Replacing a Summicron

[Maxapple88]

Hi,

My current 50mm is a Summicron from the late 60's (69 I believe). Its a good lens and it takes great pictures, I'm just considering to switch to something more rigid and modern.

The Zeiss lenses greatly appeal to me. My 35 is a Biogon and I'm very satisfied with it. Now I'm considering either a 50mm Planar f/2 or a 50mm Sonnar f/1.5.

Is the extra stop worth it or is the Planar possibly the better lens? Does anyone have any experience with either of these or other suggestions?

Kind regards,
Max

 

[FifthLeaf]

Unless you like to spend extra money to make your pictures softer, go with the Planar. A very good lens.

 

[elshaneo]

And if your budget is tighter, get the Konica M Hexanon 50mm f/2 instead, I have that lens and I can confirm that it's awesome !!!

 

[Al Kaplan]

...or just keep what you have. Are you really going to notice any difference unless you make 11x14 or larger prints of small sectiojns of the negatives, shoot the exact same subject under the same lighting, etc., etc. ???? Ask your doctor to give you something for GAS. At least your medical insurance will cover the bill.

 

[awilder]

I'm not sure what you mean by more "rigid" but the Planar will have a more modern look, i.e. less flare and only slightly sharper across the field if the Summicron you own is the black Wetzlar version that focuses down to 0.7 m. If you need more speed and want similar sharpness, consider the pre-asph. 50/1.4 Summilux or much better yet the ASPH version.

 

[ferider]

I looked at your gallery, Max, some great portraits, among others.

I recommend to keep the Summicron and get the Sonnar, will give you some additional capability you don't have yet.

Gruss & N' guten Rutsch ....

Roland.

 

[WoolenMammoth]

max, that black cron is in many ways my desert island lens, its going to be hard to top it. I have a new zeiss sonnar. its a fun lens and it does look very different. I dont consider it to be any kind of improvement over the con though. It definitely is more modern looking but you are not going to see the sharpness that you are used to with the cron at 2.0 until 2.8 on the sonnar. It is not like a summilux in respect to shooting wide open, at 1.5, that lens is a special effect, which does what nothing else does, but its not particularly practical wide open when you dont want that look which is very over powering. Several months after trying to make the sonnar work for me I wound up purchasing my first summilux and havent looked back. I still have the sonnar but the lux is my main lens. I dont know if I would suggest that its a big step up over the black cron, but it is faster and most definitely has a bolder look which I prefer to the somewhat delicate drawing of the cron. If you go towards a summilux I would reccomend finding a newer vrsion with the collapsible hood which focuses to .7 m. Apparenlty both versions of the pre-asph are supposed to be identical formulas but I see diffrent results from the two I have and prefer the newer lens, higher contrast and definitely a bit sharper.

Someone earlier mentioned a hexanon, if you can find one I cant praise that lens enough. Its a completely modern look compared to the cron you have and frighteningly amazing. Its also built about a billion times better than the zeiss lenses. Truly amazing amazing amazing lens.

 

[waileong]

A planar is fine if you want sharpness. Go for it.