Planar vs. Summicron

I would think the problem is more a RF coupling issue with the lens being the weak point. I have used M lenses for the past 42 years and have been playing with a number of the Russian lenses only because it is something different and inexpensive. I am very happy with my Jupiter 8 wide open and at 2.8 on a Ricoh GXR with the M module. I do not trust the Russian lenses to be coupled properly on any of my M bodies, close but not exact which is what gives you that sharpness you seem to be are lacking.
wbill
 
comments go pretty much along the old lines on RFF. Leica is not worth the money, Zeiss/CV is good enough.
 
I was stuck on getting either a Planar and a Cron v4 myself, decided to get me a Planar as it was cheaper and available at that time.

I'm selling it right now though, unless I find a M3 DS first
 
jarski said:
comments go pretty much along the old lines on RFF. Leica is not worth the money, Zeiss/CV is good enough.
Click to expand...

The OP gave a price ceiling around USD$800. It's therefore either an excellent second hand Planar or a fairly early Summicron. Comments have addressed that issue; people with the Summicron seem pleased overall, as are people with the Planar.

Zeiss lens design and quality control are second to none, as are Leica's. Cosina mounts are not in the same league as Leica, and the potential issues of lighter duty mechanics versus greater age has been canvassed.

Other than everyone's bias toward justifying their own lens (i.e. "I only know one of these but I love it"), which is simply human nature, I'd give this thread a 10/10 for addressing the OP's question as rationally as possible.
 
jarski said:
comments go pretty much along the old lines on RFF. Leica is not worth the money, Zeiss/CV is good enough.
Click to expand...

The Zeiss are more than good enough, especially the C Sonnar 50, the 25 Biogon and the 21 4.5 Biogon.

But to appease you, on my M2 at the moment is a DR Summicron. The lustre of that lens barrel is quite something. The weight and density is such that it dampens the noise of the shutter and allows me to hold it steadier. I have a new hand held shot in the gallery at 1/250s with the close up attachment. Very sharp.
 
CCCPcamera said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, then, make sure you try the Planar before you buy. I found the ergonomics pretty poor compared to tabbed Leica lenses.

Moreover, my new Planar took nearly 3 weeks of constant "massaging" to focus smoothly. I literally would sit at night watching a movie and do nothing but turn that thing left and right hundreds of times until it finally became smooth enough to focus with one finger. Zeiss covers this flaw under warranty, but it involves some time.

For a meterless camera (like your M2), I would much more strongly encourage you you to follow Richard G's advice and pick up a rigid or DR Summicron. It's a pairing made in heaven, and the quality of those lenses (as well as the Summaron) have no equals in 35mm. Plus the old Summicron is as sharp as it gets, but with much nicer contrast for BW than modern lenses. Also, ZM lenses feature 1/3 click stops on the aperture ring. Great for AE cameras, but less pleasant in use for meterless cameras.

For IQ, please consieder whether you'll shoot more BW or color. The older Summicrons are especially wonderful as BW lenses, in my opinion. For Color, ZM coatings are great (though when I did a head to head comparison, I found the G Planar to be nicer in color than the ZM).
 
Scrambler said:
Zeiss lens design and quality control are second to none, as are Leica's
Click to expand...

Not in my experience. The only RF lenses I bought new were CV and ZM so I cannot compared with Leica, which I've bought used; but I would say that CV lenses have been better mechanically than the ZM, which I would hope would at least have the edge in optical tolerances.
 
Many excellent comments and insights. I'm more or less convinced the Zeiss is the more sensible choice for me at this stage. It feels like the right decision all things being considered. Thank you all for the topical discussion.
 
well, as a former owner of the 50 ZM Planar and a 50 DR Summicron, if I were to re-enter RFs with a 50/2 it would be the v4/5 summicron

the planar wins for flare reduction, color and field flatness. and that's great and all, but it's fine detail rendition is weaker than the Summicron where it matters for an RF lens IMO, which is on-axis. furthermore, I found the ZM planar to be a PHENOMENALLY boring lens.

Ill be honest, I bought a OM 50/2 Macro for 400 dollars and found it to be a substantially superior lens than the 50 ZM Planar. I also used the money from the sale of my M2 + ZM planar that was left over after some moving bills to purchase a ZF 50/2 Makro-Planar, which optically I like even a little bit more than the Olympus. I realize this doesn't help you.

My personal suggestion to you is to get an inexpensive alternative, the 5cm f2.0 Nikkor LTM and then save your pennies for a second formulation (E43 or 46) Summilux. That lens is worth it, IMO. So is the Lux ASPH, but that doesn't appear to be a realistic short term solution.

FWIW I think you will like the M2. It's my favorite camera that I've ever owned, but the price of the lenses I actually wanted drove me away. The ZM Planar just wasn't good enough to keep me in it.

YMMV.
 
ps someone brought up Puts and I want to say we lost a great resource in his old site.

I recall he did a test, and out of a good number of 50mm M mount lenses, including Lux ASPH, v4 cron, CV 50/1.5 the ZM planar came in dead last for 40 lp/mm contrast.

now you can make an argument for what you can and cant see, especially on film, but I know from my own experience that lenses with higher contrast at higher frequencies tend to have signatures that I like better. caveat for correlation not being causation here.
 
CCCPcamera said:
What I want to know more about is long term quality. Anyone have any sob stories?
Click to expand...

There are actually quite a few sob stories with the Planar. Just google "Zeiss Planar Wobble" (or see here, for instance: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97703). To be honest, I wouldn't buy any of the two today, I find V3, V4 and V5 Summicrons too expensive now (at least doubled in used price in the last 3 years), and ZM doesn't feel good enough mechanically to spend 600 bucks or more.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned another alternative: The M-Hexanon 50/2. Very well built, and runs around US 600 or less these days.

BTW, my own two modern 50s are the new 50/1.5 M-Nokton (at least mechanically better than the original LTM version) and the 50/2.4 L-Hexanon.

Best,

Roland.
 
Well, I already bought a Planar haha. I'll treat it nicely. I was under the impression from what I've read that the Voightlander competition wasn't as sharp wide open. I hadn't really considered the Hexanon, perhaps that was a mistake, but it's the same price so oh well. I'll see how it goes. I'm sure it'll be awesome.
 
g1 planar!

g1 planar!

Hi, i love 50´s but don´t like the size of that fcal length, nowadays i´m very happy with my elmar 5cm coll. lens.

I just even sold my sonnar.

But i´m considering sending a g1 planra for M conversion, i found that 45mm focal length very useful and that planar is damn sharp!!!
Opnce i put it on my m9 body and guessed focus, the results where awesome! even at f2...!

The lens and lens convertion cost including shipping will be around 680!

:)
 
Superb sharpness = Hasselblad or other quality medium/large format. No Yashica TLR

Buying an M2 is like buying a 1965 Corvette, good in its time and can be made good again with lots of tlc, expensive. Age alone is getting at it plus wear and tear.

Check out your focus on a fence at 45 deg angle. Front or back focus will show.
Your old lenses may or may not have been good from the factory or they may have suffered amateur repairs. Russian lenses were set to a different optical register, ie flange to film.
 
I'll definitely do some tests when I get the M2 and the Planar together. Pretty stoked. It's true nothing can match a medium format camera for sharpness/resolution. My Yashica mat124 is pretty damn sharp. Unfortunately - not very contrasty . . . but that could be my development.
 
I have the ZM Sonnar and ZM Planar and I love them both. The first gives me wide open pictures that are unlike any other lenses I own and the second is rock solid reliable, giving technically perfect shots every time (composition is always another story.) I have no complaints with either lens.

I do own a Summilux, and it is a very nice lens, but it gets very, very little use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom