Zeiss 50mm f2 Planar T* vs 'Cron

G

giellaleafapmu

Well-known
Local time
10:25 AM
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
888
Dear folks,

I am considering buying one of the two lenses mentioned in the title of the thread for my M4.
In fact, I was only comparing prices of the Summicron from on-line shops when I discovered
Zeiss makes a Planar f2 in M mount and started wondering.

Did anyone try the two lenses? How do they compare? Is the Zeiss a "real" Zeiss or is it made by somebody else under licence (I seem to remember that was the case for some Yashica-Zeiss or Rollei-Zeiss optics but I might be wrong)? Is it the Zeiss made for their rangefinder and in case it is does this give any rangefinder alinement problem if/when used on an M?

Thanks in advance for any imput.

Giella lea Fapmu
 
There has been a lot of discussion of the new Zeiss lens as compared with the Summicron on this forum -- others may well post a link to previous threads but I suggest you search around.

The Planar is made for Zeiss by Cosina, as are all but two of the new Zeiss lenses. There is nothing at all to be concerned about regarding build quality, by all accounts. And while the Planar and others have been introduced for the Zeiss Ikon rangefinder, there is no incompatibility with the Leica M cameras that I have heard of.
 
Zeiss lenses are amazingly good build and there are highest quality lenses avalable on sale today :) as for cron I don`t know I have never used it, I have used Zeiss 50mm f2 Planar though and I like it alot..
 
The Planar is a fab lens! Wonderfully crisp results with beautiful colour rendition. I love it on my R-D1. I reckon it will perform equally wonderful on any M.
 
according to putz the planar is the equal of the summicron, its a simple as that. Regarding build I have both makes and there is no difference to me. I have a planar but no summicron for direct comparison.
 
You will find that both lenses are highly thought of. Modern lenses and designs (particularly these two high-end designs) are unlikely to fail you.

Go with the one that fits best in your price point. I only have experience with the summicron, it is a very capable lens. good luck in your search
 
Though after shooting summilux 50 asph I can say that planar is slightly "clinical" but not that digital users will ever see the difference :D
 
It is hard to discribe but planar gives slightly thick look, maybe 3D look that people used to say, expecialy on positive film it feels that it is very thick :)
Magus : on black an white film nothing could be clinical, expecialy with tri-x and all the traditional grain films but on positive it feels rather heavy, same way does 35mm biogon, 21 and 25 are different enimals...
 
I own both and I'm afraid that to distinguish between the two you'll have to resort to metaphor and simile, much as Nachkebia has done. They are both excellent lenses. I would go to flickr or another site that allows users to post photos and characterize them by lens used etc. and see whether you can view examples of pictures taken with each. It's hard to tell anything on the web at 72 dpi, except maybe the quality of out-of-focus areas. There are currently a lot of good choices in an M-mount 50 f:2 lens (M-Hexanon, Summicron, Zeiss Planar, older DR or rigid Summicron, Cosina/Voitlander Nockton (f:1.5)).

Ben Marks
 
Yeah, I mean technicly sharpness wise I think all of them are excellent on rangefinder, I mean all my zeiss lenes are excellent at all apertures in every condition, there is no doubt about it, another thing is charecter of the lens, but it is very hard to see charecter on the internet since you don`t know conditions of the shoot.... all of them are chrisp, sharp and contrasty today, most important is how to balance in between elegantly and gently.... if you are using digital it makes no sence, I don`t think you can identify charechter on digital, you might be able to distinguish difference between noctilux and cron because of depth of field but nothing else... so again more is less, less is more :) as if digital should bring more options but it does the oposite :)
 
I currently own a Planar and have used it on a Leica M6 for the past year or so. It is the best 50mm I've have used. I only have experience with an older Summicron and that is also a great lens. The signatures are slightly different to my eye but I would still take the Planar if buying new. the build on the Planar is very nice.
Nick
 
Nachkebia said:
Y.... if you are using digital it makes no sence, I don`t think you can identify charechter on digital, you might be able to distinguish difference between noctilux and cron because of depth of field but nothing else...
Click to expand...
i dare to disagree.

the characters of summicron, noctilux and c-sonnar visibly differ on the R-D1.
i only have no planar in my repertoire, so i can not really contribute to the original question in this thread.

just my 1.6 cents (euro cent, of course).
sebastian

edit: in order not to underrate the weight of our northern american friend's two-cent-opinions, i changed the amount ...
 
Last edited:
sebastel said:
just my 1.6 cents (euro cent, of course).
sebastian
Click to expand...

LOL! ;-). I too have noticed differences in these lenses, even shooting a series of focus-check images of a tape-measure last week. Oddly, DAG had adjusted my R-D1 to work with a DR 50 that I sent him. The combo worked great, but my other 50's were back-focussing. So I sent the modern 50s and the DR back to DAG along with the R-D1. He wound up machining 9/1000 of an inch off of the optical head of the DR 50 so now the optical head is slightly closer to the camera causing the focus to go back a couple of inches. Funny. I thought a Summicron was a Summicron was a Summicron. Should have the camera back in a couple of days.

In the process of my own tests, I put a 50 M-Hexanon, 50 Planar, 50 Summicron, 50 Nockton, 50/1.5 Canon, 50 Summarit, 50 Elmarit and 50 Noctilux on the R-D1 and focused on a tape-measure (which traveled away from the camera). I would say that the results were all distinctive (that is different from one another in terms of boke, contrast etc.). Not that I could tell one print from another (without a point of reference), but the differences were real. My tests were in B&W, but there are subtle differences in color rendition among these lenses too. Someday I'll do a test like this at different apertures with different lenses and offer a CD to anyone who sends a SASE.
 
Ben: That is really interesting about the DR. Not to go OT, but did DAG make any comment about this being "standard" for the DR? The DR was spot-on on my M3; I didn't have any other 50s to compare, but if the DR was correct on my M3 (as were my 21 SA and 90 Summicron), then what does that say about the other 50s? Yes, this is an RD-1 we're talking about with Cosina's implementation of the M mount and their RF module, but I am not inclined to think the mount is issue. Rather, it sounds like that particular DR was out that minute amount.
 
Nachkebia said:
Lens contrast on digital is such a surealistic concept :D
Click to expand...

Nachkebia, I'm curious why you believe that. If anything, I'd think digital sensors would capture a "truer" representation of a lens's contrast since they react linearly, whereas film emulsions react in curves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom