ZM Planar for B&W?

[jbf]

Hi all,

I'm looking at buying a ZM planar soon but I'm having issues... I shoot almost exclusively black and white film doing mostly portraiture of some kind... anyway I was wondering what the consensus was ont he sharpness and contrast of the ZM Planar for B&W?

Some of the shots I have seen seem to exhibit very high contrasty images... sometimes the blacks being completely blocked, etc...

Anyway, I've looked through some galleries on flickr and others on pbase but i havnt seen many images for portraiture to judge from.

A lot of them dont really give me a good idea of the lens... and Im afraid most seem too high contrasted images.

Anyone have experience with the lens shooting exclusively B&W? How do you feel about it?

I've actually thought about the ZM Sonnar but the focus shift issue is something that I'm not too fond with. I already own a Jupiter-8 Sonnar copy (which also exhibits focus shift) and there have been so many photographs that i've totally screwed up because of the focus shift. Not to mention the price.


I'm looking mainly to budget around $600 dollars max on a really nice 50mm lens... i'd prefer one at least f2 or faster.


Anyway... i'm lost. HELP.

 

[rogue_designer]

internal micro-contrast is controlled partially by the lens and partially by the film/processing choices.

Master contrast - (whites and blacks blocked up) doesn't have much of anything to do with the lens (except when dealing with veiling flare). Just bad exposure/processing.

--

This is my understanding btw - I'm willing to accept that someone probably has a different view of things.

 

[x-ray]

internal micro-contrast is controlled partially by the lens and partially by the film/processing choices.

Master contrast - (whites and blacks blocked up) doesn't have much of anything to do with the lens (except when dealing with veiling flare). Just bad exposure/processing.

--

This is my understanding btw - I'm willing to accept that someone probably has a different view of things.

I think micro contrast is mostly a function of the lens and overall image contrast is a function of exposure / developemnt of the film, printing, scan and adjustments in image editing software. Also your monitor may not be properly adjusted. The contrast of the Planar is primarily related to flare resistance. In otherwords don't pay too much attention to what you see on the internet.

I shoot 99.9% B&W with mine and find it to be my favorite 50 of all time. Classic tonality and transitions with modern coatings and flare resistance.

 

[LazyHammock]

It is hard to really judge a lens from web images. The Planar is a great lens, most of my negatives I wet print but I have scanned a few - only the third one could be called a portrait.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=72732&ppuser=1572
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=64693&ppuser=1572
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=47013&ppuser=1572
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=38520&ppuser=1572

The Planar is easily one of the best 50mm lenses I've used. The high contrast you are seeing is likely a function of scanning and tweaking.
Nick

 

[goo0h]

I shoot 99.9% B&W with mine and find it to be my favorite 50 of all time. Classic tonality and transitions with modern coatings and flare resistance.

And sharp too!

 

[Roger Hicks]

Handling focus shift on the Sonnar is very easy. As you stop down, treat all the d-o-f as if it were BEHIND the focused point. Dr. Nasse at Zeiss gave me this advice and it works very well indeed.

Back to the Planar, it's impossible for a lens to be too contrasty. What you're seeing is poor processing or scanning.

I prefer the Sonnar because of its unique look, but I've used both extensively, and they're both superb lenses.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[jbf]

Well thats good to hear then.

I would really love the sonnar (as like you said it has a fantastic look to it)... but i think the planar is the route i will go for now... (cheaper for one... hehe)

 

[Marc-A.]

I should not give my opinion after Don because I highly respect his opinion, but I can't help saying that IMVHO the lens is too contrasty (much more than CV lenses); and it may be only me, but I find the Summicron (rigid/DR) sharper; plus, I don't like the rendition of the skin ... I call it "plastic" rendition. I've looked at my pictures again and again, I've browsed online galleries (Flickr, PBase, RFF) again and again ... but I see always the same (maybe I'm a stubborn ass if I can't see what you guys see )
Now, the Planar ZM is a lens with a modern signature, and you should wonder what kind of picture you want to take with it. I'm tempted by the Planar ZM (again!) but for other purpose than shooting portraits.
Here some portraits I made with it. I let you judge and make your own opinion. I know it's low resolution, but scanned in high resolution or printed, the pictures look the same.

 

[nzeeman]

Handling focus shift on the Sonnar is very easy. As you stop down, treat all the d-o-f as if it were BEHIND the focused point.

i didnt understand this advice - can you please try to give me more explanation. thanks in advance.

 

[mfogiel]

In fact it is not so easy, haha... Basically, the focus is linear at f 5.6, and wide open, what you see to be in focus, is in fact, the extreme FAR BOUNDARY of the in focus zone. At the minimum focus distance (0.9 m) the difference is about 5 cm, at f2.8 it is about 3 cm, at f4.0 1 cm... The problem I find, is that even if you have the luxury to recompose looking at the dof scale of your lens, the dof brackets begin at f4.0, so it is not clear by how much you have to shift the lens if you are shooting wide open... A good rule of thumb is, when shooting portraits, to focus on the close part of the ear, and not on the eye... Looking at other examples, this f1.5 shot has been focused on the rear border of the coffee cup, in order to get the front of the cup acceptably sharp:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1971721096&size=l

Coming back to the topic: if you want a 50mm for portraits, the Planar will do well, especially with male portraits, as it is very sharp at any aperture, but THE portrait lens par excellence is the C Sonnar - I think that if you do not try it you will never know what you miss. If you only intend to shoot it between f1.5 and f2.8, it probably would make sense to make it adjust by Zeiss, or buy it directly from them demanding this kind of optimized aperture. This is a PRICELESS portrait lens.

 

[mfogiel]

In fact it is not so easy, haha... Basically, the focus is linear at f 5.6, and wide open, what you see to be in focus, is in fact, the extreme FAR BOUNDARY of the in focus zone. At the minimum focus distance (0.9 m) the difference is about 5 cm, at f2.8 it is about 3 cm, at f4.0 1 cm... The problem I find, is that even if you have the luxury to recompose looking at the dof scale of your lens, the dof brackets begin at f4.0, so it is not clear by how much you have to shift the lens if you are shooting wide open... A good rule of thumb is, when shooting portraits, to focus on the close part of the ear, and not on the eye... Looking at other examples, this f1.5 shot has been focused on the rear border of the coffee cup, in order to get the front of the cup acceptably sharp:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1971721096&size=l

Coming back to the topic: if you want a 50mm for portraits, the Planar will do well, especially with male portraits, as it is very sharp at any aperture, but THE portrait lens par excellence is the C Sonnar - I think that if you do not try it you will never know what you miss. If you only intend to shoot it between f1.5 and f2.8, it probably would make sense to make it adjust by Zeiss, or buy it directly from them demanding this kind of optimized aperture. This is a PRICELESS portrait lens.

 

[Roger Hicks]

i didnt understand this advice - can you please try to give me more explanation. thanks in advance.

Current Sonnars are optimized/coupled for sharp focus at f/1.5 (the earliest ones were at a smaller aperture but can be adjusted).

As you stop down below f/1.5, imagine the d-o-f growing at the normal rate, except that the focussed point is the near limit of the d-o-f, i.e. all the d-o-f is behind the focused point.

This makes the d-o-f scale all but useless except for scale focusing, but as I say, Dr. Nasse gave me this advice when I picked up the lens in Oberkochen and it's worked very well for me. I've been using the lens a LOT since about May and it's one of my favourite 5cm lenses of all time, despite the fact that I was never a Sonnar fan before.

Does this help?

Incidentally, for the OP, I'd hesitate to use the Sonnar as a portrait lens: I prefer a longer focal length on 35mm. Consider 75mm or 90mm. Or even the old 85 Jupiter.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Krosya]

I should not give my opinion after Don because I highly respect his opinion, but I can't help saying that IMVHO the lens is too contrasty (much more than CV lenses); and it may be only me, but I find the Summicron (rigid/DR) sharper; plus, I don't like the rendition of the skin ... I call it "plastic" rendition. I've looked at my pictures again and again, I've browsed online galleries (Flickr, PBase, RFF) again and again ... but I see always the same (maybe I'm a stubborn ass if I can't see what you guys see )
Now, the Planar ZM is a lens with a modern signature, and you should wonder what kind of picture you want to take with it. I'm tempted by the Planar ZM (again!) but for other purpose than shooting portraits.
Here some portraits I made with it. I let you judge and make your own opinion. I know it's low resolution, but scanned in high resolution or printed, the pictures look the same.

HI Marc,

Well, if all these are from Planar, only first photo seems "plastic" as you call it. Other two look good to me.
Maybe it's just my monitor though.

 

[Avotius]

Not to toot my own horn but I like to think my scanning technique is quite advanced as I dont normally see images on here that have been scanned in the same quality that I have been. That said the skilled photographer will have no problems with equalized shots. I think the planar does push absolute bright highlights close to extinction but upon close inspections of my scans there is always details left over there. There is something about the highlights that is very "old leica" as in they dont go hard white but more bright gray unlike my modern canon lenses. I tend to like the high contrast look a little more so I always end up tweaking the levels on my images so they give a more punchy look. In the darkroom or if I dont tweak much there is a lot of shadow detail that can be extracted. I think that the planar is a great lens for both bw and color, although I think the color shots show more 3d effect where as in bw it really helps to overexpose by about a stop, I havnt fully explored this bw path with the lens as I have been mostly using it to shoot color.

Here are a few shots on XP2 and scanned on a fuji S2000. I think this is the sharpest lens I have ever used, but thats not why I bought it, I got it because the lens has a great character and its a nice fast lens.

I dont have any of my overexposed one stop photos scanned right now so I guess you will just have to take my word, there is a hell of a lot of shadow detail in them and yet highlights are still well enough preserved that its not a problem.

 

[x-ray]

Mark:

I only see "plastic" in the first image. To me it looks like a combination of lighting, exposure and processing more than anything. Others are fine. If your results are consistently too contrasty then adjust exposure and developement. The plastic look is more a function of film, developer selection, technique, lighting, printing and scanning than lens.

 

[x-ray]

Colin:

As usual some very fine images. You really get some great texture to your shots. I really love your vision and often think about how I would render the same image. I guess it's my roots with LF that I shoot and process for smooth gradations of tone but I always love to see the gritty textures of your work. The mood comes across quite well and the textures almost give a physical sensation fo the subject. Very nice!

Marc-

One thing I've learned and took the advice from my dad who was a very fine amateur photographer. Pick one film, developer and lens for that matter and learn all the characteristics of it inside out. Don't chase the magic bullet. In other words take your Planar or whatever and one film and developer and fine tune your technique untill you get the look you're after. I won't come in a dozen rolls or a week but stick with it and fine tune your techniuque. 99% of my photographic problems have been me not my equipment or film/ developer.

 

[Avotius]

Colin:

As usual some very fine images. You really get some great texture to your shots. I really love your vision and often think about how I would render the same image. I guess it's my roots with LF that I shoot and process for smooth gradations of tone but I always love to see the gritty textures of your work. The mood comes across quite well and the textures almost give a physical sensation fo the subject. Very nice!

Marc-

One thing I've learned and took the advice from my dad who was a very fine amateur photographer. Pick one film, developer and lens for that matter and learn all the characteristics of it inside out. Don't chase the magic bullet. In other words take your Planar or whatever and one film and developer and fine tune your technique untill you get the look you're after. I won't come in a dozen rolls or a week but stick with it and fine tune your technique. 99% of my photographic problems have been me not my equipment or film/ developer.

Thanks Don, as ususal I enjoy hearing your opinions of things and your point of view as a pro in "the good old days of photography" are always the high point of these discussions. I really like shooting "gritty" images, its neat, I dont know why people are so up on low noise digicams and films, I think its great, adds character! Not for everything but hey, thats why I got too many cameras in my dry box, one for everything (except I need to get a compact 4x5 camera, any suggestions for a poor student?).

What you said about 99% of problems being you and not the equipment: that is so true. I have been shooting a canon 20D for years and when my gf bought a 5D I thought "no problem" then started using it only to realize that it is not the same beast as the 20D, its a whole new Godzilla with its own moods and feelings. After a few thousand frames I can say that I got used to it a lot more and now can use it to produce excellent images. Just gota stick with it. A camera and lens is kind of like a girlfriend, you are hugely infatuated, get them in your bag (or somewhere else ) and then you really get to know them if they last with you, but even after a few years with one something always pops up that surprises you.



Anyway, get a planar, its great, I think the leica lens might actually be a little better in its rendering of bw but the planar is great too, its all just different character. The Sonnar is a good choice too if you can learn the focus shift stuff, I didnt want to deal with it which is why I got the planar.

 

[juno_lau]

In fact it is not so easy, haha... Basically, the focus is linear at f 5.6, and wide open, what you see to be in focus, is in fact, the extreme FAR BOUNDARY of the in focus zone. At the minimum focus distance (0.9 m) the difference is about 5 cm, at f2.8 it is about 3 cm, at f4.0 1 cm... The problem I find, is that even if you have the luxury to recompose looking at the dof scale of your lens, the dof brackets begin at f4.0, so it is not clear by how much you have to shift the lens if you are shooting wide open... A good rule of thumb is, when shooting portraits, to focus on the close part of the ear, and not on the eye... Looking at other examples, this f1.5 shot has been focused on the rear border of the coffee cup, in order to get the front of the cup acceptably sharp:

like this?

|________| : DOF [] : focus

other lenses : |_____[]__________|

sonnar : []________________|

 

[drewbarb]

Juno- your illustration is very clever. If I am understanding Roger correctly (and I think I am) and am reading your illustration correctly (ditto) you got it exactly right.

Roger- thanks for this explanation. Like many folks, I love to shoot wide open and fairly close-in, and this issue was my major hesitation about the C-Sonnar. But as is so often the case, your input ( and Dr. Nasse's, through you) is invaluable. Now I'm comfortable with the idea, and my last hesitation about buying this lens is gone. Damn GAS...

Avotius-
Some fantastic shots there. I have to agree with your assement of your own scanning skills. As one who is nearly completely hopeless getting scans that look acceptable to me, (evidence my lack on on-line images) I'd love to pick your brain about your regimen. I'd like to correct this and get some pictures on the web- maybe you can help me?

 

[x-ray]

Colin:

Check ou the Shen Hao 4x5. Made in China and beautiful, well made, small and light. Technika type lens boards and in the US it sells new for under $500. Over ther it probably would be half. Pick up a 90 f8 super angulon or fuji or one of the Nikkor 90's. A first generation convertible symmar in 150 and 210 or even a first generation symmar S no apo in these FL's are super. Rodenstock Grandagon wides are fine but I like the others better. The Rodenstock Sironars , Fuji and Nikkors in 150 and 210 are all great. Yopu should be able to put together a nice kit of 3 lenses and a camera with holders for around $800-1200.

I'd love to spend a couple of days with you and learn how you get the grit not to mention photo ops and the people.