(4x) 50mm options | Which one would you choose?

[Dennis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 minute ago, tomasis7 said:

22% tax.. not so bad, considering that youre going use the lens a lot.

🤔

2 minutes ago, tomasis7 said:

I always propose that one should use very few lenses as possible. If your main lens is 50 or 35mm then stick with it. One goes through different lenses and finds signature one likes. 

Amen

2 minutes ago, tomasis7 said:

Signature is more obvious if youre use B&W.

Why do you say so? I don't think so.

Explain it to me

[Advertisement]

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

[Dennis]

Just now, Dennis said:

Signature is more obvious if youre use B&W.

it could be an interesting poll 

[tomasis7]

Just now, Dennis said:

🤔

Amen

Why do you say so? I don't think so.

Explain it to me

in color, Zeiss and Leica differences are less discernible... in BW, Zeiss is suddenly ugly. The exception is Sonnar. 

[tomasis7]

Check out lenses of Mandler era. I followed someones advice when i was newbie. I dont regret it.

Quite some signature for the older lenses compared to new ones. 

[Dennis]

2 minutes ago, tomasis7 said:

Check out lenses of Mandler era. I followed someones advice when i was newbie. I dont regret it.

Quite some signature for the older lenses compared to new ones. 

 

Wow, how a signature can make the difference, right? I'm starting to understand better why Leica people own more than one lens of the same focal length.

It's fascinating

[tomasis7]

its something special with leica.. it has to do with light transmission, i think. It appear softer. The designer Mandler got a bit lucky 🤣 

i have 35 pre asph, 50 cron IV, 21 Super Angulon, 90 pre asph. I regret that i didnt buy noctilux for $1800  though I dont consider bokeh as essential. You get same with 90 pre asph.

Its worth take a look at 35 IV cron

Edited February 24, 2020 by tomasis7

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, jdlaing said:

Mine close focuses to .7 of a meter.

In screw-mount?

[RexGig0]

Having hands-on experience with none of these specific lenses, but owning Leica, Zeiss, and Voigtlanders, I would choose the Zeiss 2/50mm. I was already acquainted with Zeiss ZF.2 and ZE SLR lenses, including an Otus, before I added the Leica M system, so the “Zeiss look” does not bother me, when shooting a Leica camera. I have since added, and still use Zeiss 1,4/35mm, 4,5/21mm, and 4/85mm ZM lenses.

It was a specific Leica 50mm lens, the Summilux-M ASPH, that initially lured me into adding the Leica M system, and it was a goal to eventually add a Summicron-M 50mm, too, so Zeiss 50mm lenses were never really on my “radar screen,” but when I subscribed to Lloyd Chamber’s site, I did notice that the Zeiss 2/50mm ZM has qualities that I would like, should I decide to add one. Geometric distortion is low, and it lives-up to its “Planar” name.

Edited February 24, 2020 by RexGig0

[TheBestSLIsALeicaflex]

Historically, 50/2 or slower lenses of that focal length were easy to produce, and almost ever maker had a good one.  So it should be no surprise that the Summarit and the Planar are very good.  Between the two, if you like the Biogon, you might as well get the Planar.  At least your filter size will be the same.

A faster, good 50 is harder to make.  That used to be the sign of a good maker, whether they could manufacture a good, fast 50 or not.  That's a point in favor of the Voigtlanders -- better values in the abstract -- and although with a digital M you don't need the speed of a faster lens, fast lenses give you creative potential with a more limited dof.  

Of course, practicality plays a role too; some lenses can be just too damn big for everyday use.  Back in the day, the Noctilux was really considered a specialty lens, used only when f/1 was really needed, and we all laughed at the people who used them because they were big and heavy, and really the antithesis of rangefinder photography.  That has changed a bit with the SLR crowd getting into rangefinders, and Leica/Zeiss lenses themselves producing bigger lenses, but I would place the Voigtlander f/1.1 in that category -- just to damn big unless you really need the speed.

The Voigtlander 50/1.5 is probably the best value of the lot, when taking into account practicality, but if you don't like the design, I would go with the Planar, since you already have a Biogon (and like it).  The Planar is probably the safe pick too.  

By the way, the Voigtlander was made to look like the historic Voigtlander 50/1.5 made int he 50's for leica thread mount, just like the Zeiss ZM line is made to look a little like the old Zeiss Contarex lenses.  

The always caveat --> They are all good lenses.  They will not make or break a picture.  Light and composition remain more important.    

 

Edited February 24, 2020 by TheBestSLIsALeicaflex

[RexGig0]

51 minutes ago, Dennis said:

 

Wow, how a signature can make the difference, right? I'm starting to understand better why Leica people own more than one lens of the same focal length.

It's fascinating

Yes, indeed. A Mandler lens will “see” the world so much differently than a Karbe lens. There have been other designers, but these get the most attention, in the post-war era. Some Leica shooters will want to use all lenses with the same visual signature, while others will own several, in the same focal length, in order to create different looks, with the same angle-of-view. I may eventually own three different 28mm lenses, and have accumulated four 50mm lenses, though two are Summicrons, of the same generation, optically.

Edited February 24, 2020 by RexGig0

[Ko.Fe.]

4 hours ago, Dennis said:

Hi! I'm not worried about the high ISO performance of the M10, It's just that I would like a wider aperture for creative photos. In my 35mm, I usually don't shoot less than F/4. But with a 50mm, I can play more with wider aperture such as F/2

If it is creative photography it might have more involvement than just P&S on wide apertures. You'll will be surprised for how good bokeh and separation could be at f5.6 and 50mm if little effort is made to have object in focus at some distance from background.   

Here are some examples from different photogs (on film and in Russian, but still good enough   )

http://rangefinder.ru/glr/showgallery.php/cat/all/page/1/cat/all/device/401 

[jdlaing]

45 minutes ago, adan said:

In screw-mount?

Mine is a bayonet mount.

[Dennis]

38 minutes ago, RexGig0 said:

I would choose the Zeiss 2/50mm

Oh yeah!

 

38 minutes ago, RexGig0 said:

Geometric distortion is low, and it lives-up to its “Planar” name.

very nice

33 minutes ago, TheBestSLIsALeicaflex said:

Between the two, if you like the Biogon, you might as well get the Planar.

awesome ... But it's important for me to specify that it's not that I Like the Biogon, it's the only lens I have .. It's just happened with a local photographer, but I didn't choose it on purpose.

41 minutes ago, TheBestSLIsALeicaflex said:

That's a point in favor of the Voigtlanders -- better values in the abstract -- and although with a digital M you don't need the speed of a faster lens, fast lenses give you creative potential with a more limited dof.

It's one of the reason why I don't like F72.4 as minimum aperture. With the 35mm, I shoot often at F/2.8, F/4 and F/11... Don't need other apertures. But with a 50mm, besides the more limited DOP, I would love to play with some more abstract style and use a very low DOP

32 minutes ago, Ko.Fe. said:

If it is creative photography it might have more involvement than just P&S on wide apertures. You'll will be surprised for how good bokeh and separation could be at f5.6 and 50mm if little effort is made to have object in focus at some distance from background.   

Understand and I agree. But an F/1.5, for example, for a particular purpose, can make the difference. 

[Harpomatic]

6 hours ago, tomasis7 said:

leica lens definitely.. Zeiss look boring and clinical. 

That sounds so snob...the Summarit is as modern as the Planar. The Leica look is often an opinion, and I say so as a Mandler Summilux user! They are just different lenses with slight differences in signature. Does anyone value content in the picture more than pixel peeping?

The Planar is so much more value for the money that it’s not even funny! And it has same body as the Biogon the OP has. Same haptics, filters, muscle memory.

And this is of course my opinion: but I don’t subscribe to small nuances in lens rendering to choose a lens, if it’s really good (as the Planar is) no need to spend more just for the brand or the perceived “Leica look”, that undefinable characteristic that changed radically with different generations of lens designers. Just use it and strive to produce outstanding work!

[01af]

vor einer Stunde schrieb Dennis:

Wow, how a signature can make the difference, right? I'm starting to understand better why Leica people own more than one lens of the same focal length. It's fascinating ...

Well ... many people who say, 'I finally found a lens I like', actually mean: 'This is the lens I happened to take a photo with that I like.'

The significance of lens signatures usually is overrated. I'm not saying they don't exist. But in most cases, they are too subtle to make a perceptible difference (unless making a direct comparison). Just use what you have! The signature of your photographs will depend on your abilities as a photographer, not on the peculiarities of the lens design.

[Harpomatic]

1 minute ago, 01af said:

Well ... many people who say, 'I finally found a lens I like', actually mean: 'This is the lens I happened to take a photo with that I like.'

The significance of lens signatures usually is overrated. I'm not saying they don't exist. But in most cases, they are too subtle to make a perceptible difference (unless making a direct comparison). Just use what you have! The signature of your photographs will depend on your abilities as a photographer, not on the peculiarities of the lens design.

I so agree with you!

[Dennis]

2 minutes ago, Harpomatic said:

Just use it and strive to produce outstanding work!

That's the point. Reading all your different opinions (all of them makes sense by your own perspective), I just want to take photos 😃The Planar when I first wrote this post, it was the first option and Summarit the last one. Now I'm considering the Leica back, as second option. I would maybe had choose the Leica, if was not for the price. 

But besides the pro and cons of each lens, so far I think the Planar as the best compromise.

[Dennis]

4 minutes ago, 01af said:

Well ... many people who say, 'I finally found a lens I like', actually mean: 'This is the lens I happened to take a photo with that I like.'

The significance of lens signatures usually is overrated. I'm not saying they don't exist. But in most cases, they are too subtle to make a perceptible difference (unless making a direct comparison). Just use what you have! The signature of your photographs will depend on your abilities as a photographer, not on the peculiarities of the lens design.

Amen .. Totally agree

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[a.noctilux]

What I like in the Summarit-M lens line is their "transparency" in picture taking/producing.

As long time user of more than I can count "character lenses" (Noctilux, Summilux, Canon or Nikkor f/1.2, and many others ),

now I appreciate the straight forward rendering of Summarit-M ( "transparent tool" lenses , simple optical formula), no bells&whistles, no focus shifts, usable since f/2.5.

[IkarusJohn]

Looking at your criteria, the main driver seems to be price.  Don't worry about buying new - I live in New Zealand, and buy from eBay (and have bought here) with good success.  You just need to check out the seller - the Hong Kong and Japanese sellers have been good so far.  Also, Leica owners tend to be fussy about their gear - you will rarely find a beaten up Leica lens (though Thorsten von Overgod seems to treat his lenses badly, from what I've seen).

50mm is a sweat spot for the M camera - lots of fantastic 50s made over the years.  I haven't tried any of the lenses you've listed, but I have found the Zeiss lenses good, but very different from Leica lenses (harsh colour cast and lots of contrast).  While I agree with Olaf about lens character to a point (if you have one lens, just use it to learn its strengths, and sell it if you don't like it), I do think Leica lenses have different characters.  I have a real soft spot for the 50 Summilux-M ASPH, but even second hand it's outside your price range for the moment.  I also have a 1948 Summitar-LTM 50/2.  It converts to M mount with a little Voigtlander adapter you don't notice once it's on, and the results are ... interesting.  Almost like an f/1 Noctilux, with its swirly bokeh. Not everyone's cup of tea.

I'd suggest you spend a little time on eBay - look for a Summicron-M 50/2 (not the APO version).  It is well loved, has been in production since 1979 and the secondhand prices are within your budget (new it's $2,700), and if you don't like it you will lose nothing if you sell it on.

Good luck!