Is this really a worthwhile Leica lens upgrade?

Phil_F_NM said:
All my Leica naysaying aside, I still want some US Navy photographer to throw my Leica M4 (with DR Summicron attached, and a roll of XX 5222 loaded and advanced to frame 1) in the Pacific Ocean just after I'm buried at sea. I took that camera to Iraq and it's coming with on my eternal mission as well, if I have any say in it. I do love the DR Summicron, I just grab the Pentax MX more often.
Phil
Click to expand...


I notice several forum members are now taking up deep sea diving as a secondary hobby.




...........................
 
I'll probably get beat up for saying this but look into the 50 Summicron before buying one. It's a very fine lens, no doubt, but it really depends on what you want to use it for. It suffers badly from flare and has fairly low contrast compared to the Planar you have, and wide open it has quite a lot of fall-off toward the corners. On digital of course, you can correct all but the flare in lightroom.
 
It really boils down to personal preference of how each render even between systems. Some may like how colours are more vibrant and pop more for the planar whilst others like myself prefer the cron for the tonal contrast in BW. Others may disagree. I'd suggest is to get both and compare yourself regards to shooting preference.

Both are fantastic and there's no FOMO on either.
 
ecowarrior said:
Amongst other things I have a Nikon ZF, and a Leica M240. Between those two cameras, I have, or have access to, all the lens focal lengths I could possibly need.

So any lens purchases now are really going to be upgrades, replacements or duplicates (of focal length).

For my Leica I have (in addition to a CV35) a Zeiss Planar 50 F2. I like it.

I COULD trade it in, spend a fairly reasonable amount of money, and buy a used 50 Summicron in excellent condition. I don't own (and never have) any Leica lenses to date.

But should I?
Click to expand...

I shoot only film so keep that in mind when I say ...

It depends on what you're after. The early 'Crons have a very different look than either the later 'Crons or Voiglander Color Skopars (both of which I have/do own and use).

The earlier Leica lenses have a characteristic low contrast look, albeit they are still tack sharp. Some people like that look, I do not.

A modern 'Cron like my V3 is tack sharp and contrasty, but I honestly don't see an immense difference between it and my LTM 50mm Color Skopar. Again, I am shooting monochrome film only, where the difference is likely to be less obvious. If you are shooting color and pixel peeping, there is likely more distinction.

If you want to truly upgrade, get one of Leica's APO lenses - just sell your car to pay for it ;)
 
Last edited:
Richard G said:
PS The Crazy about the 50 Planar thread:

Crazy about the Planar 50mm - pics thread

Drink & Be Merry...
www.rangefinderforum.com www.rangefinderforum.com
Click to expand...

Yeah I found that thread earlier today and there's some lovely images there.

I am starting to side with staying with the Planar. It's a fine lens, no doubt about it. I will probably sleep on this for a while but it's the usual head-v-heart thing. My head usually wins in these situations (sadly!!).
 
Phil_F_NM said:
All my Leica naysaying aside, I still want some US Navy photographer to throw my Leica M4 (with DR Summicron attached, and a roll of XX 5222 loaded and advanced to frame 1) in the Pacific Ocean just after I'm buried at sea. I took that camera to Iraq and it's coming with on my eternal mission as well, if I have any say in it. I do love the DR Summicron, I just grab the Pentax MX more often.
Phil
Click to expand...

While hoisting Bravo Zulu flags on board.
 
Get the ‘Cron, try it out. It’s the only way to determine if YOU like it. 🙂

When I try out a new bottle of wine, I investigate other’s opinions but the only way to really decide if I like it or not is to give it a try.
 
Last edited:
Phil_F_NM said:
Another point is that you're looking at a difference in nuance, within the last bleeding edge 1% of lens performance.
Back when I was in undergrad, I was in a particularly vulnerable state as were all of us photojournalism students. I think it was just before I graduated that I got a "new" (unused) Helios 103 directly from Ukraine, I took it apart, cleaned it, recentered all the elements, adjusted for focus, and lubed it up.
Then I put it on a Leica M9.
I did a shot-for-shot test of both real world and exciting brick walls between the Helios and a friend's V5 Summicron.
The ONLY photos which could be differentiated as the Helios were those shot wide open, as the bokeh was just not as smooth. From f/2.8 to 11 the images were virtually identical, and a few folks liked the way the Helios rendered more than the Summicron.
I'll try to find those images and see if I can start a new thread (maybe there's an old thread with these images too) but the fact that a ~$12 lens was 95% good enough really irked some folks here and especially over in the LUG.
Phil
Click to expand...
I remember those photos, and especially the fuss at the LuG. Good times!

To the op I’d say keep the Planar. On digital the difference is a tweak of the colour and sharpness sliders and you’ll hardly know the difference. On slide film there would be more difference, but E6 is almost an alternative process these days.

Edit: the ZM Planar is definitely, absolutely better than the v3 Summicron.
 
Last edited:
But if you want the Leica fires stoked, watch this :LOL:



Having said that, there are many, many reviews online which suggest that your Planar is about as good as the Summicron v5, and any visible differences come from rendering rather than sharpness.

The difference in price between Leica and Cosina-made Zeiss comes from a lot of things, including brand name, build quality, tolerances, marketing costs, place of manufacture, employee salaries etc.

This thread and another on LUF is tempting me to do a shootout between the Summicron v5, Panasonic 50mm f1.8 and Pentax M SMC 50mm f1.4. to be honest, I'm a little scared about the possible results. 😅
 
Last edited:
Archiver said:
But if you want the Leica fires stoked, watch this :LOL:



Having said that, there are many, many reviews online which suggest that your Planar is about as good as the Summicron v5, and any visible differences come from rendering rather than sharpness.

The difference in price between Leica and Cosina-made Zeiss comes from a lot of things, including brand name, build quality, tolerances, marketing costs, place of manufacture, employee salaries etc.

This thread and another on LUF is tempting me to do a shootout between the Summicron v5, Panasonic 50mm f1.8 and Pentax M SMC 50mm f1.4. to be honest, I'm a little scared about the possible results. 😅
Click to expand...


My SMC Pentax-FA 50mm F1.4 for a full frame fast normal that is a nice 75 equivalent on my APS-C K-3 is right up there with any of the fast 50's I've owned from Leica, Canon, Zeiss, Nikon, etc. over the years.

My daily driver "fast enough" lens is the even more petite SMC Pentax-FA 35mm F2 AL that gives exquisite results.

From the other day... IMGP0460.jpg
 
I had all common versions of Cron 50 optics and Planar ZM 50/2.

Depending on version of Cron, colors might be really pleasing on digital M.
But red is overblown on those later ones.

All I have tested on digital were with focus shift. Planar has none. Its color were different from Leica, but nothing wrong.

The reason I have sold all Crons 50, one after another one I have tried - they are overpriced, but not worth it.

The reason I sold Planar - jut like all ZM they have too many clicks for aperture and focusing with pimple is not as smooth as my other 50 mm lenses.

If you want great ergonomics, not a ZM substitute, but Leica colors without Crons quirks, get Summarit-M 50 2.5.
 
Thank you all very much for your responses. T'is a very good forum, this!

My current thinking is to keep the Planar for the moment and give it some love this year and see how I go. Up until now I've not been disappointed in it, I just kinda wondered about the Leica experience. Maybe one day I will splash out and get one, and maybe I'll keep the Planar too.
 
I have the Summicron 50/2, a Color-Skopar f/2.5, an Elmar f/3.5, and a Heliar Classic f/1.5 VM. Never used the Planar but it has a great reputation.

All of my lenses work nicely on both film and digital bodies ... I am not one to go measuring focus shift or fussing over nuances of color/evenness of illumination, etc. All of that is part of the lens' character and I'd rather use those "flaws" to add something to my photographs instead of complaining about them.

If I were looking for another 50 in order to see something different from the Planar (or Summicron), I'd recommend the Heliar Classic 50/1.5 VM. It has the most interesting and different rendering qualities of my four lenses, and reminds me a lot of my 1972 Summilux 35/1.4: a trifle soft and glowy wide-open, razor sharp and clean by f/5.6, which means you can dial in whatever you like by turning the aperture ring.


Double Row Of Pickets - Santa Clara 2024
Leica M10 Monochrom + Heliar Classic 50mm f/1.5 VM, Green filter
ISO 160 @ f/1.5 @ 1/2000​

It's a lovely lens and a great complement to Summicron, and I bet Planar too. At a reasonable price too.

G
 
Last edited:
I can tell you one thing: In my opinion the final image is not everything. Leica lenses usually render beautifully wide open but Zeiss lenses have the better coating and maybe colors, that „pop“ a bit more. BUT it is not all about the final image. There is also tactile feeling and build quality. I have not handled the most recent Leica lenses but their M lenses from the 90s and 2000s are way better build than their Zeiss counterparts.

If I were you, I‘d keep the Planar since it is a exceptionally good lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom