HAnkg
Well-known
Mike Johnston has selected the Zeiss Planar 2.0 ZM as his new favorite 50: http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/
Mike has written more interesting reviews of more 50's then anyone I can think of. So I take this as high praise for the Planar ZM. Anyone care to post some shots? What's the bokeh like on this lens. Johnston goes for the old school glow so I'm curious.
Mike has written more interesting reviews of more 50's then anyone I can think of. So I take this as high praise for the Planar ZM. Anyone care to post some shots? What's the bokeh like on this lens. Johnston goes for the old school glow so I'm curious.
Nachkebia
Well-known
I have seen his writings and I read his blog but not pictures, he is a great photographer? where can I see his photos? pardon me for asking though 
Last edited:
HAnkg
Well-known
His talent as a photographer has very little to do with his talent as a writer. They are 2 very different activities. You can look through his blog where you will find examples of his work and form your own opinion about his photographic skills. He did not refer to the lens as the best or a winner in some contest just his personal favorite.
I might love or hate his photographs but I like very much his writings on the subject of lenses. On the subject of writing about lenses I'll quote Johnston "Lens connoisseurship has been a significant hobby of mine for more than ten years now. I call it a "hobby" because it really doesn't have very much to do with photography; what careful testing of lenses mainly shows is that the performance differences between good modern lenses are (for practical purposes) small, sometimes vanishingly small—in fact often requiring that selfsame careful testing even to distinguish!".
I value his opinion on lenses. I know some photographers who are very talented, more talented then Johnston or myself but they just aren't that obssesive about equipment (they are however obssesive about their images) or knowledgeable about the diferences between different M mount 50's for instance. So if I wanted to ask someone about the characteristics of the Zeiss versus the Leica I'd ask someone like Johnston.
I'm sure Tiger Woods discusses with the guys at Callaway (or whatever brand he is paid to use) about various driver technologies and the fine points of handling. I am sure the Callaway guys play golf but whether they are great golfers is immaterial.
I might love or hate his photographs but I like very much his writings on the subject of lenses. On the subject of writing about lenses I'll quote Johnston "Lens connoisseurship has been a significant hobby of mine for more than ten years now. I call it a "hobby" because it really doesn't have very much to do with photography; what careful testing of lenses mainly shows is that the performance differences between good modern lenses are (for practical purposes) small, sometimes vanishingly small—in fact often requiring that selfsame careful testing even to distinguish!".
I value his opinion on lenses. I know some photographers who are very talented, more talented then Johnston or myself but they just aren't that obssesive about equipment (they are however obssesive about their images) or knowledgeable about the diferences between different M mount 50's for instance. So if I wanted to ask someone about the characteristics of the Zeiss versus the Leica I'd ask someone like Johnston.
I'm sure Tiger Woods discusses with the guys at Callaway (or whatever brand he is paid to use) about various driver technologies and the fine points of handling. I am sure the Callaway guys play golf but whether they are great golfers is immaterial.
Last edited:
wintoid
Back to film
He wrote an article last year in B+W Photography magazine which was on the subject of being a sole parent bringing up his little boy, accompanied by photographs of his life with his son over some years. I have to say I found the combination of photographs and text very compelling. Perhaps he is more writer than photographer, but I at least will hold my hand up and say I enjoyed those photographs.
peter_n
Veteran
I also saw that article & the pictures and I was not particularly impressed with the pics. Is he a great photographer? No, but he's quite a good writer.Nachkebia said:
Turtle
Veteran
I agree, his comments were all about his personal liking for the balance of characteristics offered by the planar and not an attempt to declare it the best 50 if all time for all men. His view is subjective and he makes it very clear that this is so, along with the list of attributes he likes in a lens.
He is a good writer, but I found of his articles a touch less than compelling, when he once suggested staying away from Nikon lenses if you want to produce images with 'glow'. I dont own nikon lenses but would venture that this is a somewhat narrow interpretation of the capabilities of that brand. It was stated in that UK Black and white photography article as fact not a subjective opninion which I found a bit odd. Still, I do often like reading his articles. I own a 50 planar and it is a great lens...I have the gear, no excuses, no BS, so have to get on with it now....!
He is a good writer, but I found of his articles a touch less than compelling, when he once suggested staying away from Nikon lenses if you want to produce images with 'glow'. I dont own nikon lenses but would venture that this is a somewhat narrow interpretation of the capabilities of that brand. It was stated in that UK Black and white photography article as fact not a subjective opninion which I found a bit odd. Still, I do often like reading his articles. I own a 50 planar and it is a great lens...I have the gear, no excuses, no BS, so have to get on with it now....!
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
Mike is a good writer, but his link to the piece (not by him) about the Chudnovsky brothers, the Unicorn Tapestry archiving/restoration and digital photography is really something. Quite a treat. It is a reminder that the world out there is really interesting.
HAnkg
Well-known
You know the reaction to my original comment is typical of internet forums.
First the snide remark: Is he a great photographer? Well, I can count the greats on one hand and the last time I checked, none of them are contributers here. That doesn't stop anyone from offering his opinion.
Then "he has a lot of ads on his blog" Wow, the guy is trying to generate income from his writing and photography. Must be a shmuck, (either that or he doesn't have a fat bank account to support his hobby).
Don't like his writing? No, problem. His views are very subjective and are slanted to his personal prejudices about what makes a lens attractive. Don't agree that the 50 Planar is a stellar lens, no problem there either. But spare me the attitude - It's no wonder every thread turns into a pissing contest.
First the snide remark: Is he a great photographer? Well, I can count the greats on one hand and the last time I checked, none of them are contributers here. That doesn't stop anyone from offering his opinion.
Then "he has a lot of ads on his blog" Wow, the guy is trying to generate income from his writing and photography. Must be a shmuck, (either that or he doesn't have a fat bank account to support his hobby).
Don't like his writing? No, problem. His views are very subjective and are slanted to his personal prejudices about what makes a lens attractive. Don't agree that the 50 Planar is a stellar lens, no problem there either. But spare me the attitude - It's no wonder every thread turns into a pissing contest.
HAnkg
Well-known
Tom, it's got nothing to do with disagreeing with me. Read my post.
LazyHammock
Well-known
Hank,
I think this has got a little out of hand. Having seen many of Nachkebia's posts I'm sure his original post was an innocent question - English is not his first language and he is a very curious and passionate student of photography (Nach, I'm sorry if I am out of line speaking for you here).
I think most people like to see images to back up claims, most reviews do not include great images though.
As for finding more Planar images, I only have a couple in my gallery but one shows the nice out of focus areas the lens is capable of wide open.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=47013&ppuser=1572
Cheers,
Nick
I think this has got a little out of hand. Having seen many of Nachkebia's posts I'm sure his original post was an innocent question - English is not his first language and he is a very curious and passionate student of photography (Nach, I'm sorry if I am out of line speaking for you here).
I think most people like to see images to back up claims, most reviews do not include great images though.
As for finding more Planar images, I only have a couple in my gallery but one shows the nice out of focus areas the lens is capable of wide open.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=47013&ppuser=1572
Cheers,
Nick
back alley
IMAGES
might be time for a deep breath for all parties involved here.
back alley
IMAGES
breath in
breath out
breathe deep the gathering gloom
breath out
breathe deep the gathering gloom
Dan States
Established
If only to bring this baby back out of the ditch I'll say that I've had all the Summicrons from LTM to modern and I like my Planar better than any of them. It never flares, is sharp as hell and prints well at multiple contrast grades depending on how I'm feeling that day...typical of lenses with really great stray light control.
The Summicron is certainly outstanding, but has more flare and veiling glare overall and vignetting at F2 is a lot stronger (though not ugly at all). That and the fact that it's about 2.5 times the prices pushed me into the Zeiss camp on this one.
Best wishes
Dan
The Summicron is certainly outstanding, but has more flare and veiling glare overall and vignetting at F2 is a lot stronger (though not ugly at all). That and the fact that it's about 2.5 times the prices pushed me into the Zeiss camp on this one.
Best wishes
Dan
R
ray_g
Guest
Very interesting article. Mike is a very good writer - I enjoy his blog, but somehow, I liked the SMP columns more.
About lens reviews (in general) - I wonder how extensively a reviewer gets to use the equipment before formulating an "extensive" review? How many rolls do you think he shot before commenting on the lens' handling. In Mike's old reviews (on The 37th Frame), he generally reviewed lenses (his articles on "The Best" 35mm and "The Best" 50mm lens) that he had owned and used extensively over the years. Same with his article on 50mm Lenses and the Metaphysical Doubt.
This new review just does not strike me as being that "reliable" for lack of a better word - being temporarily loaned these lenses (Stephen?), admittedly shooting the least with the planar, and the fact that he shoots mostly with a DSLR nowadays. Still, entertaining reading.
By the way, Hank, congratulations.
About lens reviews (in general) - I wonder how extensively a reviewer gets to use the equipment before formulating an "extensive" review? How many rolls do you think he shot before commenting on the lens' handling. In Mike's old reviews (on The 37th Frame), he generally reviewed lenses (his articles on "The Best" 35mm and "The Best" 50mm lens) that he had owned and used extensively over the years. Same with his article on 50mm Lenses and the Metaphysical Doubt.
This new review just does not strike me as being that "reliable" for lack of a better word - being temporarily loaned these lenses (Stephen?), admittedly shooting the least with the planar, and the fact that he shoots mostly with a DSLR nowadays. Still, entertaining reading.
By the way, Hank, congratulations.
Last edited by a moderator:
S
Simon Larbalestier
Guest
I enjoy reading Mike's reviews and articles and i do not see the need to always have to have a correlation between being able to write well and taking good photographs.
For me the above comment comes across as sarcastic.
I too am considering a 50/2 planar at some point so Mike's personal observations have been bookmarked and filed away.
FWIW I admire Mike greatly for bringing up his son single-handed and be a photographer - i wish i had had that chance but that's getting way off topic.
Nachkebia said:
For me the above comment comes across as sarcastic.
I too am considering a 50/2 planar at some point so Mike's personal observations have been bookmarked and filed away.
FWIW I admire Mike greatly for bringing up his son single-handed and be a photographer - i wish i had had that chance but that's getting way off topic.
Nachkebia
Well-known
50/2 planar is as great as it get`s actually but point is in something else, when someone get`s excited about a blogger`s (I read his blog) comments that it is top notch lens without seeing any photo it is bit disappointing....
HAnkg
Well-known
When someone who's opinion I respect -because I have used many of the lens he has written about over the years and his opinions matched my experience and he has been able to articulate just what makes those lenses attractive to me -all of which gives him a certain amount of credibility with me - says lens X is his new favorite. That's enough to make me take a second look without the benefit of an in depth review accompanied by images.Nachkebia said:
If being a great photographer was a pre-requisite for having a credible opinion on a lens, well then no one here myself included could measure up to that standard.
Thanks for a straightforward answer to what I thought was a pretty straightforward question. Now I guess we will have to check whether or not you are a great photographer and ask you to illustrate everything you just said with photos before we decide whether your opinion is worth anything or not
A couple of the photo's here illustrate the Planar's fingerprint nicely:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/zeissikon50mm/
Sorry, I couldn't have a look Nachkebia's site it seems to be down right now.
Last edited:
bunkawen14
A Glimpse of the World
A few comments on Mike Johnston's work.
I don't know him personally, but would like to say that as someone who divides his energies between writing and photography, I respect his work highly in both areas.
It is easy to understand the sentiment expressed here that one would like to see some images to go along with the praise of the Zeiss lens.
It also must be said that you get what you pay for. Johnston's most natural counterpart is Sean Reid, who tests equipment rigorously and publishes the results on a subscription based site.
They're friends, by the way, and Sean is an admirer of Mike's work in print and with camera.
One must read Johnston's three blog items to fully appreciate the spirit of his comments about the Zeiss. He makes clear that this is a matter of personal taste. And he also makes clear his lack of patience with humorless web chat mavens and gear snobs of various descriptions, and he is not interested in debating anything with anyone, or indeed providing proof for what is simply the personal preference of a guy with, for what it's worth, a great deal more experience than most of us will ever log.
Johnston has also invited readers who use the Zeiss lens to post their images on his site, so it is not as if we've been left completely in the lurch.
Without intending this as an insult to anyone, I find it ironic that people question Johnston's photographic skills on this forum, which after all is a place where all of us emit opinions about things all the time, and where great photographic skills are not necessarily in great abundance.
The point is that you take this stuff for what it's worth, and in every instance what it's worth is every member's decision to make.
Finally, here is Johnston's latest post. In my opinion it makes perfect and perfectly delightful advice:
...Or, How to Be Cool in Nine Easy Lessons:
1. The fewer lenses you use, the cooler you are.**
2. Committing to one camera is very cool, even if you own two or three of them.
3. The longer you've been using the same film, the cooler you are.
4. The closer your camera is to "mint," the less cool you are.***
5. Using a camera that's as old or older than you are is very cool.
6. The shorter your longest lens is, the cooler you are.
7. The more often you carry your camera with you, or keep it within easy reach, the cooler.
8. Cool people do not use zooms. Really cool people use cameras that can't be fitted with zooms.
9. The more you will shoot for every frame you'll show, the cooler you are.
*Satire Alert.****
** Four is fairly cool. Three is definitely cool. Two is very, very cool. One, and you are a God, and I kowtow to you.
*** And a corollary: the more you care what brand of camera you shoot, and especially the more you let other people know what brand you shoot, the less you even have a clue what cool is.
**** I think. On the other hand, I think I kinda believe all these things, deep down.
I don't know him personally, but would like to say that as someone who divides his energies between writing and photography, I respect his work highly in both areas.
It is easy to understand the sentiment expressed here that one would like to see some images to go along with the praise of the Zeiss lens.
It also must be said that you get what you pay for. Johnston's most natural counterpart is Sean Reid, who tests equipment rigorously and publishes the results on a subscription based site.
They're friends, by the way, and Sean is an admirer of Mike's work in print and with camera.
One must read Johnston's three blog items to fully appreciate the spirit of his comments about the Zeiss. He makes clear that this is a matter of personal taste. And he also makes clear his lack of patience with humorless web chat mavens and gear snobs of various descriptions, and he is not interested in debating anything with anyone, or indeed providing proof for what is simply the personal preference of a guy with, for what it's worth, a great deal more experience than most of us will ever log.
Johnston has also invited readers who use the Zeiss lens to post their images on his site, so it is not as if we've been left completely in the lurch.
Without intending this as an insult to anyone, I find it ironic that people question Johnston's photographic skills on this forum, which after all is a place where all of us emit opinions about things all the time, and where great photographic skills are not necessarily in great abundance.
The point is that you take this stuff for what it's worth, and in every instance what it's worth is every member's decision to make.
Finally, here is Johnston's latest post. In my opinion it makes perfect and perfectly delightful advice:
...Or, How to Be Cool in Nine Easy Lessons:
1. The fewer lenses you use, the cooler you are.**
2. Committing to one camera is very cool, even if you own two or three of them.
3. The longer you've been using the same film, the cooler you are.
4. The closer your camera is to "mint," the less cool you are.***
5. Using a camera that's as old or older than you are is very cool.
6. The shorter your longest lens is, the cooler you are.
7. The more often you carry your camera with you, or keep it within easy reach, the cooler.
8. Cool people do not use zooms. Really cool people use cameras that can't be fitted with zooms.
9. The more you will shoot for every frame you'll show, the cooler you are.
*Satire Alert.****
** Four is fairly cool. Three is definitely cool. Two is very, very cool. One, and you are a God, and I kowtow to you.
*** And a corollary: the more you care what brand of camera you shoot, and especially the more you let other people know what brand you shoot, the less you even have a clue what cool is.
**** I think. On the other hand, I think I kinda believe all these things, deep down.
aizan
Veteran
i think mr. johnston's pretty cool as a photographer. he's a straight-shooter, no pun intended, and a great antidote to all the overbearing hacks out there.
bunkawen14
A Glimpse of the World
There was quite a lot to chew on in Mike Johnston's latest lens reporting, all of which is more interesting and more fruitful for discussion than his ability as a photographer.
How about this assertion, for example:
"Another aspect of all this is that digital de-emphasizes some of the importance of the optical characteristics of the camera lens. Bayer array sensors just don't resolve microdetail very well, and they don't seem to "interact" with the lens image like film does to create a unique "fingerprint." Of course, images are more malleable in digital—you can correct even compound distortion with DxO, for instance, and of course there is a huge range of corrections for "grain" and "sharpness" and so forth. And yet, digital just doesn't render highlights as well as film does, and the subtle and distinct ways lenses render highlights is one good reason to care about optics."
For those who have missed the writing that sparked this thread, it's worth a look:
http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/
How about this assertion, for example:
"Another aspect of all this is that digital de-emphasizes some of the importance of the optical characteristics of the camera lens. Bayer array sensors just don't resolve microdetail very well, and they don't seem to "interact" with the lens image like film does to create a unique "fingerprint." Of course, images are more malleable in digital—you can correct even compound distortion with DxO, for instance, and of course there is a huge range of corrections for "grain" and "sharpness" and so forth. And yet, digital just doesn't render highlights as well as film does, and the subtle and distinct ways lenses render highlights is one good reason to care about optics."
For those who have missed the writing that sparked this thread, it's worth a look:
http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/