Zeiss Planar 50/2 ZM bokeh of light point at background

L

LightWave

Member
Local time
1:00 AM
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
29
I have read

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19394&highlight=Planar+bokeh

and

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39934&highlight=Planar+bokeh

But, I couldn't find sample pictures of how the Planar 50/2 ZM render OOF light source. I like round and creamy bokeh of light source at the background rather than octagonal/hexagonal shape.

Like this... http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrbokeh/316742536/

What do you guys think? Is the Zeiss Planar capable of giving a round rendering of OOF light points at aperture smaller than f/2?

Thanks!
 
In my uses the Planar F2 is the best 50mm F2 lens I have ever found. It's able to render images that look a lot like the amazing 80mm Planar for my Hasselblad. Great flare control, sharp as hell and able to give CRISP images at f2.0-11.

Compared to the current Summicron it seems to be better in flare control and vignetting, and equal on all other fronts.

You can't go wrong with this lens!

Best wishes
Dan
 
aizan said:
how about this?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/telenous/133918343/in/pool-zeissikon50mm/
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link. It looks lovely. The oval shape may be due to other factors in the background.

I found another one. The bokeh of the busy background is quite nice. I don't see any harsh ring in the bokeh.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ex33/112831954/

For the following one, I see "condom" shape bokeh and possibly line doubling?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/moaan/84237695/

When I receive my Planar 50/2 ZM from Popflash later, I'd have to do more testing with slide film to make sure I like it.

I took a few test shots of the Planar 50/1.4 ZF today with my D200 and the bokeh is lovely compared to the various Nikkor 50. Have to do more testing in different situation to have a more conclusive and subjective answer. :D
 
I believe all the Zeiss ZM lenses have 10 aperture blades. However, the sheer number, while important, isn't everything. My Leica 50/2.8 Elmar-M has a 6 bladed opening, but the blades are slightly curved so that the aperture remains relatively "round" up to ~f/4.8 thus creating pleasant OOF highlights.
 
The dedicated testing comparison between ZM 50mm/2 Planar, current 50mm/2 Summicron and Nokton ASPH 50mm/1.5 on www.reidreviews.com .
This is pay review site (about 20-30$ anually), prior to making my choice of standard 50mm lens I subscribed to his reviews just to get an access to this particular test.
Worth the money.
ZM and Summicron case very close to each other, however the slight edge to Summicron solved my equation....(appeared to my eyes just a tad sharped at f/8 in the test - though yet it might be totally subjective, though Planar offer 1/3 stop aperture setting this I'd love to have on Summicron. In OOF, both appear to be 95% similar, though under tight evaluation there might be differences which most certainly aren't practical enough to warrant any preference).
Overall, I would say a new ZM Planar for 600$ certainly worth its money and would win my cash over new Summicron for about 1k$, but one can be hardly pressed not to get tempted by used Summicron (current) in mint condition fr just 160$ more then new Planar....:), that made my choice..
 
visiondr said:
I believe all the Zeiss ZM lenses have 10 aperture blades. However, the sheer number, while important, isn't everything. My Leica 50/2.8 Elmar-M has a 6 bladed opening, but the blades are slightly curved so that the aperture remains relatively "round" up to ~f/4.8 thus creating pleasant OOF highlights.
Click to expand...
It's great that Solms returned the Elmar 50 to production, but the Leitz Elmar 50/2.8 has 15 blades! As the motorheads like to say: There's no substitute for cubic inches. :) The aperture of the old Elmar is really impressive to behold, and remarkably circular at all settings - even more so than the Elmarit 90 v1 with 12 blades. The only Leica lenses with 15 blades (to my knowledge) are the Summarit and early Summicron 90. Did I mention that I don't have a life! :D
 
I guess if you're after the nice bokeh, how subjective this may be, you might consider the 50 c-sonnar. It comes as a trade-offf with sharpness however. Personally I went for the Planar since I mostly prefer a sharp crisp image and don't shoot that much at 1.5 aperture, but in the end this is very personal. I've seen excellent examples of very nice bokeh with the c-sonnar, and a lot of people on this forum seem very happy with this lens.
 
I wanted to get the C-Sonnar, but after reading all the focusing issue at f1.5, I decided to put it off until later. I'm too new to range-finder camera. When I get better at focusing, I may be skilled enough to compensate the focus error in the C-Sonnar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom