petercs
Member
Hi,
I had bought the ZI recently, in order to have a light, reliable camera mainly for trekking, mountaineering and landscape. Replacing my DSLR for longer treks in the outbacks. Long battery live and being able to shoot contra light was very important. So before taking the camera to Norway I took some shots to check everything and train rangefinding and setting exposure. Since the camera is a serious investment for me (having a complete DSLR equipment already) I was extremly intererested to learn how the quality of the first roll was (Fuji Provia 100F used).
To cut it short: I am impressed.
Camera:
easy to handle (no learning curve), good range finding, solid automatic exposure. Sharpness and exposure of 95% of the shots are spot on. Camera is as simple as it should be. I lack a self-timer, though.
Planar/50, Biogon/28:
The camera more or less is a film holder only, so for me lenses are more important. I found superb sharpness, color rendition, and, what I like most: very little flare. You can shoot into the sun, nice for climbing and mountaineering shots. Simply the best glass I ever had. Very easy to handle, relatively lightwight (compared to ZF at least). I have Zeiss ZF lenses for my Nikon D2Xs as well, but I think I like the ZM ones even more. Being able to focus a bit nearer would be fine, though. I have read that the Biogon/25 is rated higher than the /28. But for me the latter already is great. Plus it is covered by the internal finder.
Looking forward to show you some scans from Norway, in autumn.
Best Regards, Peter.
I had bought the ZI recently, in order to have a light, reliable camera mainly for trekking, mountaineering and landscape. Replacing my DSLR for longer treks in the outbacks. Long battery live and being able to shoot contra light was very important. So before taking the camera to Norway I took some shots to check everything and train rangefinding and setting exposure. Since the camera is a serious investment for me (having a complete DSLR equipment already) I was extremly intererested to learn how the quality of the first roll was (Fuji Provia 100F used).
To cut it short: I am impressed.
Camera:
easy to handle (no learning curve), good range finding, solid automatic exposure. Sharpness and exposure of 95% of the shots are spot on. Camera is as simple as it should be. I lack a self-timer, though.
Planar/50, Biogon/28:
The camera more or less is a film holder only, so for me lenses are more important. I found superb sharpness, color rendition, and, what I like most: very little flare. You can shoot into the sun, nice for climbing and mountaineering shots. Simply the best glass I ever had. Very easy to handle, relatively lightwight (compared to ZF at least). I have Zeiss ZF lenses for my Nikon D2Xs as well, but I think I like the ZM ones even more. Being able to focus a bit nearer would be fine, though. I have read that the Biogon/25 is rated higher than the /28. But for me the latter already is great. Plus it is covered by the internal finder.
Looking forward to show you some scans from Norway, in autumn.
Best Regards, Peter.
Last edited:
Avotius
Some guy
I am very interested to see your photos of Norway. I have a friend in Norway who is a famous sculptor (Ola Enstad) who keeps trying to get me to go over there...sad thing is I just cant afford it now, but soon I hope, I hope!
I am seriously interested in the 50 and look forward to your photos!
I am seriously interested in the 50 and look forward to your photos!
thomasw_
Well-known
yea that 50-28 combo is nice for just about everything.
I love my ZM 28; so much so that I ordered another biogon, and I am waiting for the mail to arrive with my ZM 35 in the next day or so.
I love my ZM 28; so much so that I ordered another biogon, and I am waiting for the mail to arrive with my ZM 35 in the next day or so.
Marc-A.
I Shoot Film
I'm also very interested in seeing your pictures. I'm badly tempted by the ZM Planar but I would like to see more pictures taken with this lens, especially street pictures. (Sadly, there are not a lot of people who shoot with the ZM Planar).
kshapero
South Florida Man
Anxiously waiting for the postman to deliver my ZM (the silver demo) and 50mm Sonnar from Tony Rose.
petercs
Member
Avotius said:
Just a teaser from Norway, shot with the old Pentax ME Super:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=66147&ppuser=13932
Hopefully weather permits shooting this year (2005 we had been washed ) ...
Peter
petercs
Member
I am now back from Norway. Though we had extremely terrible weather most of the time, I shot 16 color slide film rolls. Just got them processed. I will scan some of them and set them up on my home page. I mostly did landscape and trekking shots. I had the chance to compare the results to some shots done with my girl friends old Pentax ME Super (50/1.7 and a 80-200/4 zoom).
Here is a first summary of my findings on the ZI, the 50/2 and the 28/2.8:
- ZI was easy to handle from start
- Nearly no focus or exposure errors, except a few
'forgot to remove lens cap' shots. Those that
came out too dark I have not compensated the
exposure enough in contra light.
- Used around 65% the 28mm, 35% the 50mm
- Would have liked to have the 85mm
- The ZI leather case is VERY usefull given my use case
- The ZM lenses are the best lenses I ever used
(still have to test my ZF lenses on a F6 though)
- The sun shades protect the lenses quite well, even
in bad weather. I think I will not add filters. Except
some gray filters for shooting running water and
waterfalls.
- Fuji Provia is MUCH better than Sensia or any Kodak E6.
The Provia is a very good fit to the ZMs color rendition.
I can imagine that I will add a 85mm soon. To at least have
a little chance to do some sort of wildlife shots and flower
shots as well (a SLR/D-SLR is better for that).
For going with a single lens only I will add a 35mm.
I had the need for a wider angle than a 28mm
a few times only. So for me I believe that the addtl.
invest is too high. I would have to learn to shoot better
wide angle photos before. But: the external finders from
Zeiss are extremely tempting.
Watch out for a few sample shots, soon.
Best regards, Peter
Here is a first summary of my findings on the ZI, the 50/2 and the 28/2.8:
- ZI was easy to handle from start
- Nearly no focus or exposure errors, except a few
'forgot to remove lens cap' shots. Those that
came out too dark I have not compensated the
exposure enough in contra light.
- Used around 65% the 28mm, 35% the 50mm
- Would have liked to have the 85mm
- The ZI leather case is VERY usefull given my use case
- The ZM lenses are the best lenses I ever used
(still have to test my ZF lenses on a F6 though)
- The sun shades protect the lenses quite well, even
in bad weather. I think I will not add filters. Except
some gray filters for shooting running water and
waterfalls.
- Fuji Provia is MUCH better than Sensia or any Kodak E6.
The Provia is a very good fit to the ZMs color rendition.
I can imagine that I will add a 85mm soon. To at least have
a little chance to do some sort of wildlife shots and flower
shots as well (a SLR/D-SLR is better for that).
For going with a single lens only I will add a 35mm.
I had the need for a wider angle than a 28mm
a few times only. So for me I believe that the addtl.
invest is too high. I would have to learn to shoot better
wide angle photos before. But: the external finders from
Zeiss are extremely tempting.
Watch out for a few sample shots, soon.
Best regards, Peter
jaffa_777
Established
I am looking forward to seeing those pics with those beautifull zeiss lenses Peter.
kshapero
South Florida Man
peter@pcsp.de said:
Are you saying the 28mm is unnecessary. Right I am trying to decide whether to buy on. Also considering the CV 28mm f1.9.
jaffa_777
Established
I have been shooting the zeiss zf 50mm on my F3. I am very happy with the results to say the least. Slide film and Xp2 are very nice with this lens, I don't feel digital really shows you what these lenses are meant for.
I am interested to see how the zm lenses compare and your experince using them. What is it like accurately focusing the 50mm on someone eyes? Is it easier or harder than an slr?
I am interested to see how the zm lenses compare and your experince using them. What is it like accurately focusing the 50mm on someone eyes? Is it easier or harder than an slr?
scho
Well-known
The Zeiss ZM lenses perform quite well with the M8. Here is one using the planar and there are more sample on this site as well:jaffa_777 said:
http://www.pbase.com/scho/image/83614820
Marc-A.
