

Erwin Puts may have opinions on this (as well as everything else).

 

Regards ... Harold

[MikeD700]

Sharpness? Irrelevant taken in isolation.

 

Are you satisfied with the image quality the Planar gives you? It's not "unsharp"?

 

If you are, get a 35 in additon and keep on photographing. Stop worrying about the quality of the lenses.

[Printmaker]

There is no difference in IQ but the Leica lens slightly is better made. The mechanics of my 42 year old 50 Summicron are flawless as is the IQ. I have not had the same experience with my 5 year old Zeiss lenses.

[hydeca]

2/50 'cron any day ... never cheap out on lenses

[shootinglulu]

I had the Planar and liked it very much. The Planar does have a different rendering to Leica lenses and I lke consistency so I now have the 50 Lux asph which matches the 28 summicron fingerprint very well. I would go with all Zeiss or all Leica. My Planar had more pop and vibrance i thought but they are both very nice indeed.

[hifigraz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If you are happy with the Zeiss stay with it and get a 35 in addition

[christoph_d]

I've used both, for B&W analogue shooting, and I like both!

 

I don't see any real difference in image quality.

In my experience the build quality is equal.

 

There are differences though:

• The Planar has visibly more distortion in the outer field. The Summicron does not visibly distort.
  
• The Planar is less prone to flare.
  
• The Summicron is smaller and the Planar is lighter.
  

 

Rgds

 

C.

[wda]

I only have Zeiss lenses on medium format but I do notice a slight difference in the way colour is rendered. I think unquantifiable factors come into play with your question; qualities like colour consistency, Leica pedigree, retained value, handling subtleties, pride in ownership. Only you can assess them together with your performance comparison.

 

By the way, Carl welcome to the forum!

[dazzel]

I thank you all for you feedback. I´m staying with the Zeiss for now.

I got something else on my mind at the moment.

 

I got problems with the SD-cards. The camera just dies on me when there is a SD-card installed. I probably have to send it to Solms tomorrow for a check-up!

 

Best Regards

//Carl

[kokoshawnuff]

I've had the zeiss in the past, now have the cron and would not go back to the zeiss. The cron is smaller, has a built-in hood, and 39mm filter threads (vs 43mm), making it a more convenient companion to my other Leica lenses. While the zeiss has more distortion than the cron, I only noticed it on a couple photos. I prefer the 'rendering' and physical build of my cron to the zeiss.

 

Either way it might be worth trying both at the same time, as the cron can be sold for more or the same as your purchase price (if you're buying under msrp), if you wind up preferring the zeiss.

[tobey bilek]

Google for Zeiss wobble. The optical cells frequently come loose over time and it ain`t cheap to fix either.

 

Sharpness is the same or almost same. Leica lenses have a "pop" which may not be in the current Zeiss. I was reading a PDF by Zeiss on bokeh and they stated the design intent is to make the rendering smooth, and effect you see in medium format and large format is that. I have seen it in Rolliflex and older Hasselblad images. It is good for people pics, not necessarily great for many Leica pictures.

 

I tend to think it is still there as someone put up samples from a 50 Summicron and 50 Planar same time, same place. The Planar appeared flat in comparison.

 

I was trying out my 25 CV on the new to me M8. Tried 8 of my Leica lenses and all worked to perfection. The CV was sharp on the right 15% of the frame and got progressively mushy toward the left. Zeiss is made by CV in Japan supposedly with better quality. Plus some of the filters are odd and some of the lenses come without shades and people complain about slipery grippers on the caps.

 

Maybe you could try one with a good return policy, then mount and dismount hold the lens as close to the bayonet as possible. 35 2.0 IV are also known to develop a loose front, but mine never has.

 

http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/CLN_35_Bokeh_EN/$File/CLN35_Bokeh_en.pdf

 

It can be a tough read, but it is written by someone who knows what he is talking about.

 

All the stuff about "smoothness" is in there.

 

I did use a few Contarex RTS lenses and did not like them and it was not a sharpness issue. They were very sharp. That was in the late 1980`s.

[roguewave]

I have owned both of these lenses & still own the R version of the 50 Cron. The 50 Summicron features a wonderful bokeh. Both of these lenses have sharpness to spare. The Cron is much more pleasing to my eye, with smoother transitions and detail rendering. It's very easy to get a b&w "film" feel with the Cron.

[Double Negative]

There's quite a bit of comparison between the Summicron and the Planar in this Planar T* 2/50 ZM review that I did a little while back, as far as size, construction, performance, etc. that may be helpful.