Zeiss Planar 50/2 sharpness test

Thanks for the test, but in reality you are fooling yourself. If you want to test the real sharpness performance of this lens, you have to use a high resolution film and check the results directly on the negative with a high magnification loupe or a microscope, forget scanners, in particular flatbeds.
Anyway, to put your anxiety at rest, the Planar is sharper at f 2.0, than most lenses that HCB, Capa and Kertesz have used during their lives at any aperture, so it means it is more than sharp enough to get great masterpieces.

Planar 50/2 ZM + Delta 100

If I could blow this up enough, I could count the hairs on the head of this guy.

1472535041_6e9c42615e_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
Just sold my Summicron because it was noticeably softer than my Noct 0.95 at f/2. I'm happy to report that my new Planar is sharper than the Cron and only a tiny bit behind the Noct at the f/2 aperture. This is some lens!
 
leicashot said:
Just sold my Summicron because it was noticeably softer than my Noct 0.95 at f/2. I'm happy to report that my new Planar is sharper than the Cron and only a tiny bit behind the Noct at the f/2 aperture. This is some lens!
Click to expand...

I'm thinking about getting this Lens....The oof is so Beautifully
full & Smooooth
The dead center Sharpness Striking
I have fallen for lots of shots I have seen w. yhis Lems couplrd w/Film

Look forward to You posting some shots with it Kristian....
Cheers-H
 
helenhill said:
I'm thinking about getting this Lens....The oof is so Beautifully
full & Smooooth
The dead center Sharpness Striking
I have fallen for lots of shots I have seen w. yhis Lems couplrd w/Film

Look forward to You posting some shots with it Kristian....
Cheers-H
Click to expand...

Oh Helen,
Just go ahead and get a planar. You will not regret it....🙂
 
helenhill said:
I'm thinking about getting this Lens....The oof is so Beautifully
full & Smooooth
The dead center Sharpness Striking
I have fallen for lots of shots I have seen w. yhis Lems couplrd w/Film

Look forward to You posting some shots with it Kristian....
Cheers-H
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm glad I bought it. I don't think you can go wrong with any Zeiss lens and I'm convinced that the Planar IS sharper (wide open) than the latest Cron, without being too clinical. It's images look very neutral and have gorgeous tonality. I wanted a closer focusing lens than my Noct, and I didn't want a fast lens I'll always shoot wide open just for the sake of it. Forcing myself into an f/2 lens will help ensure that.

The only thing anyone needs to be concerned about when buying a Zeiss lens is using the Biogon-C 35mm in low light. That is definitely NOT a low light lens as it vignettes VERY VERY badly wide open, much more so than the 35 Lux asph, Hex 35/2 and VC 35/1.2 I've compared it to. It is a daylight only lens and thrives in those situations, being super sharp wide open all over the frame. A real jewel, but only a one trick pony.
 
After a week of owning this lens, and shooting aprox 25 rolls with it i am convinced.

Negatives are definitely sharper with tri-x Xtol stock combo than the tri-x diafine combo.

Attaching some from yesterday's outing...

For $550 Cad, this lens was a good deal!
 
Sean Reid's testing of the ZM 35/2 and 35/2.8 indicate significant vignetting without correction for both lenses at wider apertures. With correction, vignetting is significantly reduced. No connection to Sean, but I think it's worth the small fee to get his take on the issue, and settings on the M9 to deal with it.
 
I loved the planar and never found it too sharp or clinical or 'plasticky' to use for portraits, as some have claimed. I only gave it up when I had to fund a 75 cron. In black and white, the planar yielded results that reminded of fine charcoal drawing. Black blacks with incredibly subtle and smooth transitions.

When I compared in an amateur way the two 35 Biogons, I noticed vignetting on both wide open. The 35/2 is also ever so slightly softer wide open, and has less color saturation. The 35/2.8 is sharp and saturated from the start. The noticeable vignetting on the C Biogon wide open was pleasing to me, but ya gotta know it's there or you may be in for an unpleasant surprise. I'd even say it's reason to call the C Biogon a two trick pony!

The C/Y mount 50/1.4 planar seems to my eye to produce a magic wide open that is missing from the ZM planar, and is the reason I cannot so far bring myself to sell off the Contax system even though I don't own a Canon DSLR and rarely shoot the SLR.
 
I had three 50 mm lenses for my M-cameras. A Leica Noctilux 50 mm 1,0 (the one with built in sun shade), a Voigtländer Color Scopar 50 mm 2,5 and a Carl Zeiss ZM 50 mm 2,0. The best was the ZM 50 mm 2,0. By far. It was the sharpest, most contrast rich, had the best color reproduction and the least distortion. The tragic thing is that I have sold the ZM 50 mm 2,0 and kept the two others.

The Voigtländer 50 mm 2,5 Color Scopar produces some strange and different colors with my M8. And it is right out unsharp and lacks contrast. But it is cheap and does a reasonable job for the price, many would say.

The Leica Noctilux 50 mm 1,0 is difficult (impossible!) to focus correctly. It neither particularly sharp (compared to the ZM 50 mm 2,0) nor contrast rich. It also draws an awful barrel distortion. Intended as a portrait lens (isn't it?), it is not supposed to be sharp, but produce a 'pleasant' transition between DOF and the out of focus areas. Which it does, somewhat. It is heavy like a WWI hand grenade and costs more than a M9. I regard it as a curiosity.

So, I don't have a workable 50 mm at present. But I don't need one. I have a M8 with which my old Leica 35 mm 2,0 Cron works as a 50 mm, since it has the same field of view as a 50 mm would have on a FF-camera. First I have to sort out 'what to do with my M8'. Trade it in for a M9 - or just sell it....
 
Double Negative said:
I'm actually a subscriber; I'll have to re-read the reviews of these in particular.

Honestly? I've never noticed vignetting with the 2/35. Then again, I've had it coded on both the M8 and M9 where I've shot it the most... But even on film, I don't recall any vignetting.
Click to expand...

I'm referring to 35mm Lenses On The M9. The section on vignetting is about mid-way through the entire article. The two ZMs are right after each other, so it's easy to compare. To my eye and monitor, the c-biogon has slightly more vignetting, but both lenses show a fair amount at wider apertures if uncorrected. I've owned both 35's and noticed the vignetting but it's not a problem for what and where I shoot, at least most of the time.
 
noimmunity said:
When I compared in an amateur way the two 35 Biogons, I noticed vignetting on both wide open. The 35/2 is also ever so slightly softer wide open, and has less color saturation. The 35/2.8 is sharp and saturated from the start. The noticeable vignetting on the C Biogon wide open was pleasing to me, but ya gotta know it's there or you may be in for an unpleasant surprise. I'd even say it's reason to call the C Biogon a two trick pony!
Click to expand...

+1 pretty much my experience too. an aside, the 35/2 wide open is quite nice for portraits, especially on an M8, but the c-biogon's bokeh is nicer to my eye.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

raid
Zeiss Planar 50mm 1.4
Replies
12
Views
2K
raid
raid
J
  • Article Article
The Rise, Fall, and Resurrection of the 110 Format By 2009, 110 was kaput. Lomography brought it back! Part 2: A selection of fascinating 110 cameras.
2 3
Replies
41
Views
3K
Timmyjoe
Timmyjoe
J
  • Article Article
The Inscrutable Pentacon Six: A User's Guide
2
Replies
38
Views
15K
P C Headland
P
TenEleven
  • Sticky
TenEleven's Zeiss Contax (I, II, IIa) Lens Compendium
2 3
Replies
54
Views
11K
davidswiss
D
J
  • Article Article
Nikkor Fest: 10 Classic Nikon Lenses with “Retro Rendition.”
2
Replies
37
Views
13K
splitimageview
splitimageview
Back
Top Bottom