I Shoot Film
...Marc-A. said:
Well, I've been so badly tempted by the Planar ZM that I ended up with one purchased in the US. I started a thread about it, but I didn't have time to update it.
Basically : I've been also badly disappointed. Kept it a week and sold it. More details to come soon
petercs
Member
kshapero said:
Sorry if my writing was misunderstood. I used the 28mm more often than the 50mm. Regarding the addtl. invest I meant an invest for an even wider angle, e.g. 21mm. I would definitely again go for the 28mm/50mm combo.
Peter
Krosya
Konicaze
Marc-A. said:...
Well, I've been so badly tempted by the Planar ZM that I ended up with one purchased in the US. I started a thread about it, but I didn't have time to update it.
Basically : I've been also badly disappointed. Kept it a week and sold it. More details to come soon
Surprised to hear this - what was the problem with your Planar? Why did you sell it after only a week?
zetablues
Established
Marc-A. said:
Hi!
I shoot with the Zeiss Planar 2/50 ZM.
Cheers
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=68832&ppuser=3141.jpg
v3cron
Well-known
Marc-A. said:...
Well, I've been so badly tempted by the Planar ZM that I ended up with one purchased in the US. I started a thread about it, but I didn't have time to update it.
Basically : I've been also badly disappointed. Kept it a week and sold it. More details to come soon
i'm looking at getting one. what was the issue?
fuwen
Well-known
I am also using the 50/2 Planar. I like it very much.
http://www.fuwen.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=57&Itemid=117
http://www.fuwen.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=57&Itemid=117
x-ray
Veteran
Best 50 f2 I've ever used. Walks all over the summicrons and nicer rendition than my 50 asph summilux.
Marc-A.
I Shoot Film
The good part
The good part
Bonjour à tous, hi y’all,
I admit my reaction is a bit blunt, so let me explain. After long thought, and after having carefully read everything on the Planar ZM (thanks X-Ray for taking time to answer me, I’m most grateful), I decided to go for it; I’m not a Leica fetichist, I’m not involved in any way in brand war (Leica vs Zeiss/CV), I’m just looking for lenses that fit my vision. So the Planar ZM seemed the right lens for me. I was expecting modern sharpness and contrast, and subtle rendition of materials and contours, and great bokeh.
After a test roll, I have to admit that the lens is very good (see pictures below); no question about that. (And it is very well-built and handy). The shots are extremely bright, even in low light condition, they are as contrasty as expected but …
The good part
Bonjour à tous, hi y’all,
I admit my reaction is a bit blunt, so let me explain. After long thought, and after having carefully read everything on the Planar ZM (thanks X-Ray for taking time to answer me, I’m most grateful), I decided to go for it; I’m not a Leica fetichist, I’m not involved in any way in brand war (Leica vs Zeiss/CV), I’m just looking for lenses that fit my vision. So the Planar ZM seemed the right lens for me. I was expecting modern sharpness and contrast, and subtle rendition of materials and contours, and great bokeh.
After a test roll, I have to admit that the lens is very good (see pictures below); no question about that. (And it is very well-built and handy). The shots are extremely bright, even in low light condition, they are as contrasty as expected but …
Attachments
Last edited:
Marc-A.
I Shoot Film
now the bad part
now the bad part
… but there’s a cost for that which I’m not ready to pay for: what we gain in overall contrast and apparent sharpness, we loose it in microcontrast and it badly affects the rendition of materials and contours. I have no other word to describe the Planar effect but “plastic”: everything looks like plastic; it is like shooting in a Barbie world … life in plastic, not so fantastic. Call me crazy, but that’s how my shots look like to me. I scanned in average and high resolution (1200/2400/4800 dpi), I tried different scanner settings, different softwares, I wet printed … always the same feeling about my pictures.
Besides, there’s something even more troubling, visible at 1200 dpi and obvious at 2400/4800: the lens is not that sharp, at least it is less sharp than my old rigid Summicron. It gives the feeling of sharpness because it is very contrasty, but it “squeezes” micro-contrasts and some details (skin contours for instance) are smoothed out, not to say erased. This is not visible on internet sized pictures but it’s there. This explains the “plastic” effect I was mentioning above.
So I guess that is what we get from a modern design lens, and the Planar ZM exemplifies perfectly modern optical features. If the Planar ZM is better than the current Summicron (I trust people who claim this), then the current Summicron is worse than the rigid or DR Summicron; I would add it is worse than the Summitar and other classic lens. The issue of the handling of micro-contrasts is of major importance IMHO, and in this respect I think that modern lenses as the Planar ZM are not so good. They are very contrasty overall, but lack subtlety. I guess, I only guess, that the Summilux asph and the Noctilux are free from this shortcoming; and I guess that’s why they’re so expensive.
In the end, if I add to buy again a modern lens, I think the Nokton asph 50/1.5 is of better value for the money; it shows all the modern optical features but I prefer its rendition to the Planar. So I came to this conclusion: take the Nokton asph if you can’t afford a Summilux asph. (I owned once the Nokton, so I know the lens).
I don’t expect you guys agree with me, but I’m looking forward to your opinion on the subject.
Cheers,
Marc
PS: so far, the only lens that seems perfect to me, sharp, contrasty, with a nice bokeh, with beautiful contours/relief rendition … it is the Planar … but not the ZM … the 75/3.5 for Rolleiflex. Any idea of its equivalent for 35mm RF?
now the bad part
… but there’s a cost for that which I’m not ready to pay for: what we gain in overall contrast and apparent sharpness, we loose it in microcontrast and it badly affects the rendition of materials and contours. I have no other word to describe the Planar effect but “plastic”: everything looks like plastic; it is like shooting in a Barbie world … life in plastic, not so fantastic. Call me crazy, but that’s how my shots look like to me. I scanned in average and high resolution (1200/2400/4800 dpi), I tried different scanner settings, different softwares, I wet printed … always the same feeling about my pictures.
Besides, there’s something even more troubling, visible at 1200 dpi and obvious at 2400/4800: the lens is not that sharp, at least it is less sharp than my old rigid Summicron. It gives the feeling of sharpness because it is very contrasty, but it “squeezes” micro-contrasts and some details (skin contours for instance) are smoothed out, not to say erased. This is not visible on internet sized pictures but it’s there. This explains the “plastic” effect I was mentioning above.
So I guess that is what we get from a modern design lens, and the Planar ZM exemplifies perfectly modern optical features. If the Planar ZM is better than the current Summicron (I trust people who claim this), then the current Summicron is worse than the rigid or DR Summicron; I would add it is worse than the Summitar and other classic lens. The issue of the handling of micro-contrasts is of major importance IMHO, and in this respect I think that modern lenses as the Planar ZM are not so good. They are very contrasty overall, but lack subtlety. I guess, I only guess, that the Summilux asph and the Noctilux are free from this shortcoming; and I guess that’s why they’re so expensive.
In the end, if I add to buy again a modern lens, I think the Nokton asph 50/1.5 is of better value for the money; it shows all the modern optical features but I prefer its rendition to the Planar. So I came to this conclusion: take the Nokton asph if you can’t afford a Summilux asph. (I owned once the Nokton, so I know the lens).
I don’t expect you guys agree with me, but I’m looking forward to your opinion on the subject.
Cheers,
Marc
PS: so far, the only lens that seems perfect to me, sharp, contrasty, with a nice bokeh, with beautiful contours/relief rendition … it is the Planar … but not the ZM … the 75/3.5 for Rolleiflex. Any idea of its equivalent for 35mm RF?