Good 50mm f2.0 for M8. Leica vs. Zeiss

E

eleskin

Well-known
Local time
6:13 AM
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
1,080
There is alot of talk online regarding the Zeiss M mount 50mm f2.0 vs. the Leica 50mm Summicron. It seems the Zeiss offers better value in that NEW its price is cheaper than a used Summicron and has superior anti flare designs. I hear it stacks up well against the current Summicron. So from all this, it seems the Zeiss is the best buy out there. Anyone with an M8 use both the Zeiss and Leica lenses? How sharp is the Zeiss wide open at f2.0 vs. the 50mm Summicron at f2.0? Overall, how do they perform with the M8?
 
I have a tabbed 1980's Summicron and the ZM 50/2. I wish I had something definitive to say about the image quality between them. I don't. The Zeiss is scary sharp, as are the modern Summicrons. Finish quality goes to the Summicrons, as the CV-Zeiss black paint started wearing through to the brass within weeks of purchase, whereas my 1980's Cron has seen use every week since 1994 and doesn't have a mark on it (and I bought it used). Hood and lenscap on the Summicron are easier to use; the Zeiss lens cap is pretty fiddly. I have just run two side-by-side images at f:2. You can see fairly subtle differences in the way the two lenses render an image, for instance in the out of focus areas (slightly smoother with the Summicron -- but we are talking VERY hard to see). In focus highlights have a slight "bloom" to them with the Zeiss that is a marginally better controlled with the Summicron. Both lenses show a little CA off axis in the test image wide open, but you have to view the images at 100% to see it -- there is sliiiightly more CA with the Zeiss lens, to my eye. I know it is a cliche, but you really can't go wrong with either lens. Personally, so many of my lenses were purchased used that I don't see any advantage to purchasing new, unless that is important to you for your own reasons. I purchased the Planar hoping that it would match the quality of the G-Planar 45/2. It turned out to be its own beast, very good at making images, but not a substitute for the G-Planar. The better "value" seems to be the Zeiss on the face of things, but I think you'd really have to check in in 20 years to know for sure. What I mean by that is that it is pretty clear to me where the extra money went for the Summicron (higher quality finish, better cap/hood design, more screws in the Cron's mount, Cron is slightly lighter in weight (1 oz.) -- but in terms of image quality, I don't know whether you would notice this relatively minor stuff).

Finally, I would note that my own crude results differ slightly from other reviews I have read, including Sean Reid's excellent comparison of 50's on his paid review site. This may mean that there is some sample variation in the lenses that are out there, or it may mean that in real world situations, you probably would not notice any practical difference in image quality between these two excellent lenses.

Ben Marks
 
Last edited:
You should consider the possibility that you might eventually get a full frame digital camera, or even decide that you prefer the look of film. Which lens has the best corner sharpness? Then ask yourself exactly how often are you really going to be shooting at f/2? The lens that looks best wide open might be a poor second at f/5.6, or even turn out to be a complete dog at f/16.
 
Whenever I get around to buying my first 50mm lens it will probably be the Zeiss Planar T* 2/50 ZM.
 
i tried someone's J8 the other day, uncoded and unfiltered and i was ready to abandon crons and hexanons after that!
 
I have the J8, and I find that the focus is slightly off, as are my other FSU lenses, the Industar 61LD and Jupiter 9 with my M8. the Industar is the sharpest, but I still think my 35mm summicron v. 4 is way sharper than any Russian lens. I still think the Zeiss is the best bet, although the Voigtlander 50mm Nokton has a very attractive price.
 
I've got the 50mm pre asph summicron and would not sell it for anything. It's sharp, contrasty and I swear it has a unique signature that trancends the zeiss models (having tried them)

Just my opinion though
 
eleskin, I think you'll be well-served by picking one of the "good" 50mm lenses at an affordable price and getting to know it well. See if its strengths and weaknesses are in synch with your goals and methods. If you need different characteristics either replace it with a hopefully more suitable 50 or simply add the second 50.

There are many reasons to have different lenses of the same focal length, and many here end up with multiples. I've attempted to apply some logic to it, but often enough it's just a matter of GAS and opportunity!

For decades I was satisfied with 35 and 40mm lenses on my RFs and didn't have a 50 until a couple years ago. The first was a VC f2.5 Color Skopar (sharp and compact), eventually an f2 Heliar Classic (collapsible), and both Zeiss ZM 50s (f2 and f1.5). I think the variety of characteristics on hand is now sufficient!

BTW, I've not had any 50 Summicron, but I believe all are "pre-ASPH" :D
 
One thing rarely considered when trying to combat GAS is whether or not you instinctivly "see" the coverage of a particular focal length.

Forget color rendition, contrast, micro-contrast, shadow detail, bokeh, all those things that are so much fun to talk about. Forget about them for a minute! Imagine that you have a few camera bodies, each with a different lens on it. Since we're talking 50 here let's say you have a line-up of 28, 50, and 90mm lenses, cameras loaded and ready to go. You're walking down the street or perhaps you're at a party or a street festival. You see something you want to photograph!

What I'm getting at here is do you instinctivly know which camera to grab, where to stand, should you stand tall or perhaps squat down a bit. Do you "see" those frame lines outlining the picture before you get the camera to your eye? Is it vertical or horizontal? Should you be shooting at f/11 or f/2.8?

The subtle differences between one lens and another? If people looking at your photographs notice them right off then you need to ask yourself what are you doing wrong. Another lens isn't going to solve that problem.
 
Al Kaplan said:
One thing rarely considered when trying to combat GAS is whether or not you instinctivly "see" the coverage of a particular focal length.

Forget color rendition, contrast, micro-contrast, shadow detail, bokeh, all those things that are so much fun to talk about. Forget about them for a minute! Imagine that you have a few camera bodies, each with a different lens on it. Since we're talking 50 here let's say you have a line-up of 28, 50, and 90mm lenses, cameras loaded and ready to go. You're walking down the street or perhaps you're at a party or a street festival. You see something you want to photograph!

What I'm getting at here is do you instinctivly know which camera to grab, where to stand, should you stand tall or perhaps squat down a bit. Do you "see" those frame lines outlining the picture before you get the camera to your eye? Is it vertical or horizontal? Should you be shooting at f/11 or f/2.8?

The subtle differences between one lens and another? If people looking at your photographs notice them right off then you need to ask yourself what are you doing wrong. Another lens isn't going to solve that problem.
Click to expand...

i aggree. i should add: i prefer, much prefer a lighter, ergonomically better suited to me lens. it will have me taking more pics and better pics. faster in my hands.
the decisive moment... that's the quality that Leica brought. not sharpness or bokeh.
get as fewer lens as possible. as fewer cameras as possible. the camera should disappear. it's the photograph that counts; moment and composition.
the rest is IRRELEVANT.
 
colker said:
i aggree. i should add: i prefer, much prefer a lighter, ergonomically better suited to me lens. it will have me taking more pics and better pics. faster in my hands.
Click to expand...

If I were to say which lens I absolutely bonded with 100%, it would be an old collapsible 50mm Summicron. I totally adored it because it was small and the focus tab had the little roller ball thing on it so it kind of glided into focus. I don't like the newer tabs as much, although after you've used them a lot they're handy indicators of approximate focus. The older Elmar has the same focus tab / roller as the collapsible cron but I didn't like the rotating aperture ring. Killer results though! The copy of the collapsible I had was a dog at f2 but fine at f2.8. It seemed to produce quite cold colour rendition but I never tested it extensively as back then I was primarily a B/W shooter.

If I were you, having to buy new now, I'd probably get the Planar, even though I own the current Summicron (which is superb in itself.) Use the spare cash to get another ZM or CV lens!
 
in Sean Reids review (using the M8) the ZM planar edged out the current summicron in my take of the review (it seemed better at the edges and marginally sharper wide open if I recall correctly). It is a stunning performer that is not bettered by anything (in its aperture range) if high performance is your goal, but at a decent price. It does produce modern looking images as a result of teh cntrast and resolution, which may or may not be your bag.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom