`3D`pop in (50mm or less) ZM lenses

[Peter_S]

Hi!

Trying to decide which lenses to get for my soon-to-arrive Ikon. I want to limit it to two. I would be curious....which lens (50mm or less) of the ZM series did you find to produce the best or pleasant 3d-pop/-rendering. I know that this is very subjective, and some seem to see it more than others, so I expect a variety of opinions. Of course the guy behind the camera is another factor. But lets see what comes up. I do print, sometimes large, and do find that there the effect is more appreciable with some lenses than with others.

I have the Sonnar 50mm C as prime contender for a standard lens, but some photos from the 2/35mm Biogon struck me with their nice rendering. Different focal lengths, I know, but both would work to different extents for me as standard lens.

The other lens must be wide-angle - was set on the f2.8/21mm (coming from a G2), but the 25mm/f2.8 got my attention. Interesting focal length, seems to leave some room for OOF areas, and I may be able to leave external viewfinder behind at times. 28mm never worked that well for me.

Oh was life was easy with the G2. The lens choice for the Ikon is somewhat overwhelming for a newbie.

Best,
Peter

 

[f16sunshine]

I you had the G2 you are hardly a newbie 😉
Either Biogon at f2.8 to f5.6 have great 3D pop.
I started with the f2 version and settled on the c f2.8 for it's convenient size.
I shoot the lens open at f2.8 often. It's likely the best 3D lens less tan 50mm in the ZM line up.
The wider you go the less that effect is apparent.
The planar f2/50 is stellar but not in your sites I guess.

f4 with the Biogon c

 

[Peter_S]

Thanks for the replies!
I considered the Planar f/2, but I need at least one lens with great aperture for night shooting, so it has to be the Sonnar. Also I like its compactness and what seems to me different characters depending on aperture. Also the Planar on the G2 never really grew to me, not sure why. Hardly used it.

For wide angle I think I will go for the 25mm f/2.8 instead of 21mm after all. The possibilty to render background OOF and no distortion at the expense of just a bit less coverage than 21mm is an argument.



Cheers!
Peter

 

[mfogiel]

The C Sonnar is not a fast lens, in fact it is a f2.8 lens. It has the most notable 3D pop to me, but the Planar is also pretty good. The 25/28 is a great lens, which has the size as the only possible drawback. If I were starting out with an Ikon, I would probably go for the Planar + Biogon 25 combo first. Next lens would be the 35/2 Biogon, then the C Sonnar for portraiture and finally the C Biogon 21 for architecture and landscape.

the Planar POP

the C Sonnar POP

Biogon 25 POP

Biogon 35/2 POP

Biogon 21 OOOOPS

 

[filmfan]

The Zeiss "pop" that is being discussed always looked more like over-sharpened images to me.

 

[Kolame]

Nice thread on this topic:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/822469

 

[Peter_S]

The C Sonnar is not a fast lens, in fact it is a f2.8 lens

because of the focus shift below f/2.8? I got the impression that this can be worked around (and has been largely fixed after 2007) and is only really an issue when less than 3-or-so meters from your subject. Do not see myself using the lens often with less than f/2 or f/2.8, but I though having the option to do so is rather nice.
Thanks for the photo examples! I see and hear only good things from the Planar. Sonnar is a more mixed bag.

Nice thread on this topic:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/822469

Thanks!

 

[mfogiel]

On a scale of values between the Planar and the C Sonnar, the Planar is a BMW X5, the C Sonnar is a Wiesmann MF4

http://www.autoblog.it/post/25023/nuova-bmw-x5-immagini-e-dati-tecnici-del-restyling

http://www.wiesmann.com/de/modelle/roadster_mf4

 

[Peter_S]

I get the idea. Will get the Sonnar then.
Still have a G2 with Planar.

 

[leicashot]

The Planar replaced my Summicron, and it was a wise decision. There's nothing like value for money that beats the 'supposed' best.

 

[Roger Hicks]

The C Sonnar is not a fast lens, in fact it is a f2.8 lens.

It must be later than I thought, because I do not understand this statement.

Cheers,

R.

 

[leicashot]

It must be later than I thought, because I do not understand this statement.

Cheers,

R.

yeah what is with that statement?

 

[Roger Hicks]

The Planar replaced my Summicron, and it was a wise decision. There's nothing like value for money that beats the 'supposed' best.

'Supposed' by whom, and 'best' in what way? For that matter, 'value for money' to whom? A Noctilux is good value for money -- if you've got the money. Alas I haven't.

Like you, I don't see why the 50 Summicron is so worshipped. I sold mine years ago, though I had a new one on loan a couple of years ago, and a DR at around the same time (the DR was my favourite of all the ones I've tried). The Planar's fine, but I prefer the C-Sonnar. My wife prefers her (current) Summarit to my C-Sonnar. When it comes to '3-D', an awful lot depends on aperture, lighting, subject matter and film/sensor/iso. We both reckon we see it more in our favourite 50s than in other lenses -- but it ain't always the same 50.

Cheers,

R.

 

[user237428934]

Is 3D a matter of perspective or a matter of the lens?

Biogon 2/35

 

[leicashot]

'Supposed' by whom, and 'best' in what way? For that matter, 'value for money' to whom? A Noctilux is good value for money -- if you've got the money. Alas I haven't.

Like you, I don't see why the 50 Summicron is so worshipped. I sold mine years ago, though I had a new one on loan a couple of years ago, and a DR at around the same time (the DR was my favourite of all the ones I've tried). The Planar's fine, but I prefer the C-Sonnar. My wife prefers her (current) Summarit to my C-Sonnar. When it comes to '3-D', an awful lot depends on aperture, lighting, subject matter and film/sensor/iso. We both reckon we see it more in our favourite 50s than in other lenses -- but it ain't always the same 50.

Cheers,

R.

It is widely spoken that the Summicron is the leading standard 50mm lens opening at the f/2 aperture. Value for money is in reference to the way a lens performs in comparison to it's most direct counterparts in terms of performance per dollar....so not sure why you'd need to go into that.

3D pop that people speak about to me has to do with many factors, with the lens being only one of the factors. The lens factor to me relates to the lens's ability to render very sharply with high contrast. Then it's up to the person displaying the image as to how it's presented on-screen or on paper. I don't believe that Leica lenses have more POP than Nikon lenses, but they perform better at wider apertures, giving the 'impression' of 3D.

Leica fanboys use the term 3D more often than others, but I've never seen anything 3D in my images with any lens, cause it doesn't exist. Some lenses have more POP than others and thats it...or maybe I need my eyes checked.

BTW, my Sonnar is on its way to me right now and I anticipate it being my favourite 50, even over my Noct 0.95 which could never be replaced.

 

[Roger Hicks]

It is widely spoken that the Summicron is the leading standard 50mm lens opening at the f/2 aperture. Value for money is in reference to the way a lens performs in comparison to it's most direct counterparts in terms of performance per dollar....so not sure why you'd need to go into that.

3D pop that people speak about to me has to do with many factors, with the lens being only one of the factors. The lens factor to me relates to the lens's ability to render very sharply with high contrast. Then it's up to the person displaying the image as to how it's presented on-screen or on paper. I don't believe that Leica lenses have more POP than Nikon lenses, but they perform better at wider apertures, giving the 'impression' of 3D.

Leica fanboys use the term 3D more often than others, but I've never seen anything 3D in my images with any lens, cause it doesn't exist. Some lenses have more POP than others and thats it...or maybe I need my eyes checked.

BTW, my Sonnar is on its way to me right now and I anticipate it being my favourite 50, even over my Noct 0.95 which could never be replaced.

Again, 'leading' in what way? Sharpest and lowest-distortion at f/2, quite possibly. But as your views and mine show, that doesn't make it 'best' or 'leading' or anything else unless you state the criteria. And those criteria are worth nothing unless you accept them.

We interpret 'value for money' differently. A lens that doesn't come very close indeed to what I want must inevitably represent poor value for money, regardless of price. A lens that does exactly what I want is the best value for money, regardless of the price, as long as I can afford it.

As for 'Leica fanboys', read a bit more in old photographic books and you'll find that the term 'plastic' rendering (meaning 'three-dimensional') was a topic of lively conversation from maybe 1880 to maybe 1930. I've always assumed (though never verified) that the name of the Meyer Plasmat referred to that quality of roundness.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Luna]

Planar





21 C-Biogon



ZK Distagon 28 on the 5D2



ZK Distagon 28 on LX @ Iwo Jima

 

[filmfan]

I am glad nobody has taken my previous comment too seriously yet.
Anyways, nice shots everyone.

 

[leicashot]

Again, 'leading' in what way? Sharpest and lowest-distortion at f/2, quite possibly. But as your views and mine show, that doesn't make it 'best' or 'leading' or anything else unless you state the criteria. And those criteria are worth nothing unless you accept them.

We interpret 'value for money' differently. A lens that doesn't come very close indeed to what I want must inevitably represent poor value for money, regardless of price. A lens that does exactly what I want is the best value for money, regardless of the price, as long as I can afford it.

As for 'Leica fanboys', read a bit more in old photographic books and you'll find that the term 'plastic' rendering (meaning 'three-dimensional') was a topic of lively conversation from maybe 1880 to maybe 1930. I've always assumed (though never verified) that the name of the Meyer Plasmat referred to that quality of roundness.

Cheers,

R.

Respectably, I have no idea how to respond to this. :bang:

....wait yes I do. Firstly, I am making a generalization, so no need to be so analytical of my statement. I believe what I said was a general consensus among M users, and a true 'general blanket statement' in terms of a lens's overall performance compared to it's counterparts. Besides, I don't believe it's the sharpest with lowest distortion at f/2 like you're insinuating,

Secondly, I don't have the patience nor interest to read any photographic books that go into such over-technical analyzation of optics. That's where I draw the line. Show me a picture and I'll tell you if and why I like it. That's as far as my brain can go ;-)

 

[Biggles]

the C Sonnar POP

Oh. My.

That reminds me of the pictures I once got out of a studio Hasselblad with a 150mm f/4 Zeiss Sonnar on it. The clarity of the eyes and the rendering of the skin, chiefly. Pin-sharpness, without crunch.