ASA 32
Well-known
Any thoughts as to how the ZM and G2 45mm f/2 Planar lenses compare in overall image quality? I know the ZM is made by Cosina, but how about the G2? Any comments appreciated!
SaveKodak
Well-known
There is no ZM 45mm F2 lens. Some have taken the Contax version and refit it to Leica M mount though, and obviously there is no difference in quality. Among ZM normals you have a variety of choices. 50/2, 50/1.5, 35/2, 35/1.4, and 35/2.8 Every one of these optics are world class and any photographer should consider themselves lucky to own one. The 45 F2 is very sharp, but modern tastes would find it's 'bokeh' pattern offensive (I am not one of these people). The ZM 35s mostly are a little smoother in this regard, and no-softer. The 50/2 is one of the sharpest 50s you can get, it's extremely good. The 50/1.5 is more about rendering, it's a special application 50. Best used for portraits IMO.
Scapevision
Well-known
I will report in a month 
film takes time for me.
film takes time for me.
ASA 32
Well-known
Yes, I meant the ZM 50/2. And thanks for the helpful information.
bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
From what I understand, the ZM 50/2 has a very slight bit of distortion (this data can be found online), especially when compared to the Leica Summicron-M 50/2 which is considered one of the best prime lenses ever made.
I don't have any data on how the Zeiss Planar 45/2 compares, but I own both the ZM 50/2 and the Zeiss 45/2.
Subjective opinion: they are both stellar lenses. The ZM 50/2 is a bit more contrasty, and produces richer colors than other lenses when used with color film. The Zeiss 45/2 is definitely a bit sharper and more 'neutral'.
Really, you can't go wrong with either lens. The only hitch is that the Zeiss 45/2 has to be used ONLY with the G2, unless you get the Hawk's modification for M-mount.
I don't have any data on how the Zeiss Planar 45/2 compares, but I own both the ZM 50/2 and the Zeiss 45/2.
Subjective opinion: they are both stellar lenses. The ZM 50/2 is a bit more contrasty, and produces richer colors than other lenses when used with color film. The Zeiss 45/2 is definitely a bit sharper and more 'neutral'.
Really, you can't go wrong with either lens. The only hitch is that the Zeiss 45/2 has to be used ONLY with the G2, unless you get the Hawk's modification for M-mount.
pechelman
resu deretsiger
Scapevision
Well-known
Frankly, never understood the "i don't own both" if someone was asking specifically for a comparison
I own both. In the process of running tri-x through Contax.
By the way, both are made in Japan. One is Kyocera, the other Cosina.
I own both. In the process of running tri-x through Contax.
By the way, both are made in Japan. One is Kyocera, the other Cosina.
Pioneer
Veteran
Thank you for your observation Scapevision and you have a fair point. In the future I will refrain from commenting on these types of threads.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
Look here - http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19154
Personally, I don't believe you'll be able to tell the difference.
Personally, I don't believe you'll be able to tell the difference.
froyd
Veteran
Owned both and sold the ZI and Planar combo. I wanted that kit to blend the photographic pleasure I get from shooting Leica Ms and the stellar IQ quality at affordable prices that I get from the G lenses.
Unfortunately, the G45 had the edge over the ZM 50 2.0 especially on color rendition, so now I'm back to using the Contax G and the Leica M. First world problems.
Unfortunately, the G45 had the edge over the ZM 50 2.0 especially on color rendition, so now I'm back to using the Contax G and the Leica M. First world problems.
ASA 32
Well-known
Thanks for the pdfs and the link, just what I was looking for.
Scapevision
Well-known
Alright, have my negatives scanned from the G and here's the verdict.
From what I see the G planar is much smoother in going from what's in focus to what's not. I mean the ZM was smooth, but also extremely sharp transition. G doesn't have that sharp transition, it's all smooth like well aged single malt (I guess).
Both have the harsh bokeh that people either love or hate.
It's really hard to tell the difference in black and white, but I much prefer the 45 focal length now that I shot it. Both lenses are stellar and if you have an issue with colour or sharpness you're probably not doing it right.
I'd go for whatever is cheaper for you to buy. And easier to use...
Planar ZM
AGO by Scapevision, on Flickr
Planar G
Storm Breaker by Scapevision, on Flickr
From what I see the G planar is much smoother in going from what's in focus to what's not. I mean the ZM was smooth, but also extremely sharp transition. G doesn't have that sharp transition, it's all smooth like well aged single malt (I guess).
Both have the harsh bokeh that people either love or hate.
It's really hard to tell the difference in black and white, but I much prefer the 45 focal length now that I shot it. Both lenses are stellar and if you have an issue with colour or sharpness you're probably not doing it right.
I'd go for whatever is cheaper for you to buy. And easier to use...
Planar ZM
AGO by Scapevision, on Flickr
Planar G
Storm Breaker by Scapevision, on Flickr
raid
Dad Photographer
I have two Zeiss 45/2 lenses; one for my G1 cameras and one for my M cameras (adapted to M). This lens is exceptionally perfected by Zeiss.
On the M8:
On the M8:
jazzwave
Well-known
Found this comparison :
http://www.japanexposures.com/lenscomparison/
I think japanexposure provide service to convert 45/2 to M mount.
Btw, I love my 45/2 Contax G planar on my G1. Cheap solution, compare to Barnack line
Regards
~ron~
http://www.japanexposures.com/lenscomparison/
I think japanexposure provide service to convert 45/2 to M mount.
Btw, I love my 45/2 Contax G planar on my G1. Cheap solution, compare to Barnack line
Regards
~ron~
Last edited:
raid
Dad Photographer
The converted lens costs over $1100. This appears to me as expensive.