I really need an honest opinion

T

trokow

Newbie
Local time
5:33 AM
Joined
Feb 23, 2007
Messages
1
since I am very serious in purchasing either a Zeiss Planar T* 2/50 ZM or a Leica Summicron M 50 f/2. I know there is a big price difference between the Zeiss and Leica, most likely I will put in the extra hours at work for the Leica lens.

Anyway, I want honest opinions on performance as I simply want to buy this lens once. I have a Leica M6 from 1993.

Any info would be graciously accepted since there is so much info on the internet, I value the expert opinions of the users of this forum to make this decision. Thank you!

Tom

BTW, I just joined this forum a few moments ago. Hello from Austin Texas!
 
Welcome to the forum! I'm in Austin too. I don't use this lens, but many users on this forum love it and those who have used the Summicron will tell you the lenses are very comparable.

I recommend you do a search, as there have been many past discussions about this lens on this forum. You will also find many sample photos here. Finally, try flickr.com. Do a groups search and type in Planar. I bet there's a group with photos dedicated to this lens.
 
Trocow, while the difference in price is significant, the difference in quality is negligeable. Both lenses new are super quality. It'll boil down to which lens' character you like most.

I have the Planar and it's my main lens on my R-D1.
 
I'd get an older Summicron- they can be had for around $500- but that's just me. You can't really go wrong.
 
I have the summicron 50/2 and 3 planar 50: 2 CY and the ZF. I used The summicron and the CY 1,7 for many years.
These latter two lens in particular have such the stellar performance that very few other primes can match. Their personalities are very far away. So it is a matter of taste and, even more, to optimize they way you want to render each subject.
You can't go wrong with either. If you must choose then try to look at photos, I would say real large prints or slides or uncompressed high resolution scans.
If price is the decisive factor then the answer becomes obvious.
 
Pistach said:
I have the summicron 50/2 and 3 planar 50: 2 CY and the ZF. I used The summicron and the CY 1,7 for many years.
These latter two lens in particular have such the stellar performance that very few other primes can match. Their personalities are very far away. So it is a matter of taste and, even more, to optimize they way you want to render each subject.
You can't go wrong with either. If you must choose then try to look at photos, I would say real large prints or slides or uncompressed high resolution scans.
If price is the decisive factor then the answer becomes obvious.
Click to expand...
Good advice. And to look at photos go to flickr where you can sort the pictures by tagged lens manufacturer.
 
Hi Tom, welcome to the forum. Since the performance between the two is so close, I'd go look at them and consider the size and handling of each. You might find that you greatly prefer using one over the other.
 
I shot the summicrons for nearly 40 uears and sold my tabbed one a couple of months ago. I also have the asph summilux 50 and purchased a new 50 planar from Calumets clearancecenter on ebay for $461 new with box and US warranty. My personal opinion is I like the Planar much better than the Summicron, any generation. The lens is cutting edge sharp without being harsh. Flare controll is better than the summicron and on par with the asph summilux. I'm actually likeing the Planar as well as the asph summilux and like the tonality a little better.
 
There's a zeiss planar flickr group here: link.

Some of those shots look really good.
 
trokow said:
since I am very serious in purchasing either a Zeiss Planar T* 2/50 ZM or a Leica Summicron M 50 f/2. I know there is a big price difference between the Zeiss and Leica, most likely I will put in the extra hours at work for the Leica lens.

Anyway, I want honest opinions on performance as I simply want to buy this lens once. I have a Leica M6 from 1993.

Any info would be graciously accepted since there is so much info on the internet, I value the expert opinions of the users of this forum to make this decision. Thank you!

Tom

BTW, I just joined this forum a few moments ago. Hello from Austin Texas!
Click to expand...



Tom, I have a multitude of Summicron 50's and also the new Planar 50/2. If I had to choose between them, it would be the Planar. It is much smoother and has a better out of focus rendition. The Summicron is a classic and by no means a bad lens, but it is an old design that has been massaged in one form or another for 50 years. It has improved considerably from its first, collapsible generation up through the years. The Planar is a brand new design, based on the classic Zeiss but with the application of modern glass and computer aided ray-tracing.
The latest incarnation of the Summicron with the collapsible hood lacks essentials like a focussing tab and the hood collapses at inopportune times. I put a focussing tab on mine, but that hood drove me nuts so I got rid of it.
If you deciding on a Summicron, try for a late version (2 000 000+) Dual Range Summicron. They are as good as the later ones and built like the proverbial brick out-house. It is not usable with some of the later M's (M7/MP/M8), but if you are using an earlier M, you will be fine.
 
A J8 will be nearly as good and you can afford J12 even after buying the LTM to M adopters.

The CV lenses are pretty good as well.

Noel
 
Hi Tom

I'd second the other Tom's suggestion of trying a DR Summicron before you drop a lot of money on something else. Although I prefer mine taking b + w rather than colour, and it needing a hood, it is a great lens for the money. Having a 35 Summicron for my first lens I miss the focusing tab and compactness when using the DR but that's it. For £200 on ebay I feel I got myself a bargain.

If in the future you really do want a newer lens you could always sell it, probably for just as much as you bought it.

Hope that helps in some way.

Paul
 
If it matters to you, the Planar has 1/3 aperture click stops, has an available vented metal hood--(I was dismayed when I received the replacement hood for the 35 'cron asph--shame on leica.), is more than half the cost (new), and (I hate saying this) seems (to me) slightly better built than the 50 'cron--
 
My new to me mint 50 2.8 current version has what you want. Sharp, smooth, no flare, small and contrasy, nice bokeh . That plus 35 2.0 preasph and 90 MEM are my first to go kit.

I never read a bad report on this lens.

Use it and save for a 1.4 lens if you want speed, Planar or latest `Lux. Even a Summarit if you can find a clean one. Mine is nice for what is is, but does not compare to modern glass. But I wanted that look and I got it.
 
I went through a similar dilemma while looking for my first lens for my M3 SS.

I finally went with the Summicron DR because the word-of-mouth (and pics I could find) were so positive. Plus, for some reason, I just felt like starting out with an all-Leica kit. And I think the bang-for-the-buck is superb.

It hasn't disappointed me and I'm heading into Manhattan with my son in a few minutes to do some exploring and shooting (he's armed with a Holga, though).

Good luck,

JT
 
Last edited:
My primary 35mm camera is an M3 with a 50mm DR. I've used a bunch of other 50's, and I own a few others, but this one is just right for regular shooting. If I shot chromes a lot, I might be tempted to go with a newer design, but I work almost exclusively with black and white negatives, and for this material, the DR is beyond reproach.

I am very tempted to get a Planar to compare the results; I think I know what they will be, though. It seems to me that your choice is best made thinking about how you will use the lens you get, and what film you like to shoot. Clearly, al of these lenses mentioned are excellent; the question is, which is "best" for your intended application. And of course, you will have to qualify "best" with your own judgement. Good luck, and let us know what you decide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom