used 50 summicron-M or new zeiss 50 planar ZM ?

[EllitoGuy]

[FONT=Geneva, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]im sure this question has been asked many times, but i need to make a decision.

which do you get for an m7 (or other m-mount camera), and why?
[/FONT]

 

[gavinlg]

I'd be partial to the zeiss, just looking at the pictures coming from it. It has a very lovely individual look - everyone uses summicrons (for a reason though)

I haven't used either lens yet, just my not so well justified opinion.

Gav

 

[Rafael]

It depends on which Summicron you're looking at. I have a Summicron (III) from 1969. It's a great lens for many applications, but I have always found the images it produces to lack in boldness. Both the Summicron (IV) and the Planar produce much bolder images than the Summicron (III). I bought the Planar and have been extremely pleased with it. As several others on this forum have written before, it is a very balanced lens. But it still produces very bold images. I love it. (Check out Nachkebia's gallery. He has produced some amazing photographs with the Planar)

All that said, the Summicron (IV) is also an excellent choice. It too is very balanced and very bold. I don't think you can go wrong with either lens. Good luck.

 

[aizan]

slight edges here and there. the zm for bw, 'cron for color. bayonet or built-in hood. $550 new or $800 used (latest version). focus tab or plain ring.

if i had an m7, i wouldn't worry about the small differences and just get a 'cron.

 

[lewis44]

I've had about every 50 made for Leica and Canon RF cameras along with Nikon, except for the Zeiss. The 50 Summicron, current glass is the one I always come back to. I have both a tabbed with current glass and current model with built in hood and can see no difference. I'm led to beleive that coatings have improved the current model, but again, I can't tell one way or the other. The Summicron is about the sharpest lens I have used without being hard or should I say harsh. Also the color rendition is supurb. It makes me a better photographer, or at least I prefer the rendition of the images with the lens more, if that makes any sense
To Compare, the 35 Summicron Asph get's a little harsh or maybe cold at times where the 50 does not.
The Summicron is best 50 I have ever used, but either one is an excellent choice. Keep looking at images shot with both and you should be able to get a feeling of which will be the one for you.
Randy

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[EllitoGuy]

well then, given the price difference, i guess ill get the zeiss and have some extra money to put towards something else...

THANKS ALL!

 

[35mmdelux]

the cron is the gold-standard. In a way its a Mercedes vs the Lexus. I've owned them both and take the late model Cron anyday.

Older crons all bets off.

 

[sepiareverb]

I do love my 50 summicron (latest version). It is my most used lens hands down. I've printed stuff at 1620 and have been shocked at the quality. I am still getting a handle on the Zeisse I recently got- the 25 & the 28. These both appear to be quite stunning in their own right, tho I've not printed anything bigger than 810 from them yet. I don't think you can go wrong with either.

 

[sepiareverb]

If I may jump in here lewis44- I'd say you could likely handle a good deal of this with developer- don't underestimate the choice of developer nor the dilution nor the agitation in fine control of your image. Of course when wet printing you have this control with developer again, but the processing of the films does 'set your direction'.
You must also consider the lighting- you've undoubtably had rolls where the light changed a great deal during the day or over the course of several days and had very different looking negatives at frame 3 and at frame 23- This is one reason I'm having a hard time letting go of the 40 summicron, as it certaily draws a much smoother light than either of the modern summicrons- useful on those hot as blazes full sun days when I'm shooting in town.

 

[Avotius]

I am in a similar boat, I really want a summilux pre asph but the price jump lately has kept that well out of my hands so I have considered a used summicron (current) or a new zeiss. If it came down to it I would prefer the summicron over the zeiss because I am one of those people who likes the built in lens hood where as the zeiss its an expensive extra. I also prefer the ergonomics of the leica lens overall but the zeiss is no slouch it self and sometimes having that little bump in the focus ring can be a good thing. Still though in the end I would prefer the summicron over the planar, but just...

 

[Meleica]

I have owned both the current Summi and the Planar and I feel they are equal in overall quality. I think the Leica has great color fidelity but the Planar has great color saturation. Both are nearly equal in resolution. In the used market the Leica is a bit more and will probably hold its value longer for being a "Leica"

My 50mm Summicron page
http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/summicron.htm


Dan

 

[TJV]

I love my new Summicron, both for the inbuilt hood - which keeps it really compact and "easy" - and it's amazing colour rendition. Looking at the price of the Zeiss though, I'd be inclined to lean in it's favour it buying new again. What size is the Zeiss filter? Surely there is a good screw in vented hood out there. I just received a great vented hood for my new 35 Summilux from ebay and it's a realy pleasure to use.

As for the 35 'cron... I'm borrowing one at the moment to try and I'm finding it a joy. Yes, it is crisp all over, but it's size and feel are amazing. I prefer my 'lux but I'd be happy with the 'cron if I had to live with it. Having said thay though, my favourite lens of all time was a second gen 35 summicron that I stupily sold to help fund a horrible M8. What a dope! I love the photos I took with that lens more than anything in my photo collection. There was just something special about it and the times I was photographing when I owned it.

 

[colinh]

I do love my 50 summicron (latest version). It is my most used lens hands down. I've printed stuff at 1620 and have been shocked at the quality.

OK, I just have to ask this just once:


Which film, exposed and developed how, which enlarger, which paper, exposed and developed how?

I'm not being facetious. I'd just like to reproduce some of these results to have a reference point to compare my current feeble attempts with.

I've just started serious darkroom work (splitgrade exposure, Ilford MG IV FB baryt paper, selenium toned, Leitz Focomat V35, 30 x 40 cm (12 x 16 ").

The results are good, but I wasn't shocked :-(

colin

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[colinh]

Thanks for the kind words Magus,


I have used RC papers up until now. (MG IV RC)

The splitgrade is interesting (fascinating) but I haven't managed to get a "technically perfect" print first time yet. But it's not bad to get a point to start from. Last print I used 4 test strips, 9 ninths of a 8 x 10 sheet, and six 8 x 10 work prints. And, finally,
one 12 x 16 sheet. 🙂

Sorry for hijacking the thread,

colin

BTW, I have the summicron, as I bought the set. But since then I've bought the ZM 25 and ZM 35.

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[Meleica]

summicron, summicron, summicron, summicron, summicron



that ought to get the thread back on track 🙂

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request