fursan Posted August 30, 2007 Share #1 Posted August 30, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Could folks who are using zm lenses with their M8 please post some real-world images ( or point to them ), so that I can get an idea of how they perform. Have read Sean's reviews, but would like to see images. I am esp. interested in the zm sonnar 50/1.5. Thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 30, 2007 Posted August 30, 2007 Hi fursan, Take a look here M8 and ZM lenses. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
johnwolf Posted August 30, 2007 Share #2 Posted August 30, 2007 Fahim, I have the Zeiss 35 so I can't help with images. But an advanced photo forum search on "zeiss 1.5" turns up a couple. John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earlyadopter Posted August 30, 2007 Share #3 Posted August 30, 2007 There are a lot of Zeiss 50/1.5 images at flickr. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
paolo d Posted August 30, 2007 Share #4 Posted August 30, 2007 M8 + Zeiss Biogon 28: absolutely a great choice, in my modest opinion Portugal Happiness Regards Paolo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dante Posted August 30, 2007 Share #5 Posted August 30, 2007 I have the ZM Sonnar, corrected by Zeiss to f/1.5 focus. After Zeiss answers some questions for me, I will post a review on my site. Imagine a 50/1.4 Nikkor LTM that has been hot-rodded. It's interesting, but the short answer is that it is a very specialized lens. Dante Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fursan Posted August 30, 2007 Author Share #6 Posted August 30, 2007 John,Paolo, Dante and earlyapaptor, Thanks. I will check the site. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted August 30, 2007 Share #7 Posted August 30, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have both the ZM 35 and 21. They are both excellent lenses, very flare and veiling glare resistant but also very high contrast. This is fine for landscapes and buildings but the 35 in particular can be harsh for people shots, dependant upon lighting. For people shots, I prefer my CV 35/1.2. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fursan Posted August 30, 2007 Author Share #8 Posted August 30, 2007 Wilson, thanks for your comments. I am looking for very contrasty lenses. I am disappointed with my leica glass so far. my planar 50 beats the pants of all leica esp. 'lux 50 which is going to solms. if I could start over again, i would not buy leica glass. too much hype, imho. I have both the ZM 35 and 21. They are both excellent lenses, very flare and veiling glare resistant but also very high contrast. This is fine for landscapes and buildings but the 35 in particular can be harsh for people shots, dependant upon lighting. For people shots, I prefer my CV 35/1.2. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthury Posted August 30, 2007 Share #9 Posted August 30, 2007 Same here, I was an early adopter of the 21mm/2.8 Biogon ZM and have been enjoying it since ... Display photo - photo.net Display photo - photo.net Alpine Horn on Flickr - Photo Sharing! City Hall In Fog on Flickr - Photo Sharing! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthury Posted August 30, 2007 Share #10 Posted August 30, 2007 Wilson, thanks for your comments. I am looking for very contrasty lenses. I am disappointed with my leica glass so far. my planar 50 beats the pants of all leica esp. 'lux 50 which is going to solms. if I could start over again, i would not buy leica glass. too much hype, imho. I don't think you can fairly compare an f/2 and an f/1.4 lens. The contrast of the images shot at f/1.4 cannot come close to those shot @f/2. Furthermore, depending on how close your subject is, the images shot with a 'lux will have more out of focus area due to the shallower DoF. Compare the Planar with a Summicron. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted August 30, 2007 Share #11 Posted August 30, 2007 Fahim, are you talking about the 50 Summilux pre-Asph (which dates from '61) or the 50 Summilux ASPH? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fursan Posted August 30, 2007 Author Share #12 Posted August 30, 2007 Arthur, lovely images. Your point is well take re: contrast 1.4 vs 2 I don't think you can fairly compare an f/2 and an f/1.4 lens. The contrast of the images shot at f/1.4 cannot come close to those shot @f/2. Furthermore, depending on how close your subject is, the images shot with a 'lux will have more out of focus area due to the shallower DoF. Compare the Planar with a Summicron. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fursan Posted August 30, 2007 Author Share #13 Posted August 30, 2007 Carsten, talking about the m-'lux asph. btw, reading with interest various points of view re: certain photog. very informative. Regards. Fahim, are you talking about the 50 Summilux pre-Asph (which dates from '61) or the 50 Summilux ASPH? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted August 30, 2007 Share #14 Posted August 30, 2007 I am a bit shocked that you found the 50 Lux Asph disappointing. Are you sure that it was in good working order? I have never heard anything but accolades for this lens, and I love mine. It is simply wonderful wide open, and razor sharp stopped down. About certain photog, presumably Nachtwey, yeah, I am done talking politics for now Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kent10D Posted August 30, 2007 Share #15 Posted August 30, 2007 Hi Fahim, I have the Biogon 25/2.8, Biogon 35/2, and the Planar 50/2 as well as the Sonnar 50/1.5, and I enjoy them all. Excellent quaity, I think. Since you're interested in the Sonnar, I'll concentrate on that one. I really enjoy shooting with the Sonnar, especially in low light. Some people don't seem to like the boke it produces, but I really do (in most cases). One thing to be aware of with the Sonnar is that it front focuses by a fair amount wide open, and only focuses accuratey from f/2.8. Apparently you can have Zeiss recalibrate the lens to focus accuratey at f/1.5. Anyway, you asked for examples, so here's one I snapped with the Sonnar while walking around Kyoto one evening. I like what the Sonnar does to the lights in the background in this type of shot. 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/32291-m8-and-zm-lenses/?do=findComment&comment=342639'>More sharing options...
arthury Posted August 30, 2007 Share #16 Posted August 30, 2007 Hi Fahim, I have the Biogon 25/2.8, Biogon 35/2, and the Planar 50/2 as well as the Sonnar 50/1.5. I really enjoy shooting with the Sonnar, especially in low light. Some people don't seem to like the boke it produces, but I reall do (in most cases). One thing to be aware of with the Sonnar is that it front focuses by a fair amount wide open, and only focuses accuratey from f/2.8. Apparently you can have Zeiss recalibrate the lens to focus accuratey at f/1.5. Anyway, you asked for examples, so here's one I snapped with the Sonnar while walking around Kyoto one evening. I like what the Sonnar does to the lights in the background in this type of shot. Kent, This is deliciously amazing. Take a look at the light sources near the top left edge ... they are still almost round. The coma is almost absent. Was this shot wide-opened? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fursan Posted August 30, 2007 Author Share #17 Posted August 30, 2007 Kent,my friend, that is one h*ll of an excellent image. I am impressed. did you have it recalibrated by zeiss?. Hi Fahim, I have the Biogon 25/2.8, Biogon 35/2, and the Planar 50/2 as well as the Sonnar 50/1.5, and I enjoy them all. Excellent quaity, I think. Since you're interested in the Sonnar, I'll concentrate on that one. I really enjoy shooting with the Sonnar, especially in low light. Some people don't seem to like the boke it produces, but I really do (in most cases). One thing to be aware of with the Sonnar is that it front focuses by a fair amount wide open, and only focuses accuratey from f/2.8. Apparently you can have Zeiss recalibrate the lens to focus accuratey at f/1.5. Anyway, you asked for examples, so here's one I snapped with the Sonnar while walking around Kyoto one evening. I like what the Sonnar does to the lights in the background in this type of shot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted August 30, 2007 Share #18 Posted August 30, 2007 It's interesting, but the short answer is that it is a very specialized lens. Dante I agree. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fursan Posted August 30, 2007 Author Share #19 Posted August 30, 2007 Carsten, i think it is not in working order. I am disappointed with that and my 'cron apo 75 asph, and my 'cron 35. the 'cron 28 is magnificent and so is the zm 21/4.5 and the zm planar 50. leica have asked me to ship it to solms+m8. i shall be going on a vacation shortly and do not want to do it right now. the 90/2.8 elmarit is nothing to shout about either. yeah about the photog, you are correct. makes you wonder..no! best wishes. I am a bit shocked that you found the 50 Lux Asph disappointing. Are you sure that it was in good working order? I have never heard anything but accolades for this lens, and I love mine. It is simply wonderful wide open, and razor sharp stopped down. About certain photog, presumably Nachtwey, yeah, I am done talking politics for now Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kent10D Posted August 30, 2007 Share #20 Posted August 30, 2007 Kent,This is deliciously amazing. Take a look at the light sources near the top left edge ... they are still almost round. The coma is almost absent. Was this shot wide-opened? Hi Arthur, I don't think the lens was wide open for that shot. It would have been f/2 I think. Don't you wish the M8 recorded little details like that for posterity? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.