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:
