Planar vs. Summicron

[CCCPcamera]

I've been using a Bessa R with a variety of soviet lenses for years, and while it's been fun, I'm getting really tired of "soft" pictures. I want something sharp - damn sharp. Reasonably fast, but sharp too. I know some like the "soft" or "flattering" look of a fast (and not so sharp) lens, but frankly I'm not so big on it.

I'm upgrading (in my opinion) to an M2. That's decided. Now the question is which lens do I upgrade to. My favourite focal length is 50mm. No question there. I've been trying to decide between a Zeiss Planar 50/2, and a Summicron 50/2. It seems for the price of a used Summicron I can get a brand new Planar right here in Alberta. No shipping. That's my price range ~ $860 CDN

I'm leaning toward the Planar right now, unless a very modestly priced Summicron pops up. Also I prefer silver (available on the Planar). But that's not a big deal.

So, opinions. Which is the better lens? Are they appreciably different? Which is better value? f2 is fast enough for me, but it needs to be sharp.

Thoughts?

Thanks.

 

[semilog]

Do it.

I had the Summicron (IV) for over a decade. Never meshed with it. I have often regretted selling lenses, particularly M-mount lenses. I've never regretted selling the Summicron. For a lens as expensive as it is, it flares a bit too readily and its bokeh leaves something to be desired. The Planar has, to my eyes, superior rendering and is less flare-prone.

 

[Classique]

Hmm...I don't think Bessa R and soviet lenses should give you "soft" pictures. I took at pic with jupiter 3 wide open that were sharp as any lens of the same speed. Also, Bessa R gave me tack sharp results when I had it. So before you go out and buy a new camera and lens, it might be worth checking the focus on the bessa and the soviet lenses.

Nonetheless, everyone should try a summicron at least once (not just for sharpness, mind you).

 

[Jockos]

I've been pondering the thought to get a planar for the winter myself.. There's one in the classifieds (not affiliated) right now:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/pho...69/title/super-deal-zeiss-2c-cv-2c-fuji/cat/2

 

[Requin]

I've got an Erwin Puts review (the Leica-specialist) who ranked the Zeiss Planar 2/50 and Leica Summicron 50 mm performance as equivalent, followed by Voigtlander Nokton.
I'm sorry this review is in German only. As for the price the Planar is way cheaper.

Requin

 

[mfogiel]

Any of the f2.0 modern 50mm lenses will be sharp enough. If you really want sharp film pictures, use a film like Delta 100 in FX39, and above all, shoot at f5.6 on a tripod. THEN it will be real sharp.

 

[sebastel]

optically, the planar is a very nice one. i can't see differences to the summicron (in my case, the version III).

just it does not feel as nice. mine does not focus smoothly, seems the lubrication is dried out. i'd consider selling it, but fear an eventual buyer might be upset about that ...

cheers,
sebastan

 

[CCCPcamera]

Good thoughts. Sounds like there's no point shelling-out for a summicron.

To clarify, I have made very sharp pictures on my Bessa R. They were with a J3 (as one of you pointed-out). I tried to take apart and re-lubricate the J3, and I never got it back together properly. The last few rolls I shot were using a J8, and it's about as sharp as a spoon. The R is alright, but I sometimes find it difficult to focus. My Kiev 4 (which is jammed) has a MUCH nicer focussing screen. I'm buying an M2 because 1) I've wanted one since I was 17. 2) It should have a focussing screen that's as good or better than that in the R. 3) It's an m-mount 4) It's a tank.

Your comments seem to support what I've read - that the Planar is super awesome for a reasonable price. One thing I'd like to know more about is quality. How does it last? Is it prone to certain problems? I find it hard to believe that Zeiss cannot make something as solid as Leica. We're talking about Zeiss here - everything they make (microscopes etc.) is gorgeous.

- Alex

 

[literiter]

Good thoughts. Sounds like there's no point shelling-out for a summicron.



I find it hard to believe that Zeiss cannot make something as solid as Leica. We're talking about Zeiss here - everything they make (microscopes etc.) is gorgeous.

- Alex

I have never used a modern "Zeiss" lens, just my 50mm Summicron on my M cameras. I think the Zeiss is certainly priced right. Modern lenses, manufactured using modern techniques are superb. I don't think you can go wrong.

As for Zeiss, remember that Zeiss is not the original Zeiss manufacturer. Zeiss lenses are really Cosina lenses. I'm not sure the original Zeiss company exists.

 

[CCCPcamera]

I think the Zeiss lenses are made for Zeiss by Cosina in Japan. Actually one or two of the Zeiss lenses is made in Germany. Zeiss most certainly still exists, but they don't make cameras. The Ikon is purely Cosina. I'm most familiar with light microscopes and surgical scopes made by Zeiss.

I tend to agree with what you've said regarding modern lenses. They must be beautiful. What I want to know more about is long term quality. Anyone have any sob stories?

 

[Lss]

Sounds like there's no point shelling-out for a summicron.

For me this choice would be based on ergonomics and handling. A choice between a new Summicron and a new Planar would probably be based on price alone.

 

[CCCPcamera]

Ergonomics and feel are definitely important. I've used a summicron in my local shop, and while it was very nice, I have to say I wasn't blown away. I've never handled a Planar. Like I said, my own experience with Zeiss is limited to their scopes, the ergonomics of which of always been impressed by.

 

[EdwardKaraa]

The planar is slightly sharper, has higher micro contrast and does not flare easily. The build quality is very nice too.

 

[Ansel]

The 50 mm summicron is an all time classic Leica lens.. Absolutely love it. IQ, handling, size. That would be my choice.

The Leica/Zeiss competition is many decades old though.... so either would be fine.

 

[YYV_146]

I've used the summicron before, always leaves something to be desired. Bokeh is ever so slightly better than the planar, though. Leica also has the upper hand on build quality compared to cosina, the two planers I shot with were both a bit stiff.

If I had to choose from the two it would probably be the planar, though the new nokton asph also seems attractive - had a very luck chance to shoot with the original German one, very impressive lens.

 

[kennylovrin]

For what it's worth, I use the Planar and the C Biogon on my M9 and my M2 (and M6 before that). I think the psychological aspect should not be underestimated. Everything in my body told me to go with Leica because it just "has to be better right, it's Leica!!". But I looked and I looked and I looked at photos, and I just couldn't see anything that was better with the Summicrons over the Planar and therefore I could not justify the price differences.

As a matter of fact I've always liked the Zeiss rendering, and the only reason that I sometimes thinka bout getting a Summicron is that they are every so slightly slimmer than the Planar.

But if you want sharp, I see no reason pay the extra for the Summicron to be honest.

I'm sure a lot of people won't agree, and that is just my personal opinion. I think comparing lenses like these, it becomes a lot of "you see what you want to see", and I settled on Zeiss based on what I think I see. I don't look at curves and tech specs though, if I can't see it in the shot it doesn't exist - kind of.

I bought my Planar new though, so I cannot guarantee how it will handle a few years from now (one of the main reasons people seem to prefer Leica is the build), but right now I it is super smooth and distinct, but it's only been about a year of use so far.

I'd say though as well that the film shots I've shot myself, they don't even come close to the sharpness the lens is capable of because of the grain, so I am not so sure that you'll see that Planar sharpness anyway. But I am in no way good at developing etc, so I'm sure more sharpness can be had if you know what you're actually doing. 🙂

Hope that helps a little!

Kenny

 

[ChrisN]

Something you might want to consider: what's your personal roadmap for further lenses for the M system? If you can see yourself adding a few more lenses, it will be worth thinking about filter size too. I've stuck with Leica Summicron and CV lenses that all take 39mm filters. That makes it simpler and easier when swapping lenses in a situations where filters are required.

 

[wallace]

I use a Canon (Serenar) 50mm/1.8 with my Bessa R. It is a great lens and a real bargain.

 

[Richard G]

Another issue is ergonomics. I love the Zeiss lenses and in time might even get the planar too. They are big lenses overall, and I like the bayonet fit of the hoods, but there is nothing like the tabbed Summicron for compactness and quick focus, and with the hood reversed for storage and carrying. The Zeiss bump is just not the same as the Leica tab. I never encountered flare with my Summicron till the last few years. Maybe it needs a service. I have UV filters on most of my lenses and never remove them except when the need arises shooting into the sun. Even then the B&W MRC filters stand up to that pretty well too. I nearly always use hoods. If you don't then the Planar is a winner on nearly all counts. My chrome Leicas look great with silver ZM lenses on them. Departing from Leica to try a few Zeiss lenses is one of the best things I learnt here on RFF.

 

[mfogiel]

BTW, you did not say, if you shoot colour or B&W. For B&W, about the best you can get would be the DR Summicron, also I like a lot the Elmar M v2, but it is only an f2.8.
For colour it is a no brainer - Planar is truly great. The lens is solid, but it benefits from constant use - else the grease can become a bit stiff. Also, if over time you develop the wobble, just buy a spanner and adjust it yourself.