Jump to content

50mm fingerprints: Summicron vs Zeiss Planar?


Frumkco

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I currently have a 50 summicron #11819 with convex tab focus made in Canada. Love it. But I really like the idea of a focus ring I can grab onto, especially when shooting vertically...Can someone describe their personal impressions of any or all of the following lenses? (In case it makes a difference, I shoot film still.)

 

Leica 50 summicron (11819)

Leica 50 summicron (current)

Zeiss 50 planar

 

Thanks!

Edited by Frumkco
Wanted to clarify the question.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I sold my 80's version 50mm Summicron because I preferred the 50mm Hexanon ZM that came with a Konica Hexanon camera to the Summicron. The Hexanon seemed a tad more contrasty, which I liked. The 50mm Hexanon f/2 lens might be another option for you. I sold the Konica camera body and kept the lens.

 

If the 50mm Planar for the M is anything like the 50mm f/1.4 Planar I use on my Canon, then you cannot go wrong with that lens. The 50mm Planar has become one of my favorites, an excellent value, lots of bang for the buck - and the build is solid. Here are two recent shots taken with my new 50mm Planar on a Canon DSLR . This may or may not be helpful to you. The first shot was done with a Digital Rebel T1I, and the second with a Canon 5D Mark II.

 

I should also mention that I have a Zeiss 18mm lens for use on my M8 and love it, Zeiss lenses are solid. I've become a real fan of Zeiss and last week I ordered a third Zeiss lens. This time an 85mm Planar for the Canon.

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 by wilfredo
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Zeiss Planar I am considering for the M is f2, but the examples you provided are impressive. Thank you for sharing. What did they look like raw? I am not sure if more contrast is what I am looking for per se, but it's helpful to know that is a strength of those lenses. BTW, did that apply to the Zeiss as well as the Konica?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I can say about the new Zeiss lenses is that they seem to have a special 3D quality ( along with being tack sharp and of solid build). Check out these posts in the Fred Miranda forum Zeiss vs Canon 50mm 1.4? - FM Forums That forum might also be a good place to post your question. I suspect that there are not too many 50mm Zeiss lenses on M Leicas, examples may not be too easy to find.

 

The images I posted looked very good as RAW files, the post-processing I did would have been the same as if I had shot them with my Leica M8 using a Leica lens.

 

The picture I'm attaching here was done with the 50mm Hexanon f/2 on the M8.

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 by wilfredo
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The zeiss planar doesn t get the coverage it deserves. It is an exception lens as are most 50mm M lenses. It has exceptional contrast and resolution and renders color consistent with Zeiss lenses. It has very high micro contrast and is viewed by some as an ideal lens for black and white photography(because of the tone separation).

 

The 50mm summicron has been for years the standard against which many lenses are compared. The mount,hood etc have been updated but the formula has been consistent for years. It has lower contrast than the zeiss (but still high) and really excels in micro contrast and resolution. Color saturation is excellent and it has beauty in the way it renders (personally I like all summicrons for color).

 

The zeiss is much cheaper than a new summicron. Either lens is great ...I would choose based on contrast .....if you shoot in a lot of high contrast light ..go with the summicron. If you have a lot of overcast ,cloudy or rainy days ..the zeiss s contrast will be better. If you shoot mostly people pick the summicron.

 

If you find one or the other used at a good price ..go for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I currently have a 50 summicron #11819 with convex tab focus made in Canada. Love it. But I really like the idea of a focus ring I can grab onto, especially when shooting vertically...Can someone describe their personal impressions of any or all of the following lenses? (In case it makes a difference, I shoot film still.)

 

Leica 50 summicron (11819)

Leica 50 summicron (current)

Zeiss 50 planar

 

Thanks!

 

I have one which is terrific but I am considering swapping it for 50mm 2.8 Elmar collapsable for compactness. It is, however a magnificent performer and why would you consider Zeiss?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have one which is terrific but I am considering swapping it for 50mm 2.8 Elmar collapsable for compactness. It is, however a magnificent performer and why would you consider Zeiss?

 

Price? A 50 ZM planar is well under half the cost of a current summicron. It also matches, or exceeds the 50 crons performance in every respect apart from build, which on the Leica is one notch up on the Zeiss. The comparative part I take from the three or so credible reviews from impartial professional reviewers. The 50 planar's performance and relative build I take from experience.

 

The 50 planar is an absolutely stellar lens with fantastic resolution at wide apertures, good flare resistance and wonderful tones. Beyond F2, the Lux asph has nothing over this lens (I used to own the lux asph). It is a touch more contrasty than the cron but not too much so. I love mine in B&W and put frankly, you cannot have a problem with this lens apart from if shooting digital under very high contrast in which case older lower contrast glass might suit better. In both tests I have seen the planar has marginally, and I do mean marginally, better performance wide open an in the outer zones at wider apertures, but the differences are irrelevant.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Go look at published hard data -- MTF curves -- which I prefer to openly subjective rantings. We then find that while the contrast of the Planar is higher than that of the Summicron >on axis< it is inferior in the outer field and in the corners. It is actually inferior even on axis at f:2. This is not to say that the Planar is an inferior lens. It is not. It is a good conventional medium-high speed standard lens, as Planar lenses have always been. But we should not elevate our private likings to the status of documented quantitative data. These are two different things.

 

Both lenses are classical six-element double Gauss designs, an achievement of days long past. Both lie close to what can be got out of that venerable pre-WW I design. Leica have more or less conceded that they cannot make a better 50mm double-Gauss lens, and the 50mm Summarit is indeed a close match for the Summicron, f-stop by f-stop (though the Summarit seems to somewhat be better in the flare and reflections department).

 

I have on the other hand seen in out of focus parts of Planar images signs of overcorrected spherical, which may make for a less than creamy bokeh. This choice of correction makes for the well-known ring-shaped point highlight discs beyond the plane of best focus, while the discs on the hither side show the opposite radial distribution of light. What you think of that is of course a matter of taste, and 'de gustibus non est disputandum' and all that, but this is how it is.

 

Doing better requires some newer tricks, and Leica used them with the Summilux ASPH: Not only that aspherical surface, but a different rear end, a floating element (or group, really) and some exotic glass. And this is really a super lens. It produces higher definition than the Summicron at all f-stops they have in common; the Summilux at 1.4 is actually better than the 'cron at 2.0. And its superior resistance to flare and internal reflections alone was the reason why I sold my Summicron and got the 'lux instead, nearly as soon as it was out. The Summicron is really tricky in some kinds of high contrast lighting. We do not use our lenses on test benches but 'out there'.

 

The old man from the Age of the Summar

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lars,

 

You cannot compare different manufacturers MTFs - period. Leica MTFs are theoretical and Zeiss are as tested. Both would likely have variances in methodology, which would also affect results. Comparing two sets of MTFs to get what you conclude to be the 'real results' must be a joke? The comment you follow with shows that you do not understand this fundamental point: "But we should not elevate our private likings to the status of documented quantitative data. These are two different things."

 

Any actual test I have seen using both lenses differs markedly from what you have just said, in that the Zeiss shows more contrast both on centre and in the outer field. It is not a huge amount but it is not easily missed. It is also a hair sharper at the wider apertures - very subtle in the centre, but noticeable in the outer zones at the wider apertures...but the difference is not worth caring about in the slightest unless printing one metre wide prints of newspaper and observing from 10cm.

 

I have actually shot with the Summilux asph and the ZM and can say for sure that beyond F2 the asph has nothing over the planar in real world use. I would not have sold the asph and kept the planar otherwise. On centre at f2 the asph has a very slight edge, but not one that was worth caring about if 1.4 was not required.

 

The planar is not just a good conventional lens - this is typical of the 'Leica is invincible' BS that fills internet pages - it is absolutely outstanding. Try reading Puts or Reid Reviews for starters an there are plenty of other users that will tell you their views having used the current cron and planar. Even Puts of all people has admitted to this.

 

Your issue with the Planar OOF areas is another piece of fantasy. I have seen horrid bokeh from a cron V4 on many occasions, but that does not mean it has had bokeh now does it? The planar produces bokeh very similar to the summicron, once again borne out by side by side tests. Some say creamier, some say the other way round which is a nice way of saying there is no real world difference at all.

 

The planar cannot possibly be every bit as good as a Leica lens costing three times as much, can it? To think it could possibly have a very slight edge is heresy...

 

As nice and compact as the summarit 50 is, it suffers from focus shift, which means that, bluntly put, the planar and summicron will whoop it at the point of focus. It is double the price of the planar and at over half a stop slower you would haveto have a really good reason to go for the summarit if your motivation was utility and image quality rather than brand bias.

 

I love Leica kit. I own quite a bit, but also a good number of ZM lenses and the reason I have taken the attitude I have is that I am sick and tired of reading the same cr@p wrt Leica lenses slaying all before them. In some cases they are in a league of their own, but in many cases they have company...

 

 

Go look at published hard data -- MTF curves -- which I prefer to openly subjective rantings. We then find that while the contrast of the Planar is higher than that of the Summicron >on axis< it is inferior in the outer field and in the corners. It is actually inferior even on axis at f:2. This is not to say that the Planar is an inferior lens. It is not. It is a good conventional medium-high speed standard lens, as Planar lenses have always been. But we should not elevate our private likings to the status of documented quantitative data. These are two different things.

 

Both lenses are classical six-element double Gauss designs, an achievement of days long past. Both lie close to what can be got out of that venerable pre-WW I design. Leica have more or less conceded that they cannot make a better 50mm double-Gauss lens, and the 50mm Summarit is indeed a close match for the Summicron, f-stop by f-stop (though the Summarit seems to somewhat be better in the flare and reflections department).

 

I have on the other hand seen in out of focus parts of Planar images signs of overcorrected spherical, which may make for a less than creamy bokeh. This choice of correction makes for the well-known ring-shaped point highlight discs beyond the plane of best focus, while the discs on the hither side show the opposite radial distribution of light. What you think of that is of course a matter of taste, and 'de gustibus non est disputandum' and all that, but this is how it is.

 

Doing better requires some newer tricks, and Leica used them with the Summilux ASPH: Not only that aspherical surface, but a different rear end, a floating element (or group, really) and some exotic glass. And this is really a super lens. It produces higher definition than the Summicron at all f-stops they have in common; the Summilux at 1.4 is actually better than the 'cron at 2.0. And its superior resistance to flare and internal reflections alone was the reason why I sold my Summicron and got the 'lux instead, nearly as soon as it was out. The Summicron is really tricky in some kinds of high contrast lighting. We do not use our lenses on test benches but 'out there'.

 

The old man from the Age of the Summar

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Frumkco,

 

One (theoretical) difference between the lenses - not mentioned so far - is the amount of distortion. The Leica Summicron is excellent in this respect, the Zeiss Planar exhibits +-1,5% at the outer corners of the picture. It probably is invisible in 99,5% of pictures taken, but may make a difference for, say, architectural photographs.

 

On a more subective level, the Summicron is my personal lens of choice for most travelling with my M. It is slightly smaller (though 20g heavier) than the Planar, and I appreciate the ability to use M39 Filters which also fit on my other travelling lens... I like the signature of this Summicron, particularly how it draws wide open.

 

Having said that, I trust the Planar would perform very well as well, but not having used it I cannot compare. In any case it is the Photographer who takes the picture, so my advice would be to compare the two lenses in the flesh... Perhaps there are some forum members in your area who you could meet for this purpose ?

 

Best regards, and good luck with your choice, C.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lars,

 

You cannot compare different manufacturers MTFs - period. Leica MTFs are theoretical and Zeiss are as tested. Both would likely have variances in methodology, which would also affect results. Comparing two sets of MTFs to get what you conclude to be the 'real results' must be a joke? The comment you follow with shows that you do not understand this fundamental point: "But we should not elevate our private likings to the status of documented quantitative data. These are two different things."

 

Any actual test I have seen using both lenses differs markedly from what you have just said, in that the Zeiss shows more contrast both on centre and in the outer field. It is not a huge amount but it is not easily missed. It is also a hair sharper at the wider apertures - very subtle in the centre, but noticeable in the outer zones at the wider apertures...but the difference is not worth caring about in the slightest unless printing one metre wide prints of newspaper and observing from 10cm.

 

I have actually shot with the Summilux asph and the ZM and can say for sure that beyond F2 the asph has nothing over the planar in real world use. I would not have sold the asph and kept the planar otherwise. On centre at f2 the asph has a very slight edge, but not one that was worth caring about if 1.4 was not required.

 

The planar is not just a good conventional lens - this is typical of the 'Leica is invincible' BS that fills internet pages - it is absolutely outstanding. Try reading Puts or Reid Reviews for starters an there are plenty of other users that will tell you their views having used the current cron and planar. Even Puts of all people has admitted to this.

 

Your issue with the Planar OOF areas is another piece of fantasy. I have seen horrid bokeh from a cron V4 on many occasions, but that does not mean it has had bokeh now does it? The planar produces bokeh very similar to the summicron, once again borne out by side by side tests. Some say creamier, some say the other way round which is a nice way of saying there is no real world difference at all.

 

The planar cannot possibly be every bit as good as a Leica lens costing three times as much, can it? To think it could possibly have a very slight edge is heresy...

 

As nice and compact as the summarit 50 is, it suffers from focus shift, which means that, bluntly put, the planar and summicron will whoop it at the point of focus. It is double the price of the planar and at over half a stop slower you would haveto have a really good reason to go for the summarit if your motivation was utility and image quality rather than brand bias.

 

I love Leica kit. I own quite a bit, but also a good number of ZM lenses and the reason I have taken the attitude I have is that I am sick and tired of reading the same cr@p wrt Leica lenses slaying all before them. In some cases they are in a league of their own, but in many cases they have company...

 

 

 

...I'm wholly with batmobile on this one - the current Summicron is a superb lens, but re: overall sharpness and contrast, the less-expensive Planar still manages to outperform it. Lens fingerprint and bokeh are highly subjective, so I will reserve my comment on these points.

 

My only concern would be quality control, and this point applies to all brands, some moreso than others. I had to return my first Planar because the focusing ring had some unacceptable fore and aft movement. Perhaps it was just my luck to pick out the lemon - the replacement is perfect and has functioned flawlessly despite being used relentlessly in very trying conditions.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is "test your lens rigorously as soon as you receive it".

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lars,

 

You cannot compare different manufacturers MTFs - period. Leica MTFs are theoretical and Zeiss are as tested.

I have heard that quite a bit. The difference may be less than you think; methodology is that good. Of course you should not nit-pick percentages millimeter by millimeter, but the picture is pretty clear.

 

The planar is not just a good conventional lens - this is typical of the 'Leica is invincible' BS that fills internet pages - it is absolutely outstanding. Try reading Puts or Reid Reviews for starters an there are plenty of other users that will tell you their views having used the current cron and planar.

I have read Puts. I subscribe to http://www.ReidReviews.com and would advice everyone to do the same. This does not mean that I do always agree with him (Sean does know that). I make my own assessments.

 

I love Leica kit. I own quite a bit, but also a good number of ZM lenses and the reason I have taken the attitude I have is that I am sick and tired of reading the same cr@p wrt Leica lenses slaying all before them. In some cases they are in a league of their own, but in many cases they have company...

I am no gut-reaction Leica loyalist. For me, cameras and lenses are tools, and I select them according to my needs, and after a cost-benefit analysis. My Leica lenses, all eight of them, have emerged on the top after such an analysis. But all my M-lenses shorter than 28mm are non-Leica, and all but one (the C/V 15mm) is a Zeiss lens. Some ZM lenses are remarkably good, among them the 18mm Distagon, the 21mm C-Biogon and the Biogon, and the 25mm Biogon. Some are just competent. One I would judge so-so. Horses for courses and scratches for itches.

 

And I see and smell quite a lot of bullshit hereabouts, but I try to be factual, reasoned and consistent. And polite.

 

Yours sincerely, Lars Bergquist

Edited by lars_bergquist
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sean Reid does a great job with his lens evaluations because he focuses on "how the lens draws" . This is a subjective summary of how the resolution,contrast,color saturation etc renders a typical scene. The value of this concept is that it helps you match the lens "signiture" to the type of work you do.

 

For example ...in the winter I am in Florida.. very strong and contrasty lighting is the normal. For this application I don t like my zeiss lenses as much. The files go beyond a usable range. Sean Reid actually favors his VC lenses for this environment. The Leica summicrons are perfect(IMHO) because they render beautiful color and have manageable contrast .

 

Consider a different scenario....Prague in the fall. Often overcast and soft light. Looks great in black and white. The zeiss lenses are champs in this light.

 

The much more expensive summilux asph lens are all around best in class. It is really hard to beat the 50/1.4asph under any conditions. But it is 3X the cost of a zeiss planar .

 

The good news is that the 50 s are all excellent and the least of your problems in putting together a M lens kit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Price? A 50 ZM planar is well under half the cost of a current summicron. It also matches, or exceeds the 50 crons performance in every respect apart from build, which on the Leica is one notch up on the Zeiss. The comparative part I take from the three or so credible reviews from impartial professional reviewers. The 50 planar's performance and relative build I take from experience.

 

The 50 planar is an absolutely stellar lens with fantastic resolution at wide apertures, good flare resistance and wonderful tones. Beyond F2, the Lux asph has nothing over this lens (I used to own the lux asph). It is a touch more contrasty than the cron but not too much so. I love mine in B&W and put frankly, you cannot have a problem with this lens apart from if shooting digital under very high contrast in which case older lower contrast glass might suit better. In both tests I have seen the planar has marginally, and I do mean marginally, better performance wide open an in the outer zones at wider apertures, but the differences are irrelevant.

I can't accept that. If that were the case Leica would never sell any Summicrons. I don't know the lens you are referring to but if it is half the price then you can bet it is half the quality. These are Germans we are talking about here
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't accept that. If that were the case Leica would never sell any Summicrons. I don't know the lens you are referring to but if it is half the price then you can bet it is half the quality. These are Germans we are talking about here

 

Kenneth,

 

LOL - thanks for entertaining me! I love it when Leicaphiles demonstrate astounding ignorance hand in hand with absolute conviction! Hang on, you have to have been kidding, right? My comments below assume you were serious (although I very much hope not for your sake):

 

Aside from what I believe to be somewhat better build, the Planar very much appears to be the equal of the summicron in all things optical and perhaps a hair better (as well as having slightly better flare control). Those objective tests out there show this quite nicely as did my own personal use of the ZM and Summilux asph (which is supposedly even better still). The planar was half the weight of the BP Lux asph I had and performed just as well at F2 and beyond as far as I was concerned... and i don't make small prints from 35mm. I print to 20x16 to 20x24.

 

The other incredible thing, which is literally in-credible to Leicaphiles is that in B&W with E&D optimised for these contrasty lenses, may of my shots from the planar look like they came from 30 year old glass. Beautiful smooth greyscale, lovely diffuse OOF slowly emerging behind the point of focus. Sharp as hell, but smooooooth and with gorgeous tones. Shhhhh don't tell anyone because everyone knows that if the 'Leicas as much sharper - the images leap off the screen/print/page/thumbnail' argument fails, the 'other lenses have cr@ppy bokeh and tonality' argument kicks in.

 

There are lots of ways to produce cheaper products of the same quality. One is not antiquated production techniques and German Labour.

 

I think it would be fair to assume that:

 

a. Leica is probably selling slightly fewer summicrons and summarit 50s due to the planar's appearance. The planar seems rather popular...

b. They are not selling that much fewer because ignorant people refuse to believe the planar is as good as it is, while happily accepting the increase of the 50 cron from about $1100 in 2006 to $1800 now.

 

I prefer Leica build, however, I cannot argue with the unbelievably good optics on most of the ZMs. Ignoring the idiosyncratic sonnar 50, only the 28 shows some notable (relative) weaknesses. Even Putz choked on the 21 2.8, 25, 35s and 50 planar.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Kenneth,

 

LOL - thanks for entertaining me! I love it when Leicaphiles demonstrate astounding ignorance hand in hand with absolute conviction! Hang on, you have to have been kidding, right? My comments below assume you were serious (although I very much hope not for your sake):

 

Aside from what I believe to be somewhat better build, the Planar very much appears to be the equal of the summicron in all things optical and perhaps a hair better (as well as having slightly better flare control). Those objective tests out there show this quite nicely as did my own personal use of the ZM and Summilux asph (which is supposedly even better still). The planar was half the weight of the BP Lux asph I had and performed just as well at F2 and beyond as far as I was concerned... and i don't make small prints from 35mm. I print to 20x16 to 20x24.

 

The other incredible thing, which is literally in-credible to Leicaphiles is that in B&W with E&D optimised for these contrasty lenses, may of my shots from the planar look like they came from 30 year old glass. Beautiful smooth greyscale, lovely diffuse OOF slowly emerging behind the point of focus. Sharp as hell, but smooooooth and with gorgeous tones. Shhhhh don't tell anyone because everyone knows that if the 'Leicas as much sharper - the images leap off the screen/print/page/thumbnail' argument fails, the 'other lenses have cr@ppy bokeh and tonality' argument kicks in.

 

There are lots of ways to produce cheaper products of the same quality. One is not antiquated production techniques and German Labour.

 

I think it would be fair to assume that:

 

a. Leica is probably selling slightly fewer summicrons and summarit 50s due to the planar's appearance. The planar seems rather popular...

b. They are not selling that much fewer because ignorant people refuse to believe the planar is as good as it is, while happily accepting the increase of the 50 cron from about $1100 in 2006 to $1800 now.

 

I prefer Leica build, however, I cannot argue with the unbelievably good optics on most of the ZMs. Ignoring the idiosyncratic sonnar 50, only the 28 shows some notable (relative) weaknesses. Even Putz choked on the 21 2.8, 25, 35s and 50 planar.

You assume right. I know which camp I prefer to be in, whereas you are quite obviously not sure
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...