50mm Planar ZM review. I love this lens

[dsedov]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've done a review of my favorite lens. You can read more here: Zeiss Planar ZM 2.0/f Review.

Has anyone else had this lens and switched to Summicron? What was your reason to do so?

[jim0266]

Dennis, your link is not working.

[Advertisement]

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

[Vec]

Bit of digging got me this: https://dennis-sedov.squarespace.com/blog/2016/2/1/zeiss-zm-50mm-planar-f2-lens-review

 

About to go read, but at least the link's here.  :-)

[Ecar]

I have both and both are excellent - the biggest difference is color rendition, which is, of course, irrelevant if you only shoot with the Monochrom.

[dsedov]

Thanks for fixing the link. I can't seem to find how to edit the post after it has been published =(

 

Would there be any advantages if compared with APO lens? Or is it a moot discussion for a black and white camera? I'm assuming that if different wavelengths of light focus at different planes then it results in a blurry black and white image. Doesn't it?

[johnwolf]

Very nice impressions, Dennis. The Planar is my main lens on the MM. I've also owned Voigtlander and loved the 50 1.5. But the Planar is a perfect all-rounder 50.

 

And I prefer the Zeiss focus bump over the concave tab design. In fact, when I decided to add a 35, I chose the Biogon 2.8 to keep the same ergnonmics. Another marvel.  

 

I can't compare it to the Summicron, but the Planar is plenty good enough for me. 

 

Joh 

Edited February 11, 2016 by johnwolf

[Abram]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am one of the weirdos to switch from the simply excellent planar (and 35mm Biogon) to Leica's Summicron equivalents. I had absolutely zero complaints about either one of those excellent lenses, and if I had to give up my Summicrons I would re-purchase them in a heartbeat. 

 

Fantastic crisp rendering, minimal distortion and a really nice level of contrast overall. 

 

For whatever reason, the Leica equivalents offer something different, not better or worse, just different. I'm also weird in that I actually do like focusing tabs

[LotharZhou]

Love this lens so much that I actually stop to use my Summilux 50 A.

[dsedov]

I've seen few picture comparisons in various on-line reviews between Summicron and Planar. Honestly, I can't see any difference. They look just slightly different, and if someone where to ask which is which - I wouldn't be able to answer that question. In black and white photography (which is the only photography I do) the differences become even less relevant I guess. Add LR post-processing - and this becomes a moot discussion =) 

[indergaard]

Love this lens so much that I actually stop to use my Summilux 50 A.

 

Can I ask what do you like more about the Planar than the Summilux 50 ASPH?

I am asking because I have compared the Zeiss Biogon ZM 35/2 with my Summilux 35 ASPH FLE, and I absolutely love how the Zeiss renders the pictures, whereas the Summilux looks kind of plain and transparent compared... Which makes me think that I would maybe see the same difference with a Planar 50/2 vs my Summilux 50 ASPH.

Edited February 16, 2016 by indergaard

[TomB_tx]

Well, I did switch from the Planar, but not from the usual path. I've used a V3 Summicron on film Ms from 1969 to 2009 and was happy with it. When I got an M9 and started pixel peeping, I wondered if a newer design would really be "better" - and the focus on my old v3 had stiffened as the grease had dried. Having read about the differences in Planar rendering, I found a nice used Planar, and could see the added contrast, different coloration to fringing, and very good sharpness wide open. I did find the focus damping too light for my tastes, and eventually bought a new Summicron V5 - my first new M lens since the '70s. The focus was somewhat tight and a bit rough, but the images wide open just seemed more to my taste. As I would switch back and forth between the three, I realized how good they all were. The new Summicron focus feel gradually worked "in" and became free, smooth, and perfectly damped. I like that better than the Planar.

I started shooting film a lot more, and the Planar now resides on my Zeiss ZM, where it is a good match. After I disassembled the v3 focus mount, cleaned and re-lubed, it is now back on film Ms. After another attack of curiosity, I usually have a 2.5 Summarit on the M9, as the images match the v5, and I like the size and handling.

All of the are great lenses, if I wasn't an old retired guy with too much time and curiosity, I could be happy with any one of them.

Edited February 16, 2016 by TomB_tx

[LotharZhou]

Can I ask what do you like more about the Planar than the Summilux 50 ASPH?

I am asking because I have compared the Zeiss Biogon ZM 35/2 with my Summilux 35 ASPH FLE, and I absolutely love how the Zeiss renders the pictures, whereas the Summilux looks kind of plain and transparent compared... Which makes me think that I would maybe see the same difference with a Planar 50/2 vs my Summilux 50 ASPH.

 

I think it's down to a few factors, compare to me Summilux 50A, I found the zeiss renders a richer colour, not more saturated but pleasing in my taste, especially in Blue and green, while the Lux renders more neutral colour, and more transparent indeed. Also I actually prefer the weight of the planar, I hate heavy lens, and the look of the planar with Zeiss lens shader really look fantastic.  

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!

[Aliturk]

I love this lens too.  Love the rich colours which matches well with my M9

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!

Edited February 23, 2016 by Aliturk