G2 45mm vs SLR 50 Planar

[Roger Vadim]

Hi there!

While really loving the results of my G2 esp. withe the stunning Planar 2/45 I am not taking it out as much as my Nikon F3 / FM. Partly it has to do with it beeing on loan to me, partly with its sqinty viewfinder - as oposed to the bright 100% view of the Nikon...
So this question goes out to the owners of both the G 2/45 and the recent CZ 2/50 Planar in SLR mount: can the SLR Planar compete with the G Planar. I have two nice Nikkor 50's (1.8 and 2.0) but especialy wide open they come nowwhere near the G Planar. I am very fond of the Zeiss "look" (if such thing exists), the old Sonnar for my Contax RF is spectacular. but I wonder if the 600 Euros for this "humble 50" is worth it and if the difference to the Nikkor 50's is really worth it.
Any feedback welcome,
cheers

 

[Bob Michaels]

Roger: I have shot quite a bit (7 years) with the ContaxG 45mm Planar and on and off (3 years) with the ZM 50mm Planar. I have never used the Zeiss Planar 50mm with a SLR mount.

Conclusion: they look the same to me. It remains what the photo is about, not the lens used, that really makes the difference in the print.

 

[Roger Vadim]

Bob, I know... but then once in awhile you look at your pictures and there is a certain magical quality in them... which has in a small degree to do with a certain lens. It might ad that last 1% of "thrill" or "otherness" that makes an image spectacular. And there are millions of images out there shot with the best glass which are simply boring and unsinspired, I agree.

 

[raid]

I have been using the G1 with 3 lenses for over a year now, and I have also been using CZ lenses for the Rollei SLR system. There is a difference in how images look with two systems. The old CZ SLR lenses may have a little less contrast, but they are wonderful lenses.

 

[Doug]

Hi there!
...
So this question goes out to the owners of both the G 2/45 and the recent CZ 2/50 Planar in SLR mount: can the SLR Planar compete with the G Planar. ...

As here, I often find myself in the position of using the gear in question but not having any image comparisons in mind. I'm a bit puzzled by your 2/50 Planar description, as the recent Cosina-made 50 Planar for SLRs is a f/1.4 lens. Mine is the ZK, in Pentax KA mount, and has been used only on a dSLR. Of course the 45 G-Planar has been used only with film...

But the Planar optical formula is quite widely used, such as with 50mm Pentax lenses over the years. The basic pattern as used on RF cameras is symmetrical, with a negative element on each side of the diaphragm cemented to a positive element. Then an airspace and finally another positive element at each end. Six elements in four groups. The symmetry leads to good close-up performance.

But for an SLR, with the mirror box taking up room between the lens flange and the photo-sensitive surface, the cemented second and third elements are typically separated, possibly to allow the lens to be further from the film/sensor. Then high-speed versions will have an additional positive element at the rear, and there are other slight variations in different manufacturers.

The Zeiss Planar-ZK 50mm f/1.4 follows this SLR pattern, as do the Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, the Voigtlander SL 58mm f/1.4 and many others. The Planar-ZK seems not to be compromised on mechanical quality, nor optical quality either. But I don't see any obvious differences in digi-pics from the above three lenses.

I think it's fair to say we're not likely to see a 50mm SLR lens that exceeds the quality of the current Zeiss Planar ZK, ZS, ZE, ZF.

 

[noimmunity]

I used to have a fine copy of the ZM planar 50/2, which I sold only as a precondition for obtaining a 75/2. It was an excellent lens.

I still have a C/Y 50/1.4 planar. This lens has a certain magic wide open that the ZM does not have, certainly because of the wider aperture. I never compared it to the new Zeiss lenses, only to the C/Y 50/1.7, which has better MTF scores, but which failed, on the copy I tested, to reproduce what the 50/1.4 could do.

These are probably all extremely good lenses. More will depend on the sample variation and the maximum aperture you intend/need to use.

 

[raid]

The [old] Zeiss 50mm/1.4 SLR lens has been rated as one of the very best 50mm lenses ever made.

 

[Roger Vadim]

Oh, my bad - I was refering to (and asking about) the new CZ 50mm/1.4 in Nikon mount. Thanks so far, and learning about the rear element was highly welcome!

 

[raid]

I don't have a modern Zeiss SLR lens. I misunderstood your question, Roger.

 

[oftheherd]

The [old] Zeiss 50mm/1.4 SLR lens has been rated as one of the very best 50mm lenses ever made.

Raid, are you referring to the 40s and 50s Zeiss or the T* of the Contax/Kyocera 70s and 80s? In 2010, I think either could be considered "old."

I have the Zeiss T* 50mm f/1.4 lens. It is stunning. Wish I could afford more of their lenses.

 

[raid]

Raid, are you referring to the 40s and 50s Zeiss or the T* of the Contax/Kyocera 70s and 80s? In 2010, I think either could be considered "old."

I have the Zeiss T* 50mm f/1.4 lens. It is stunning. Wish I could afford more of their lenses.

I mean the SLR Zeiss lenses from the 70's and 80's. They are multicoated lenses. Actually, my lenses are not for Contax. I have the Rollei 35mm SLR system. I bought into this system after reading an article in Shutterbug magazine on how to get into the Zeiss system at a relatively low cost.

 

[mfogiel]

While I have not used the 45/2 G Planar or the 50/1.4 Planar ZM, I have and use the 50/2 Planar ZF and the 50/2 Makro Planar ZF. They are both excellent lenses, and it is difficult to find any fault with them, but my preference (apart from bulk and weight) goes to the Makro Planar, which is in practice a lens working equally well at any aperture and distance, but has also an imperceptible edge in image plasticity in my opinion. While more expensive than the 50/1.4, it is one of these cornerstone lenses that one never wants to part with. If I recall correctly, someone made a test of the converted 45/2 Planar against the 50/2 ZM, and apparently the G Planar was looking sharper. However, at this level sharpness is a given - for example this was shot wide open with the 50/2 ZM at 1/30th on Ilford XP

By f4.0 and beyond the sharpnes is so good, that unless you have a really high resolving film, it is wasted - here you already see the limit of XP2

The Makro Planar is also great right from wide open:

Closed a couple of stops it really shows its best - and again, you need a good film to be able to see it:

 

[Roger Vadim]

Thanks for the replies - I finaly made my way to the Zeiss website to clear my confusion on the SLR line up (sic!): there is a 1.4 Planar and the Macro Planar mfogiel is quoting in ZF mount. The ZF macro-Planar shot truly resembles the 45 G Planar, looks great.
Seems like I have to come up with some more cash here - its almost double the price of the 1.4...
decisions decisions...

 

[oftheherd]

I mean the SLR Zeiss lenses from the 70's and 80's. They are multicoated lenses. Actually, my lenses are not for Contax. I have the Rollei 35mm SLR system. I bought into this system after reading an article in Shutterbug magazine on how to get into the Zeiss system at a relatively low cost.

I don't recall seeing that. So I take it they said the Rollei 35mm system was as good as the T* lenses?

EDIT: Did they have the same mount? I don't ever recall hearing that.

 

[Doug]

My understanding of the Rollei system is that Rollei made the lenses under license from Zeiss, and that they did not carry the Carl Zeiss name, but used the "Planar" etc names. Does that fit your gear, Raid?