Avotius
Some guy
First the good stuff.
This lens is sharper then sharp, its painfully sharp, that can be a good or a bad thing depending on what you are doing.
Also this lens is killer for color work, the way it renders is simply fantastic. Comparing shots from the Planar to my 50mm Distagon on the Hasselblad you can really see the classic Zeiss quality in the Planar.
An old shot but still a personal favorite. Everything is so eclectic here.
The Planar is a very high contrast lens, that said when it blows highlights they dont look blown such as in the way a modern canon lens blows highlights. What I mean is a Canon lens will make the highlight solid white, the Zeiss makes it white but more grayish, as if you feel there is something that could still be pulled out. Very nice if you ask me.
The Planar is very resistant to flare. On the 3-4 times the lens has flared only one made the image undesirable looking, but in none of the instances do you get those solid glass reflections, its more like a calm cast of light or a shadow and highlight stepping out of place a bit. Nothing to worry about for sure!
The Planar shows its resistance to flare in this shot, light levels are everywhere in this one.
I know someone will flame me for this, but the Planar has a nice 3D rendering quality when I shoot color. It is very good at creating the illusion of depth in a color image that gives it a nice inviting look.
Now the bad stuff.
My Planar came new with a little dust in it, nothing to get bent out of shape about but I noticed as I used it, more dust collected in the lens. Thats not fun!
Ergonomics on the Planar have been sort of odd for me. I like the quality feel of the aperture ring but find the focus ring cramps my fingers sometimes. Also if you are shooting vertical I find a tabbed lens to be much easier to use. Overall I wish the Planar had a tab, a real tab not a nub, something that you could lock your finger into like the Leica 35mm Summicron ASPH type.
Black and white rendering of the Planar, for me, has not been great. My typical film, XP2 has given me really great results before. With the Planar it has been really iffy. Black and white shots lack the 3D quality of the color shots. They also seem to lack the Zeiss character when compared to my Hasselblad lenses (silver chrome 50 distagon and 150 sonnar) Maybe its the high contrast thing, but the black and white rendering for me has been rather lifeless. Trying different combinations such as shooting XP2 at 320 or even 250 have not improved things at all.
Students at a cooking school learning to handle a wok. XP2 at 320.
I tried shooting some HP5 and some Delta 100, still no improvement. I usually get excellent results with said films with my other lenses. So either the Planar doesn't render black and white images with the character I like or it doesn't respond well to my way of shooting. Its hard to put my finger on it really, but the images lack sparkle and glow to them. Even printing in the darkroom has not shown better results.
This guy wasnt too happy that I took his picture, but no one really says much or anything here. XP2.
A lot has been said on this front but I will say something anyway. The Zeiss 50 is a medium sized lens. Compared to my other RF lenses is the biggest but not too much to deal with. What really adds to the lens's bulk is that damn hood. I am not a fan of the hood at all. It effectively makes the end of the lens larger around then a preasph Summilux and yes behind the hood its not that big and of course someone will say take the hood off, but then the lens cap falls off with a minor touch. Changing the cap helps, but there is another problem, ever try to get a one in a thousand shot while fulmbing to get a hood on the lens? Yes you can shoot without the hood but then new problems with that.
Conclusion:
If I had to do it again would I?
The lens is a master of color, no doubt. It lacks feeling with black and white for me, just doesnt fit my shooting much. My Voigtlander 35 PII renders a nicer black and white image than this thing sadly. A lens on my camera has to handle black and white and color equally as well. On that front I have given serious consideration to selling off my Planar and considering the new 50 Summarit or preasph Summilux. Other Minor notes, lens hood, not brilliant, lens cap, horrible, flare, good, resolution, very very good. A combination of Planar shot wide open with fuji superia 200 printed to 24 inches gave results almost equal to a similar print made with a Canon 5D and 50mm lens. Grain is not as tight but overall quality of the image is nicer (highly subjective but a consensus of trained photographers and printers as well). Sharpness is off the scale, its shocking to see what this will render and you frequently think to yourself "was that there before?" because it brings out details that are hidden at the first glance.
So to answer the above question, would I do it again? No, I'm afraid not. Will I sell it now? I dont know, it really depends on how I shape my future digital kit. If I go the Canon route to evil then yes I will sell it. If I go the digital rangefinder route then I may still to help fund a 28mm lens as I already have an old Leitz 50 Elmar that I find to be a great lens and would be able to fill in on those very rare times I shoot past 50mm.
Only time will tell.
Little girl out for a morning stretch. HP5.
This lens is sharper then sharp, its painfully sharp, that can be a good or a bad thing depending on what you are doing.
Also this lens is killer for color work, the way it renders is simply fantastic. Comparing shots from the Planar to my 50mm Distagon on the Hasselblad you can really see the classic Zeiss quality in the Planar.
An old shot but still a personal favorite. Everything is so eclectic here.
The Planar is a very high contrast lens, that said when it blows highlights they dont look blown such as in the way a modern canon lens blows highlights. What I mean is a Canon lens will make the highlight solid white, the Zeiss makes it white but more grayish, as if you feel there is something that could still be pulled out. Very nice if you ask me.
The Planar is very resistant to flare. On the 3-4 times the lens has flared only one made the image undesirable looking, but in none of the instances do you get those solid glass reflections, its more like a calm cast of light or a shadow and highlight stepping out of place a bit. Nothing to worry about for sure!
The Planar shows its resistance to flare in this shot, light levels are everywhere in this one.
I know someone will flame me for this, but the Planar has a nice 3D rendering quality when I shoot color. It is very good at creating the illusion of depth in a color image that gives it a nice inviting look.
Now the bad stuff.
My Planar came new with a little dust in it, nothing to get bent out of shape about but I noticed as I used it, more dust collected in the lens. Thats not fun!
Ergonomics on the Planar have been sort of odd for me. I like the quality feel of the aperture ring but find the focus ring cramps my fingers sometimes. Also if you are shooting vertical I find a tabbed lens to be much easier to use. Overall I wish the Planar had a tab, a real tab not a nub, something that you could lock your finger into like the Leica 35mm Summicron ASPH type.
Black and white rendering of the Planar, for me, has not been great. My typical film, XP2 has given me really great results before. With the Planar it has been really iffy. Black and white shots lack the 3D quality of the color shots. They also seem to lack the Zeiss character when compared to my Hasselblad lenses (silver chrome 50 distagon and 150 sonnar) Maybe its the high contrast thing, but the black and white rendering for me has been rather lifeless. Trying different combinations such as shooting XP2 at 320 or even 250 have not improved things at all.
Students at a cooking school learning to handle a wok. XP2 at 320.
I tried shooting some HP5 and some Delta 100, still no improvement. I usually get excellent results with said films with my other lenses. So either the Planar doesn't render black and white images with the character I like or it doesn't respond well to my way of shooting. Its hard to put my finger on it really, but the images lack sparkle and glow to them. Even printing in the darkroom has not shown better results.
This guy wasnt too happy that I took his picture, but no one really says much or anything here. XP2.
A lot has been said on this front but I will say something anyway. The Zeiss 50 is a medium sized lens. Compared to my other RF lenses is the biggest but not too much to deal with. What really adds to the lens's bulk is that damn hood. I am not a fan of the hood at all. It effectively makes the end of the lens larger around then a preasph Summilux and yes behind the hood its not that big and of course someone will say take the hood off, but then the lens cap falls off with a minor touch. Changing the cap helps, but there is another problem, ever try to get a one in a thousand shot while fulmbing to get a hood on the lens? Yes you can shoot without the hood but then new problems with that.
Conclusion:
If I had to do it again would I?
The lens is a master of color, no doubt. It lacks feeling with black and white for me, just doesnt fit my shooting much. My Voigtlander 35 PII renders a nicer black and white image than this thing sadly. A lens on my camera has to handle black and white and color equally as well. On that front I have given serious consideration to selling off my Planar and considering the new 50 Summarit or preasph Summilux. Other Minor notes, lens hood, not brilliant, lens cap, horrible, flare, good, resolution, very very good. A combination of Planar shot wide open with fuji superia 200 printed to 24 inches gave results almost equal to a similar print made with a Canon 5D and 50mm lens. Grain is not as tight but overall quality of the image is nicer (highly subjective but a consensus of trained photographers and printers as well). Sharpness is off the scale, its shocking to see what this will render and you frequently think to yourself "was that there before?" because it brings out details that are hidden at the first glance.
So to answer the above question, would I do it again? No, I'm afraid not. Will I sell it now? I dont know, it really depends on how I shape my future digital kit. If I go the Canon route to evil then yes I will sell it. If I go the digital rangefinder route then I may still to help fund a 28mm lens as I already have an old Leitz 50 Elmar that I find to be a great lens and would be able to fill in on those very rare times I shoot past 50mm.
Only time will tell.
Little girl out for a morning stretch. HP5.
Attachments
Last edited:
Sofa King
Established
First of all, thanks for the review. I appreciate the subjective approach you took rather than shooting at brick walls and talking about MTF charts (what the f___k is MTF anyway?).
I've been using a 35mm Biogon on my M6 for a while now and have achieved pretty good results on Tri-X. Have you tried Tri-X with this lens? Have you used a 35 Biogon and, if so, how would you compare it's b&w signature with the Planar?
I'm currently looking for a 50mm lens and am trying to decide between a new Planar, used Hexanon, and used Summicron. I shoot mostly b&w and would not be able to live with a lens that doesn't yield good results on b&w film.
I've been using a 35mm Biogon on my M6 for a while now and have achieved pretty good results on Tri-X. Have you tried Tri-X with this lens? Have you used a 35 Biogon and, if so, how would you compare it's b&w signature with the Planar?
I'm currently looking for a 50mm lens and am trying to decide between a new Planar, used Hexanon, and used Summicron. I shoot mostly b&w and would not be able to live with a lens that doesn't yield good results on b&w film.
Avotius
Some guy
Sofa King said:
I have used a biogon and found the results to be kind of so so. Maybe its the modern Zeiss lenses that doesn't like my black and white routine. After using the biogon for a while I found that it wasnt so much better then my CV 35 PII to warrant a trade up. I have not tried Tri-x with this lens, mostly because you cannot find it on this side of China very well and also because I try to keep myself to a select few films so I can get to know their qualities better.
I am sure though that the reason the Planar and I dont get along in black and white is that im looking for something a little more punchy with my black and whites, such as the results my old Yashica GSN gives me with HP5:
ps. thanks, I dont like looking at brick walls either, for me a lens is only as good as it works in the real world.
Sofa King
Established
Hmm... food for thought. Thanks.
NickTrop
Veteran
I'm sure the Planar is a very fine lens. Obviously it is (though it might be too sharp for my taste. There is such a thing, at least to me). But you know what? These pics are just outstanding - every one of them. And if has nothing to do with the lens, but by how they're composed. If you were behind any 1/2 way decent camera shooting any competent lens, these pictures would be just as evocative.
jan normandale
Film is the other way
Nick is just saying this because you posted a shot w a GSN.. ;- )
Try an old PoS.. FSU Industar for pop, contrast, and sharpness. They don't cost much either. However if you decide on digital that's another topic.
Try an old PoS.. FSU Industar for pop, contrast, and sharpness. They don't cost much either. However if you decide on digital that's another topic.
aizan
Veteran
it looks like you generally tend toward overexposure. that's probably what's going wrong. the hilights make them look like digicam pics. ::shrug::
Avotius
Some guy
aizan said:
Expose for shadows, develop for highlights. That is the old rule of thumb. And no generally I shoot at box speed. Works great in other cases.
mfogiel
Veteran
Avotius,
I don't know exactly what is it that you want from your black and white images, but I am certainly not unhappy with the Zeiss performance in B&W. The Planar is actually the lens which gives me a lot of "punch" - if I need a more delicate effect, I use the C Sonnar. In other focal lengths, I only use 3 lenses not from Zeiss: Elmarit 90. Elmarit 28 ASPH and Nokton 35/1.2 - the negatives from all of these lack the typical Zeiss microcontrast, The Elmarit 90 is flary, and the other two certainly do not excite me terribly, but have their specific use. As to the 3d effect, I find generally that it is easier to see on colour chromogenic film than in B&W, but I beleve it is a general fact and not limited to the Planar.
I enclose some links to Planar shots, so that you can consider how it works for me:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/2052176930/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/2214578213/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/2040606877/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/2040605537/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1367938312/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1472535041/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1893940244/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1988723255/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1096255141/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/2228753903/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1922839987/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/2050468061/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1777480380/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/2223505668/sizes/l/
www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/2223615908/sizes/l/
some of them are shot on XP2 too.
I don't know exactly what is it that you want from your black and white images, but I am certainly not unhappy with the Zeiss performance in B&W. The Planar is actually the lens which gives me a lot of "punch" - if I need a more delicate effect, I use the C Sonnar. In other focal lengths, I only use 3 lenses not from Zeiss: Elmarit 90. Elmarit 28 ASPH and Nokton 35/1.2 - the negatives from all of these lack the typical Zeiss microcontrast, The Elmarit 90 is flary, and the other two certainly do not excite me terribly, but have their specific use. As to the 3d effect, I find generally that it is easier to see on colour chromogenic film than in B&W, but I beleve it is a general fact and not limited to the Planar.
I enclose some links to Planar shots, so that you can consider how it works for me:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/2052176930/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/2214578213/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/2040606877/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/2040605537/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1367938312/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1472535041/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1893940244/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1988723255/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1096255141/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/2228753903/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1922839987/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/2050468061/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1777480380/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/2223505668/sizes/l/
www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/2223615908/sizes/l/
some of them are shot on XP2 too.
Avotius
Some guy
mfogiel brings up some nice points. I think it is harder to get that 3D quality in black and white, and though quite a few of your images seem to be "cleaner" looking then mine with clarity of tones it makes me wonder why its harder to get depth from bw photos. That said its not impossible, but I think I need to either try more stuff or stick with what I know.
Turtle
Veteran
I think depth is easier with colour, but being good in the darkroom is where it really happens - go see Salgado prints to see what a great printer can do with a grainy image (shot on Leica or other glass...)
I dont have any probs with my Zeiss lenses from that point of view. Heck, a shot off a Hoga can glow beautifully with bags of depth if you can print well. I have good and bad phases with my printing like most of us.
I dont have any probs with my Zeiss lenses from that point of view. Heck, a shot off a Hoga can glow beautifully with bags of depth if you can print well. I have good and bad phases with my printing like most of us.
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
Wow. Absolutely great stuff. These are fabulous shots, mfogiel. What a great way to start the day as a weekend visitor in NYC. I am inspired!mfogiel said:
Ben Marks
Rhoyle
Well-known
Judging from what I'm seeing on my computer monitor, the bw shots look excellent to me. The hard copy prints may be different. We'll never know. I'm quite impressed by what I'm seeing here though.
BH
BH
Avotius
Some guy
Rhoyle said:
naturally I have a corrected what not monitor (LCD) and yeah, the black and whites look ok for simple shots but they really lack that great quality the colors have. Strangely I tried taking color shots that had great 3d quailty then convert them to black and white, that didnt work well either, straaaaaange.
Avotius
Some guy
jan normandale
Film is the other way
Colin, some random thoughts.
I find that Ilford's BW's tend towards softness and not the biting sharpness you want. Also developing BW is a big part of the entire event. Do it incorrectly and you lose definition that is required to bring out that dimensionality you want. Finally BW shines best for that effect when printed on glossy paper.
Someone else suggested Tri X.. if you haven't do. Also check Fuji Acros 100
When developing check for longer development times this brings out some additional character. Experiment w HC110's dilution H. You might find this helps.
Zeiss glass, I love it. Still it does something to images it gives them a softness with contrast. If you want that 'jump off the page' BW image try a sharper lens like the Konica Hexanon lenses which deliver images that I believe are sharper. The sharpness is of course an ongoing debate however I feel this style of glass does improve the dimensionality of the images. My reading here at RFF and elsewhere suggests the 40mm and others are good performers
Of course as usual all the caveats of user experience and doing your research apply! Still I think an Industar 61n / 55mm is worth a trial because they go for cheap and do perform well. If you don't like it you can unload them easily or you can keep it for those times you don't want to risk a high priced lens on an outing.
I find that Ilford's BW's tend towards softness and not the biting sharpness you want. Also developing BW is a big part of the entire event. Do it incorrectly and you lose definition that is required to bring out that dimensionality you want. Finally BW shines best for that effect when printed on glossy paper.
Someone else suggested Tri X.. if you haven't do. Also check Fuji Acros 100
When developing check for longer development times this brings out some additional character. Experiment w HC110's dilution H. You might find this helps.
Zeiss glass, I love it. Still it does something to images it gives them a softness with contrast. If you want that 'jump off the page' BW image try a sharper lens like the Konica Hexanon lenses which deliver images that I believe are sharper. The sharpness is of course an ongoing debate however I feel this style of glass does improve the dimensionality of the images. My reading here at RFF and elsewhere suggests the 40mm and others are good performers
Of course as usual all the caveats of user experience and doing your research apply! Still I think an Industar 61n / 55mm is worth a trial because they go for cheap and do perform well. If you don't like it you can unload them easily or you can keep it for those times you don't want to risk a high priced lens on an outing.
aizan
Veteran
it may be overdevelopment...try reducing in 30s increments. if you aren't using a yellow filter, that might be another thing to try. the scanner might also be having difficulty pulling out all the hilights.
Last edited:
Avotius
Some guy
jan normandale said:
Its not so much the sharpness im after, its more the character. I think in black and white this lens and I are still having a mixed relationship but im going to go try a couple other ideas out. Fuji Acros....I have never in 4 and a half years seen it here, kind of sucks, tri-x was here but not anymore.
Avotius
Some guy
aizan said:
I was thinking about trying a filter, a simply yellow I think would do it, this lens doesnt need a red thats for sure. The scanner im sure isnt the weakest link, it might be one of the strongest, I have my negatives professionally scanned at a lab and in 4 and a half years have never had an issue like this.
Pablito
coco frío
I agree with aizan that it looks a lot like overdevelopment / blocked highlights.