Contax G 45mm F2 vs. Leica 50mm Summicron Rigid/DR Sharpness

Ditto as above. The actual focus throw is pretty short compared to a Leica M lens. Also, rather than a "focus tab" like some M lenses have there is a notched protrusion under the lens to aid with focusing. I think the function of this is to keep my ham-hands away from the focus ring, which buts up against the aperture ring. With no click-stops, it is easy to change aperture when focusing if you are not careful. In practice, it works pretty well. I kept the original G-Planar hood on mine and use a LF plastic Schnieder slip-on cap over the hood.

Ben
 
I'll risk the wrath and suggest consideration of the current Zeiss 50/2 Planar-ZM. Easier to obtain at an economical price than the converted 45/2, and already in M mount. And note that the Contax Planar-G is actually 47mm in focal length rather than the nominal 45mm.

While the Contax G1/G2 is a marvelous machine, its *different*, something new to learn how to get the best from. I have two G2's and enjoy them, but it took some getting used-to. Actually, the reason I first got one was for a lens... the great 21mm Biogon. :)
 
Doug said:
I'll risk the wrath and suggest consideration of the current Zeiss 50/2 Planar-ZM. Easier to obtain at an economical price than the converted 45/2, and already in M mount.............................
Click to expand...

No wrath from me, you have made an excellent suggestion. I still have the G mount 45mm and wish I had not sold the M mount 50mm Planar.
 
They are very different beasts.

A good clean DR (hard to find) has very high resolution in the center but noticeable fall off to the corners. The corners only get comparably sharp at f4 and up. Contrast is lower than for modern lenses, micro-contrast is lower; still center resolution is probably as high or better than anything modern.

The Contax 45 is similar to the modern 50/2 M-mount Planar. Similar to a modern Summicron if you like. Sharp and high contrast across the field even wide open.

Depends what you want.

Roland.
 
Just wondering. Has anyone here extensively shot both the G45 and the ZM50 Planars?

I'd love to know what differences, if any, you think there are between these lenses. The cross sections are not identical (see second optical group), but they are very similar. The other difference is that the ZM has a 10-blade aperture, while the G has 6 blades.

zeissplanars-L.png
 
Last edited:
The Zeiss 45mm G and the ZM Planar are VERY VERY similar in rendering, sharpness, and contrast. I've owned and used both quite a lot (both are now sold and I regret it). I highly doubt photos from each could be identified if shown in a blind test.

They are both excellent and if the OP has a M and not a G1/2 and wants a modern look, i'd get the Planar. If OP has a both a G and an M, it's a tough call but then the question
becomes modern vs "classic". The DR summicron renders beautifully just in a different way.
 
Totally subjective adder: When the 50 ZM Planar came out, I was very excited and hoped that it would essentially be a clone of the 45G, but in M-mount. For whatever reason, and although it was excellent (easily comparable to the 50 Summicron in sharpness and rendition), the 50 ZM Planar lacked a little of the 45 G's magic. Can I pinpoint why? No. Can I quantify this? No. Can I explain further? No. Do I think it is silly to pose questions and then answer them? Yes. The 50 ZM is easier to use in a lot of ways: full focus throw, nicely done 1/3 stop detents on the aperture ring, solid construction (at least my sample). We are in the realm of completely subjective, unsubstantiated, non-quantitative malarky. But there you have it.
 
I'll throw in my 2 cents, for what they're worth.

I have owned / used the Contax 45mm, DR 50/2, and the Zeiss 50/2 Planar.

Personal opinion:

The Contax 45/2 is a beautiful lens. Sharp, virtually no distorion, nice contrast. It definitely has a pleasing 'modern' signature.

The Summicron DR 50/2 exudes quality construction and finish every time I use it. However I have been disappointed when I've shot color with it -- namely for the reasons other astute RFF'ers have mentioned above: tendency to slightly flare, and lower contrast. I think this lens is fantastic at black and white, but only so-so for color applications.

Risking being called a heretic, I also put my vote behind the Zeiss 50/2 Planar. Every time I use it, I am extremely happy with the results. Beautiful out-of-focus areas, very sharp, nice contrast, easy to use -- everything a modern lens should be. I have gotten more 'wow' shots from this lens than other lenses I have owned or tried.
 
I have used Contax 45G, Leica Summicron 50 (current version) and Zeiss 50/2 ZM. My vote goes the Contax 45G. I have since sold the Leica and Zeiss, but I kept the Contax.

Cheers,
 
The DR, while delivering the longest gray scala on high speed films, may not the top choice for color film due to lower contrast. Between the 45/2 and 50/2 Planars I would be picking up the 50mm one, for the 45 has a rather disturbing bokeh at f2, not unlike that of the 50/1.7 C/Y Planar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom