Zeiss planar v Canon 1.4 ltm 50mm

[AlexBG]

Two lenses that I have seen many many photos taken by and like both. For a few years I've been trying different 50mm lenses and after selling my summarit am looking for something new.

Are these two lenses comparable? For my next lens I am looking for 3D pop and sharp as possible wide open. Seems as though both lenses are going up in value and it's getting harder and harder to find a good condition canon.

Not fussed about focus shift problems and the like, just looking for opinions on both, will be mainly family portraits, kids etc, I use a Leica M3 and Fuji X-t3, mostly colour film.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I had Planar and sold it very quick. It was giving 3D on bw digital.
I observed 3D with different lenses. I believe lens is usually modern and major factors is light, not the lens.

 

[raid]

I do not own any Zeiss ZM 50mm lenses, but I believe that ZM lenses have great coatings and flare resistance when compared with the old Canon ltm lenses. I have the Canon 50/1.4. I also have a ZM 35/2. The ZM has great coatings.

The second factor is bokeh. Canon ltm lenses can have harsh looking OOF rendering. Still, the Canon 50/1.4 is a wonderful lens overall. The Canon lens is most likely smaller in size than the Zeiss Planar.

 

[AlexBG]

I had Planar and sold it very quick. It was giving 3D on bw digital.
I observed 3D with different lenses. I believe lens is usually modern and major factors is light, not the lens.

Why did you sell it quickly?

 

[sevres_babylone]

The comparison for me is that they are non-Sonnars. My two most used lenses have been the Zeiss 50 F1.5 and the Canon 50mm F1.5. The Canon 50mm F1.4 was the only time I bought a lens via the RFF classifieds where the person wasn’t a regular poster or seller. But it was local, we met in person, and it turned out well. Interestingly his story was that he was selling it for his girlfriend who had just bought the Zeiss Planar, so the connection between the two lenses was made for me there. A while later, I also bought the Planar. I prefer the Canon because it has more of a sixties look, and I have been using it more lately on my M9, (although the Zeiss Sonnar is practically glued onto my Sony). My ignorance, but I don’t know what 3D pop is. The Planar is sharp, and is obviously more modern. I don’t know what prices are like now, but at the time I bought them used, the Canon was less than half the price of the Planar. If I were selling one of the two, which I am not, I would sell the Planar; but that’s because I have a bunch of 50’s, and if I want a non-Sonnar look, in addition to the Canon, I have a couple of Nortons.

 

[sevres_babylone]

I do not own any Zeiss ZM 50mm lenses, but I believe that ZM lenses have great coatings and flare resistance when compared with the old Canon ltm lenses. I have the Canon 50/1.4. I also have a ZM 35/2. The ZM has great coatings.

The second factor is bokeh. Canon ltm lenses can have harsh looking OOF rendering. Still, the Canon 50/1.4 is a wonderful lens overall. The Canon lens is most likely smaller in size than the Zeiss Planar.

Agree about the flare resistance. I had a weird experience once shooting into lights at a concert with the Canon; but I’m not sure it was all the lens and not partly the sensor. But in my experience, Zeiss comes up on top in that regard.

I find the bokeh on this this Canon lens quite alright.

 

[Bille]

3D pop and sharp as possible wide open.

For sharpness, Summicron M 50. The Canon might give you the "3D Pop" but its not as highly resolving as the Summicron.

Cant speak for the Planar. I tried the 50/1.5 briefly and was bored with it. (Not super sharp, no great bokeh / separation either.)

A fun lens if you can find one, the older Voigtländer 50/2.5 LTM (I believe "Color-Skopar").

 

[raid]

For high resolution: Summicron M Hexar 50/3.5 Konica 50/2.5

 

[filmtwit]

I've owned both, I only kept the Canon fro about 6 months as I found the minimum focus of 1m didn't work for me. The Planar I've owned twice. The o.7m minum focus was fantastic, but it didn't have a much character as Summulux (v3 e46) did, so I sold it, but then 2 years ago I found one at a price that made me buyit again.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Why did you sell it quickly?

Handling was awful. I’m not keep it in the bag, pull it out, think about exposure, take time to frame and back in the bag style.
I have camera on me and while I walk I switch aperture sun/shadow. My camera is always ready. ZM 1/3 hard clicks were just masochist for it.

 

[newst]

I have never owned the Zeiss Planar, but love my copy of the Canon 1.4/50.

I prefer the vintage look, an absolute definition isn't critical for me. However, the images I have taken on film, and others that I have reviewed in sites like Flikr, justify in my mind the moniker "Japanese Summilux".

Note: that comparison is on film, with a 1950s Canon and a 1950s Summilux, you can't fairly compare more modern lenses with modern glass and coatings. Nor can you fairly compare performance on a sensor that didn't exist back then. The only fair comparison is on film.

So far these are double gauss designs, not Sonnars. Sonnars, particularly fast (f/1.5) Sonnars, are a different animal. You might as well be comparing dogs and oysters.

The Sonnar was designed to display a certain range of aberrations, that is what produces the Sonnar character. Actually, the Sonnar has a multiple personality problem. Shoot it at f/1.5, again at f/4 and again at f/8, and you essentially have three different lenses. The looks just aren't the same.

To close it out, for those who insist on ultimate sharpness in a 1950s rangefinder lens, may I present my yardstick, the Topcor Heliar 2.8/50.

2020-05-28 Stage Canon P Topcor 50-28 LOMO 800 000452420035 by newst54, on Flickr

 

[f.hayek]

Old lenses=B&W film

 

[aizan]

Since you like the look of photos from both lenses, I would say buy the one that you prefer overall for other reasons.

- Infinity lock vs. focusing bump
- Half-stop vs. third stops
- Condition and price
- Viewfinder blockage with hood
- Availability
- Style

Etc...

I have a Planar and the Nikkor 50/1.4 LTM, but I’ve handled the Canon 50/1.4 LTM several times. I’m keeping both, and I wouldn’t mind having the Canon, either. This is one basic reason why 50mm lens GAS happens: lenses are nice and people like all sorts of them. Toss a coin or go with your gut on this one. It’s not worth thinking much about a decision that’s not made rationally, haha.

 

[newst]

Old lenses=B&W film

They were using color film beginning in the late 1930s. Color film was expensive, and not common, in the 1950s, but lens designers were well aware of it.

 

[f.hayek]

50 Rigid does a better job with color.

 

[james.liam]

To close it out, for those who insist on ultimate sharpness in a 1950s rangefinder lens, may I present my yardstick, the Topcor Heliar 2.8/50.

Nervous bokeh.

They were using color film beginning in the late 1930s. Color film was expensive, and not common, in the 1950s, but lens designers were well aware of it.

Of course they were and likely did their best with what they had but the glass was made with B&W film in mind.

50 Rigid does a better job with color.

In my anecdotal experience, would agree. With too many others, got all sorts of weird colors and desaturation. Appeals to the aesthetics of some. More pastel than real. Not my taste, but YMMV.

 

[AlexBG]

This is one basic reason why 50mm lens GAS happens: lenses are nice and people like all sorts of them. Toss a coin or go with your gut on this one. It’s not worth thinking much about a decision that’s not made rationally, haha.

I've been enjoying my 50mm gas for a while now. I did try a lot of film cameras and then inherited an M3 from my grandad so that stopped me changing bodies a lot. Konica Hexar Rf was my favourite. For a while I've been enjoying swapping 50mm lenses. I try to have one at a time, use it for 6/12 months then sell and buy another one.

The canon 1.4 seems highly regarded on the forum where a the planar seems over shadowed by the sonnar even though the photos I have seen with it look fantastic.

 

[Huss]

I love the Zeiss ZM Planar. Shot this at f2 1/15 sec hand held on my M3:

 

[Tim Gray]

I think the Zeiss is going to have a more modern and high contrast look, and with updated physical styling. I’m sure they are both great lenses.

I’ve not used either (haha) but do own the Zeiss 50 Loxia for Sony, which is supposed to be very similar to the ZM. It’s a fantastic lens. I also have a Nikkor 50/1.4 LTM (a sonnar, I know), and personally, I’d much rather have a modern lens from a usability standpoint. The optics and image of the Nikkor are great, but I don’t like the infinity lock, unequal aperture spacing, long focus throw, etc of the ‘50’s lens. Give me the Zeiss ZM design any day, even with the 1/3 stop aperture ring.

 

[raid]

I love the Zeiss ZM Planar. Shot this at f2 1/15 sec hand held on my M3:

A beautiful image!