Impression of the 50/2 ZM Planar?

U

Unregistered

Guest
Can anyone whose had this lens a few months comment on build quality and optical performance? I've always liked the imaging of the 45/2 Contax Planar but was never happy with the AF accuracy of the Contax G which was hit or miss with the 90/2.8. The 50/2 Summicron is a great lens but my tests showed the 45/2 outperformed it in terms of resolution testing and the Summicron can sometimes be prone to unwanted reflections from the sun outside the frame. One question of the Planar is with it's lighter weight, does it have the robustness to take hard use like Leica lenses? The Planar's focus ratio appears a little shorter than the Summicron so I expect focus to be very fast. This to me has the drawback of increasing the chances of misfocus due to over or under shooting exact focus. This then makes it imperative that rangefinder camming is very precise and focusing action is smooth, nicely dampened and free of any play in it's action on repeated use. Unfortunately I've seen Cosina assembled lenses like the Rollei M 40/2.8 Sonnar, CV 21/4 and 28/3.5 exhibit light dampening and a little play in their focusing action after some use. Since the ZM's are mostly made by Cosina, I have concerns but am optomistically hopeful that Zeiss holds them to a higher standard. OTOH, lenses like Konica M's or Leica M's appear tank-like in their assembly.
 
I have been very happy with mine. So far, it has spent a lot of time on an RD-1. As I was complaining on another thread: my undeveloped film with this lens (and others) might yield more data about performance. As for hard-use and durability, I'm afraid that's a time-will-tell sort of thing. Most of my equipment has been around for a while, and most of it functions flawlessly, most of the time. Read, I haven't abused too many lenses. I did manage to give a 4th gen 35 Summicron a pretty good whack once (resulted in a stiff aperture ring); I once got a used 90 Apo Asph that had VERY light detents on the f-stop ring (Sherry Krauter helped out with that one. . . now it's right as rain).

I also have the 45/2 G Contax lens and haven't taken the time to compare the two. the 45 is an absolutely fabulous lens. I just wish I liked the G2 better--the Ms tend to win out when I'm deciding what camera to grab.

Note too that I have heard of things loosening or getting wobbly on C/V lenses. I have a 50/1.5 for about three years which I like very much and there hasn't been a moment's trouble with it.

Benjamin Marks
 
Ben, I take it that focusing action is dampended decently(not too heavy or light) and there are no signs of play on back-and-forth focusing ring use up to now?
 
Yup. Construction feels high-quality. I have the somewhat less expensive hood for the C/V 40 1.4 on mine. A word of caution to anyone trying this, the C/V hood does not "positively engage" on the outer flange. I have it wedged on, though and it works fine.

Focussing is well-damped. No play at all in the focus rings. F-stop ring is tighter and the detents more positive than a recent used 90 Apo Asph that I bought. I'd say that the build quality is top notch.

Well, maybe one notch from the top. I recently had a 50 DR Summicron CLA'd by Sherry Krauter, and I've got to say the lens just ooozes quality in the construction. I have not felt a lens made since 1970 that has that brass-milled-to-perfection feeling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom