raid
Dad Photographer
Brian,
With all your 50mm lenses, it really means something when you prefer the old Sonnar 5cm 1.5 LTM over the rest.
With all your 50mm lenses, it really means something when you prefer the old Sonnar 5cm 1.5 LTM over the rest.
Bill, you wanted to borrow my CZO Sonnar 50/1.5, the offer still stands if you want to try it out...or, I have a CZJ 50/2 if you want to stick to f/2.
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
All 50s pale in the face of the king, the 50mm Summilux ASPH. Its just so much more advanced at 3x the cost of the Summicron. I wish I could have kept my copy, but I'm a 35 Summilux shooter.
Good luck deciding.
Good luck deciding.
Ronald M
Veteran
The recently discontinued 50 2.8 is a fantastic lens. But if you need F2.0 it will not work for you. It works for me 98% of the time.
Basically as you move through the Summicrons different versions, they get more contrasty, and the area of maximum sharpness gets larger at the more wide open settings. The DR/Rigids are only sharp in the center 8 mm, the 1969/79 model this expands to 12/16 mm, and the current one it is fully sharp almost over the entire frame.
There were two versions of the DR/rigids, the first being more like the collapsible, the second being more advanced. Within the early/late models, the DR/Rigid have identical optical formulas, just the mounts differ. This probably accounts to why Tom A says his are different. They may be, but not because one is DR and one is rigid. That or it is simply lens to lens variation. Those optical units that became DR were selected from those whose focal length tested to precisely 52 mm or something close. Otheres became Rigids and the mounts selected to match the exact focal length.
A well cared for Summarit 1.5 is a beautiful lens, but it will not test up to standard. On real subjects, it is unique. Most are fogged and scratched and do not qualify.
3.5 and 2.8 Elmars are also very nice. Again a decent sample is required.
Basically as you move through the Summicrons different versions, they get more contrasty, and the area of maximum sharpness gets larger at the more wide open settings. The DR/Rigids are only sharp in the center 8 mm, the 1969/79 model this expands to 12/16 mm, and the current one it is fully sharp almost over the entire frame.
There were two versions of the DR/rigids, the first being more like the collapsible, the second being more advanced. Within the early/late models, the DR/Rigid have identical optical formulas, just the mounts differ. This probably accounts to why Tom A says his are different. They may be, but not because one is DR and one is rigid. That or it is simply lens to lens variation. Those optical units that became DR were selected from those whose focal length tested to precisely 52 mm or something close. Otheres became Rigids and the mounts selected to match the exact focal length.
A well cared for Summarit 1.5 is a beautiful lens, but it will not test up to standard. On real subjects, it is unique. Most are fogged and scratched and do not qualify.
3.5 and 2.8 Elmars are also very nice. Again a decent sample is required.
Kevin
Rainbow Bridge
Does this lens render like the 45/2.0 Planar for the Contax G system?
Kevin
Rainbow Bridge
If they are both planars and have the same basic formula how can the contax version be better than the zm m-mount?
rlouzan
Well-known
My best 50 is a rock solid tripod
.
.
I've never used one, but apparently its slightly sharper than the ZM 50/2 at wide apertures but the bokeh is harsher.
The ZM Planar 50/2 is plenty sharp at f2 though, and the bokeh is very smooth. Here's some shots taken with the ZM Planar 50/2 at f2.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
The few lens designers with whom I have spoken at length all agree: you can never fully predict what sort of results a lens will give -- its 'signature' -- until you build it. Small changes in glass, speed, focal length, coating: all can produce a lens that gives significantly different results from another of the same nominal formula ('Tessar', 'Sonnar', 'Planar' usw).
Tashi delek
Roger
Tashi delek
Roger