Planar 50/1.4 ZM?

Krosya

Krosya

Konicaze
Local time
8:06 AM
Joined
Feb 15, 2006
Messages
3,550
Hi,
I was wondering, is there a good reason why Zeiss didn't make a Planar 50/1.4 in ZM line, while they have one in ZF? Should we expect one soon? Would be a lens I'd want to try for sure.
 
Give them time.
Zeiss & rangefinders just made up! They already cover focal lenght from 15mm to 85mm with two 50's and two 35's.
I wouldn't expect fast lenses before a few years.
+ there is the sonnar.
 
the planar and sonnar are VERY different lenses. The sonnar is a puff of cumulous cloud and the planar is an ice pick. Both very useful for the good properties they offer.
 
I have seen the ZF 50 1.4 do some weird things withe the bokeh. Would I want a 1.4 ZM? I got a 2.0 and its great, used it today for some pics but.......probably would pass for a summilux pre asph instead.
 
I seriously doubt Zeiss will ever make a 50/1.4 Planar with the existence of the Sonnar. The ZF Planar is larger and optically different due to the longer back focus to allow for the reflex mirror. I think they would be more inclined to make a "pancake" 50/2.8 Tessar based on the direction they seem to be moving. If it's anything like the Tessar's from the Contarex or later Contaflex days, it might be worthwhile given it's classic imagery.
 
I don't think we can extrapolate the performance of a Planar-ZM from a Planar ZF even with the same focal length and max aperture, because as awilder aluded to, the SLR and RF Planars are typically a bit different optically, and this is likely to make some difference in results.
 
They'll make it once the target audience has already bought the f2 Planar and the Sonnar, and is looking for the next GAS relief pill.

No reason for them to have it now, to compete against the other lenses.
 
jsuominen said:
Hmm, I have C/Y mount Zeiss T* Planar 50/1.4 from 1980's on my Contax RTS II. I haven't noticed any weird bokeh, yet. Some examples here:
http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=53094145@N00&q=planar50mm14+"wide+open"&m=tags

Maybe ZF version has different bokeh "signature", although internally (lens structure) it is the same as about 20 years old C/Y Planar 50/1.4 version.
Click to expand...


The ZF version sometimes has the tendency to double or triple line bokeh. Its rather annoying. My friend has one and shoots a lot of 1.4 shots. Most of the time it seems to happen when shot wide open and at about 2-3 meter range when there is a background a few meters behind.


But what was said up there, give us a tessar with a very classic signature but none of the drawbacks of flare and such, it would be in my bag for sure.
 
The sonnar and planar are both very different beasts - sonnar design with fewer glass to air surfaces than a planar has more aberations but much higher contrast and less flare - this was especially important for a wide aperture lens before multicoating but its cromatic aberation results in focus shift. The main reason why a Planar 1.4 was developed was that sonnaar don't work on slr's at short focal length. They hit the mirror so slr users were sort of stuck with the planar. But the planar is slightly more flare prone so without multicoating the tessar was the defacto normal.

Uness it is the particular planar feel rather than wide ap you are after well the f2 is excellent if it is really to go wide ap then the sonnar is unsurpassed (when you get used to using one) For me low light often means a single light source and chances of flare thats where the sonnar is great even against a multi planar . If you cant afford two 50s I would go for a planar f2. Personaly i doubt zeiss will ever make an f1.4 planar in zm there is little "real" need for it in their eyes they already produce the greatest ever rf wife normal - why try to compete against yourself

Now a pancake f2.8 tessar that is a very different prop or even better a 40mm f3.5 tessar that collapses like a rollei 35 tessar
 
Krosya said:
Hi,
I was wondering, is there a good reason why Zeiss didn't make a Planar 50/1.4 in ZM line, while they have one in ZF? Should we expect one soon? Would be a lens I'd want to try for sure.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the ZF lenses were existing SLR designs that Zeiss had "on the shelf." A 50/1.4 SLR lens would significantly block the viewfinder of a rangefinder. So a 50/1.4 rangefinder Planar would be a totally redesigned lens.
 
newbie question:

can anyone suggest online resources to read up more on planar, sonnar, tessar distinctions?

thanks in advance
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom