Marc-A.
I Shoot Film
So I’ve given way to … the Planar 50/2. Quite nice on my M2. But … cause there’s a but … when I mount it on the M2, it’s pretty stiff. It seems Leica tolerance is tighter than Zeiss’. Besides, though the 50 frame appears fine, there’s also a thin line of the 90 frame that shows up (on the left)… it’s not actually disturbing, but I’m a bit worried for the viewfinder. Did anybody else experience the same issue? Will it affect the VF frames?
Tomorrow I process my first roll. Hope to post some pics.
Tomorrow I process my first roll. Hope to post some pics.
Attachments
kully
Happy Snapper
Hey Marc, so you succumbed! Nice looking lens.
I get this tightness with different lenses (Leica, CV, FSU) on my M2 and M4-2 and the different framelines showing too.
No problems, but who knows? Perhaps the whole thing falls apart tomorrow.
For the framelines, I wiggle the lens mount and it's OK until the next time I change lens.
I get this tightness with different lenses (Leica, CV, FSU) on my M2 and M4-2 and the different framelines showing too.
No problems, but who knows? Perhaps the whole thing falls apart tomorrow.
For the framelines, I wiggle the lens mount and it's OK until the next time I change lens.
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
On my M3, the 90 mm frame tended to show a bit with a 50 mm lens (Leitz adapter) mounted. Do you propose to take anthropological pictures, by the way?
ferider
Veteran
Nice lens / combo - and I wanted to offer you a v1 Summicron ! 
Same stiffness on my M2 with ZM Sonnar and 90/2.8 Hexanon.
I loosened the mount springs on the camera just a little and now it's fine
(and still fine with other lenses, among others Summicrons).
Roland.
Same stiffness on my M2 with ZM Sonnar and 90/2.8 Hexanon.
I loosened the mount springs on the camera just a little and now it's fine
(and still fine with other lenses, among others Summicrons).
Roland.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
I just finished a roll in my M2 with the 50 Planar at the cafee across the street! Obviously a busy day for me!
You will notice that the mounts "wear" in after a while and get easier to mount and remove. As for the frame lines, it is more a problem with the camera. The small arm in the 3 a clock position of the lens mount tend to get 'sticky" on older M's and if the indicator claw is sligjtly "shorter" than another lens, it can show double lines or thin lines. usually takes a slight wiggle of the lens to pop them in. I also find that some back and forth movement with the frame selector lever will ease it up.
The Planar and the M2 is a great combination, so enjoy it.
You will notice that the mounts "wear" in after a while and get easier to mount and remove. As for the frame lines, it is more a problem with the camera. The small arm in the 3 a clock position of the lens mount tend to get 'sticky" on older M's and if the indicator claw is sligjtly "shorter" than another lens, it can show double lines or thin lines. usually takes a slight wiggle of the lens to pop them in. I also find that some back and forth movement with the frame selector lever will ease it up.
The Planar and the M2 is a great combination, so enjoy it.
S
Scarpia
Guest
No problem with the Planar and my M6.
Kurt M.
Kurt M.
waileong
Well-known
Don't worry too much about the 90 frameline. It's ok. You can ask the technician to fix it at the next CLA if you want.
Krosya
Konicaze
Marc,
I'm glad to hear you got the best 50 out there. Well, it's sunjective, og course, but I have tried many and Planar.......it's a wonderful lens! I like it better that 2 Crons, 1 Elmar as well as some other ones. One I like almost as much is Minolta Rokkor 40/2. But Planar is still my fav so far. I'd like to try Hexar, but I think its hard to beat a Planar look. Congrats!!!!!!!. Dont forget to show some pics you took with it.
Here is mine:
I'm glad to hear you got the best 50 out there. Well, it's sunjective, og course, but I have tried many and Planar.......it's a wonderful lens! I like it better that 2 Crons, 1 Elmar as well as some other ones. One I like almost as much is Minolta Rokkor 40/2. But Planar is still my fav so far. I'd like to try Hexar, but I think its hard to beat a Planar look. Congrats!!!!!!!. Dont forget to show some pics you took with it.
Here is mine:
Last edited:
ferider
Veteran
The 28/90 flange is the longest. After you mount the lens try to twist
it a little counter clock-wise (looking at the lens front el.).
If it really bothers you, it can be corrected by filing the flange
down just a smidgeon (or adjusting the camera).
Roland.
it a little counter clock-wise (looking at the lens front el.).
If it really bothers you, it can be corrected by filing the flange
down just a smidgeon (or adjusting the camera).
Roland.
pvenables
Established
At least you can get the lens on the camera, Marc !!. I can't get my 50 Elmar-M on my M2, but everything else fits on with a good twist. I'll get it sorted eventually...
Paul
Paul
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
You should check that the "claws" are not bent! Often, when a lens is dropped the claws can be slightly dinged and that can make it difficult if not impossible to mount (and even worse, remove the lens!). If you have access to a set of dial calipers - measure the space between the flange and the "claws" of the bayonet mount. They should all be the same. If there are variations, this could mean that it has been banged. Once you have identifyed which claw is screwed up, you can actually file down the "inside surface" to adjust it. If you ever want to sell the lens though - you probably removed at least 50% of its value. If you intend to keep and use the lens - who cares what the mount looks like!
thomasw_
Well-known
I had this occur on my M3 with a summilux 50/1.4; the 90 line brightlines would come up when this lens was mounted, though not completely, just the corner of the 90 brightlines. I sent it to Youxin Ye; he has fixed it so that this lens and other not-worn 50mm lens mounts work just fine. He said it is nothing to worry about and rather simple to adjust. I found the the 90 brightline corners rather annoying and therefore distracting when I was shooting with my lux; so getting it set correctly was a big deal to me
Marc-A.
I Shoot Film
Hello,
Thanks a lot for your comments. I didn't have time to anwer immediately, because I went on vacation.
So I bought the lens ... and I sold it. Sad story
I copy here comments I posted in this thread
Thanks a lot for your comments. I didn't have time to anwer immediately, because I went on vacation.
So I bought the lens ... and I sold it. Sad story
I copy here comments I posted in this thread
Marc-A.
I Shoot Film
... After long thought, and after having carefully read everything on the Planar ZM (thanks X-Ray for taking time to answer me, I’m most grateful), I decided to go for it; I’m not a Leica fetichist, I’m not involved in any way in brand war (Leica vs Zeiss/CV), I’m just looking for lenses that fit my vision. So the Planar ZM seemed the right lens for me. I was expecting modern sharpness and contrast, and subtle rendition of materials and contours, and great bokeh.
After a test roll, I have to admit that the lens is very good (see pictures below); no question about that. (And it is very well-built and handy). The shots are extremely bright, even in low light condition, they are as contrasty as expected but …
After a test roll, I have to admit that the lens is very good (see pictures below); no question about that. (And it is very well-built and handy). The shots are extremely bright, even in low light condition, they are as contrasty as expected but …
Marc-A.
I Shoot Film
… but there’s a cost for that which I’m not ready to pay for: what we gain in overall contrast and apparent sharpness, we loose it in microcontrast and it badly affects the rendition of materials and contours. I have no other word to describe the Planar effect but “plastic”: everything looks like plastic; it is like shooting in a Barbie world … life in plastic, not so fantastic. Call me crazy, but that’s how my shots look like to me. I scanned in average and high resolution (1200/2400/4800 dpi), I tried different scanner settings, different softwares, I wet printed … always the same feeling about my pictures.
Besides, there’s something even more troubling, visible at 1200 dpi and obvious at 2400/4800: the lens is not that sharp, at least it is less sharp than my old rigid Summicron. It gives the feeling of sharpness because it is very contrasty, but it “squeezes” micro-contrasts and some details (skin contours for instance) are smoothed out, not to say erased. This is not visible on internet sized pictures but it’s there. This explains the “plastic” effect I was mentioning above.
So I guess that is what we get from a modern design lens, and the Planar ZM exemplifies perfectly modern optical features. If the Planar ZM is better than the current Summicron (I trust people who claim this), then the current Summicron is worse than the rigid or DR Summicron; I would add it is worse than the Summitar and other classic lens. The issue of the handling of micro-contrasts is of major importance IMHO, and in this respect I think that modern lenses as the Planar ZM are not so good. They are very contrasty overall, but lack subtlety. I guess, I only guess, that the Summilux asph and the Noctilux are free from this shortcoming; and I guess that’s why they’re so expensive.
In the end, if I add to buy again a modern lens, I think the Nokton asph 50/1.5 is of better value for the money; it shows all the modern optical features but I prefer its rendition to the Planar. So I came to this conclusion: take the Nokton asph if you can’t afford a Summilux asph. (I owned once the Nokton, so I know the lens).
I don’t expect you guys agree with me, but I’m looking forward to your opinion on the subject.
Cheers,
Marc
PS: so far, the only lens that seems perfect to me, sharp, contrasty, with a nice bokeh, with beautiful contours/relief rendition … it is the Planar … but not the ZM … the 75/3.5 for Rolleiflex. Any idea of its equivalent for 35mm RF?
Besides, there’s something even more troubling, visible at 1200 dpi and obvious at 2400/4800: the lens is not that sharp, at least it is less sharp than my old rigid Summicron. It gives the feeling of sharpness because it is very contrasty, but it “squeezes” micro-contrasts and some details (skin contours for instance) are smoothed out, not to say erased. This is not visible on internet sized pictures but it’s there. This explains the “plastic” effect I was mentioning above.
So I guess that is what we get from a modern design lens, and the Planar ZM exemplifies perfectly modern optical features. If the Planar ZM is better than the current Summicron (I trust people who claim this), then the current Summicron is worse than the rigid or DR Summicron; I would add it is worse than the Summitar and other classic lens. The issue of the handling of micro-contrasts is of major importance IMHO, and in this respect I think that modern lenses as the Planar ZM are not so good. They are very contrasty overall, but lack subtlety. I guess, I only guess, that the Summilux asph and the Noctilux are free from this shortcoming; and I guess that’s why they’re so expensive.
In the end, if I add to buy again a modern lens, I think the Nokton asph 50/1.5 is of better value for the money; it shows all the modern optical features but I prefer its rendition to the Planar. So I came to this conclusion: take the Nokton asph if you can’t afford a Summilux asph. (I owned once the Nokton, so I know the lens).
I don’t expect you guys agree with me, but I’m looking forward to your opinion on the subject.
Cheers,
Marc
PS: so far, the only lens that seems perfect to me, sharp, contrasty, with a nice bokeh, with beautiful contours/relief rendition … it is the Planar … but not the ZM … the 75/3.5 for Rolleiflex. Any idea of its equivalent for 35mm RF?
Marc-A.
I Shoot Film
And I add:
this is all subjective; the lens is excellent, but it doesn't suit my purposes or doesn't satisfy my preferences.
this is all subjective; the lens is excellent, but it doesn't suit my purposes or doesn't satisfy my preferences.
Krosya
Konicaze
Marc,
I was waiting to read your comments and reasoning on this matter. Thank you for your post. While I may or maynot agree with some things you say, I have to agree with one thing - it's your lens and you have to like it to keep it. You didn't - well, so be it and I hope you can find one that you do. I have many 50mm lenses and some are very different - Planar vs Rigid Cron vs Summitar vs ZK vs J3 etc. Each has each own fingerprint and as I love 50mm FL, I keep them all, and I'm sure I will get others - thinking of a c Sonnar for a while now.
Anyway, hope you feel you gave this lens a fair try, as it is a great lens. But if so - well, maybe there is a Summilux in your future
Nice photos BTW, don't look "Barbie World" like to me though.
All the best.
I was waiting to read your comments and reasoning on this matter. Thank you for your post. While I may or maynot agree with some things you say, I have to agree with one thing - it's your lens and you have to like it to keep it. You didn't - well, so be it and I hope you can find one that you do. I have many 50mm lenses and some are very different - Planar vs Rigid Cron vs Summitar vs ZK vs J3 etc. Each has each own fingerprint and as I love 50mm FL, I keep them all, and I'm sure I will get others - thinking of a c Sonnar for a while now.
Anyway, hope you feel you gave this lens a fair try, as it is a great lens. But if so - well, maybe there is a Summilux in your future
Nice photos BTW, don't look "Barbie World" like to me though.
All the best.
thafred
silver addict
Marc-A. said:
interesting...the above description is exactly how I feel about my Nokton! looks sharp because of high contrast but esp. on B&w film it´s very plastic like and I feel like missing something! I miss micro contrast that I got from the coll. summicron or Summicron-C (interestingly, even when the Cron-C is slightly out of focus, the pics seem to have more detail that a nokton pic in focus..slight contrasts are rendered soo true)
P.s. my best lens too is the 75mm /f3,5 planar!!! nothing like it I guess :-(
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
mfogiel
Veteran
I have the impression, that the final judgement can vary with the type of film used.
In fact I have 2 Leica lenses, the 3rd 28/2.8 Elmarit and the current 90/2.8 Elmarit, and I dislike them both on XP2 ( my habitual film), because at higher magnifications the microdetail "falls apart", there's NOT ENOUGH microcontrast, not the other way round.
The Zeiss lenses, and let's leave the C Sonnar apart, give a more continuus, "pasty" appearance to details - it is almost as if the Leica lenses didn't pass through enough light to saturate the emulsion.
Here's an example of the Elmarit 90 shot:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=853180813&size=l
and here one with the Planar:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1019855415&size=l
The MACRO contrast on the other hand, can be an advantage or disadvantage, according to the type of shooting one does, but in today's times, probably lenses with lower macrocontrast are more advantageous, as they let you expand the recordable DR, and here Leica holds an advantage.
It may be though, that with silver halide films, these effects come out differently, so in the end each of us makes a judgement on the basis of own image chain. We can only be grateful to Zeiss and CV for having broadened the choice of modern lenses from which to pick our favourites.
In fact I have 2 Leica lenses, the 3rd 28/2.8 Elmarit and the current 90/2.8 Elmarit, and I dislike them both on XP2 ( my habitual film), because at higher magnifications the microdetail "falls apart", there's NOT ENOUGH microcontrast, not the other way round.
The Zeiss lenses, and let's leave the C Sonnar apart, give a more continuus, "pasty" appearance to details - it is almost as if the Leica lenses didn't pass through enough light to saturate the emulsion.
Here's an example of the Elmarit 90 shot:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=853180813&size=l
and here one with the Planar:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1019855415&size=l
The MACRO contrast on the other hand, can be an advantage or disadvantage, according to the type of shooting one does, but in today's times, probably lenses with lower macrocontrast are more advantageous, as they let you expand the recordable DR, and here Leica holds an advantage.
It may be though, that with silver halide films, these effects come out differently, so in the end each of us makes a judgement on the basis of own image chain. We can only be grateful to Zeiss and CV for having broadened the choice of modern lenses from which to pick our favourites.
Last edited: