5nap5hot
Pest at large
I am thinking of getting a 50mm lens. I am liking what I am seeing from Zeiss but, I know that used Leica lenses are going for around the same price as new Zeiss.
What are your thoughts? I would be looking at the ZM Planar and the Summilux in particular.
What are your thoughts? I would be looking at the ZM Planar and the Summilux in particular.
Turtle
Veteran
You can get a planar from popflash for $600. Can you get a used lux or mint late model cron for the same?
According to Putz the planar is every bit as good as the cron, but if you need the speed you have no choice but to get a summilix or a new zeiss sonnar.
According to Putz the planar is every bit as good as the cron, but if you need the speed you have no choice but to get a summilix or a new zeiss sonnar.
Mazurka
Well-known
I thought the 50mm Nokton was about as fast as the C-Sonnar, and for a lot less. 
And if you don't mind buying used, there are LTM Canons and Nikkors at the same speed.
And if you don't mind buying used, there are LTM Canons and Nikkors at the same speed.
Last edited:
5nap5hot
Pest at large
Sorry I meant Sonnar.Turtle said:
My question has more to do with how the lens renders the image. Does the Sonnar produce an image on par with the Lux?
Last edited:
Huck Finn
Well-known
5nap5hot said:
Depends on what kind of image you like.
Which version of the Summilux are you considering?
5nap5hot
Pest at large
Huck Finn
Well-known
5nap5hot said:
The Summilux shown in the ebay add that you linked is a pre-aspherical Summilux. The Sonnar has no trouble producing an image on par with this lens & many would say that the Sonnar exceeds the image from the pre-asph 'lux.
Sailor Ted
Well-known
Huck Finn said:
What about OOF areas? How do they "paint" color when compared side-by-side? Lastly which lens resolves more color/tonal detail in heavily shadowed areas? I doubt very much the Zeiss and Leica are the "same" or that one is "better." I'll bet the Leica and Zeiss are very "different" with the pre-asph Lux being somewhat softer in it's color balance and having more detail in the shaded areas if my 21mm Zeiss is any indication of the breed. My pre-asph 35mm and 50mm Summicrons exhibit characteristics that while hard to put my finger on, paint in a way I like very much and are as sharp as tacks (and I also like very much my 21mm Zeiss but they are quite different). I actually think that in some ways I prefer the old pre-asph Leica glass for digital photography as they seem to present a more "organic" image in this medium?
I will leave my observations and questions to those with more experience then I posses on the differences between older Leica glass and that of the new Zeiss equivalents. Perhaps Huck Finn knows a thing or two that Tom Sawyer does not : )
Last edited: