Comparison between planars (ZF & ZM)

[thegf]

Good day,

I have been using my FM2n lately and have really enjoyed it. So much, in fact, that I have considered selling my M6 and use the FM2n for film and invest in a DSLR. One of the lenses I really enjoy using on my M6 is the Planar 50mm f/2. I have resolved (no pun intended) that if I can find an equivalent lens for the Nikon, I could probably justify getting rid of the Leica system.

So my question: how does the ZM Planar compare to the ZF.2 Planar? I realize there are the obvious differences: mount, physical size, f/1.4 vs f/2. Apart from this, how does sharpness and other lens characteristics compare?

I appreciate any comments that help me answer the question(s) stated above.

 

[KarlG]

Not sure about the Nikon 50/1.4 Planar, but in Canon-world, it's widely accepted that the Zeiss 50mm f/2.0 Makro-Planar has significantly superior image quality over the f/1.4 model.

 

[gavinlg]

The M mount planar is a way better lens. Sharp all over, and great characteristics. The planar f1.4 is more of a 'character' lens - fairly soft wide open, very boisterous bokeh, and LOTS of soft halation and abberation of all different kinds when opened up. Still a nice lens, but almost the complete opposite of the M planar.

 

[mfogiel]

I have both the ZM Planar and the Makro Planar 50/2 ZF. They are both so good, it is difficult to say which is better, however there are a couple of differences that are evident:
1 - the size - the MP is about 2 times heavier and bigger
2 - the performance close up is obviously better with the MP. and in my opinion the bokeh is also slightly nicer.
However, in real world use, unless you shoot from a tripod, the ZM Planar will deliver sharper photos most of the time, due to less camera shake.

ZF against ZM by mfogiel, on Flickr

MP

20124217 by mfogiel, on Flickr

Planar ZM

20100835 by mfogiel, on Flickr

 

[redisburning]

No way I would trade my ZM planar for the 50/1.4 planar. Would I have the latter? Absolutely. But I would rather have the 50/2 ZM planar than any other Zeiss 50 (excepting the 55/1.2 Jahre but that's another discussion).

 

[thegf]

No way I would trade my ZM planar for the 50/1.4 planar. Would I have the latter? Absolutely. But I would rather have the 50/2 ZM planar than any other Zeiss 50 (excepting the 55/1.2 Jahre but that's another discussion).

any particular reasons why?

 

[redisburning]

I prefer it's rendering in the f2-f5.6 range at 1-3 meters to the other Zeiss 50s.

Just preference. All are easily sharp enough. The ZM is a lot smaller than the the others though, even the excellent 50/1.7 contax planar.