peadarceiteach
Member
I'm not familiar with Zeiss lenses - am looking for a 50mm for my Leica MP. Can someone point me to a review(s) on each of these lenses? Share your experiences with them?
I'm referring to the newest versions of each. Many thanks.
I'm referring to the newest versions of each. Many thanks.
peter_n
Veteran
Put the two words sonnar & planar in the search entry field above and you get this:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33040&highlight=Sonnar+Planar
And there are probably more too...
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33040&highlight=Sonnar+Planar
And there are probably more too...
Huck Finn
Well-known
A couple of details you may want to consider, depending on your intended use:
The Planar has a minimum focus distance of 0.7 mm (27+ inches). The Sonnar has a minimum focus distance of 0.9 mm (35+ inches).
The Sonnar is a remarkably compact design for such a fast lens - probably the most compact lens of this speed on the market - 38 mm long X 56 mm in diameter. In fact, it is shorter than Planar, which is 43 mm long. The Sonnar is of course wider than the Planar to accomodate the larger front element & is therefore also a little heavier (250g vs 210g).
The Planar has a minimum focus distance of 0.7 mm (27+ inches). The Sonnar has a minimum focus distance of 0.9 mm (35+ inches).
The Sonnar is a remarkably compact design for such a fast lens - probably the most compact lens of this speed on the market - 38 mm long X 56 mm in diameter. In fact, it is shorter than Planar, which is 43 mm long. The Sonnar is of course wider than the Planar to accomodate the larger front element & is therefore also a little heavier (250g vs 210g).
mervynyan
Mervyn Yan
MP plus ZM50/2 is an excellent combo, I have used extensively for about a year. The new ZM is very sharp and rather high contrast on low speed films, e.g. Ilford Pan F.
If you have a budget in mind and f2 is sufficient, given that the MP slowest speed is 1 second, this is a keeper. I just ordered summilux 35, perhaps when my finance allowed, i will get the fastest possible.
If you have a budget in mind and f2 is sufficient, given that the MP slowest speed is 1 second, this is a keeper. I just ordered summilux 35, perhaps when my finance allowed, i will get the fastest possible.
peadarceiteach
Member
Thank you for the input. It really does help.
AusDLK
Famous Photographer
I have a silver Sonnar for my M3.
I love it.
I love it.
x-ray
Veteran
I just purchased a ZM planar and feel it's up there in performance with my asph summilux 50. Stunning lens an in my opinion better than the tabbed summicron 50 that i shot for many years. I now have the ZM 25, 35 and 50 planar and feel they are equal or better than the Leica equivalent.
back alley
IMAGES
those are the 3 zm lenses that i currently have.
the zm 50/1.5 is next on my zeiss list.
the zm 50/1.5 is next on my zeiss list.
sherm
Well-known
I spoke with Tom A. about 50's last week, and after he tested it the only lens that can touch the Sonnar ZM is the 50 LUX ASPH.
I currently own the Sonnar and love it, I just have LUX LUST
If you know what I mean.
Scott
I currently own the Sonnar and love it, I just have LUX LUST
If you know what I mean.Scott
sherm
Well-known
Sorry for the double post........
awilder
Alan Wilder
I've yet to see a side by side comparison of these lenses shooting identical subjects to point out performance differences. It would be nice to see for those contemplating a buy.
Huck Finn
Well-known
peadarceiteach said:
I do not have either of these lenses & have only seen internet scans of photos from each. So, I'm just going to throw out some thoughts in hopes that they may provoke reactions from those who do have these lenses.
The internet scans that I've seen from the Sonnar seem to show pretty much the same fingerprint as photos from the original Sonnar design. At a time when the 50 mm focal length was often used as a portrait lens, the Sonnar was valued for this use as much as any other. When shot wide open to blur the background, its area of sharpness was center emphasized. As opposed to some of today's lenses which can be described as "painfully sharp," the Sonnar's resolution was a little softer & in that respect was kind to people's faces in that it did not emphsize every zit & blemish. These seemed to be its virtues - a center emphasized area of high resolution, softened just enough to render pleasing portraits of people's faces. Stopped down, the Sonnar was considered as sharp as any lens of its time. In the context of this application as a people lens, the longer minimum focus distance would seem not to be a drawback. Its compact size & potential as a low light shooter only enhance its appeal.
The Planar, on the other hand, would seem to be more of an all around lens, useful for a wider variety of applications. Offering ultimate sharpness across the entire plane & a closer minimal focus distance, it can be considered for applications where the Sonnar would not be the first choice. Either of course can be used as a general purpose lens by anyone who has neither the funds nor the inclination to juggle two lenses of the same focal length. In that case, choose with an understanding of the lens characteristics & limitations of each.
Again, I offer my comments to provoke comment & would quicly yield to anyone with more knowledge of these two lenses.