ZM vs Leica M (again no doubt) 50 2.0

[Penceler]

New to forum and could use some help.

Can anyone (in 50 words or less) tell me the difference between the characteristics of ZM and Leica. Most interested in ZM 50 2.0.

Thanks and sorry if this has already been beaten to death

 

[ferider]

Price and size.

 

[Penceler]

Assume ZM cheaper (for Japan versions) than Leica. ZM somewhat larger. What about color & contrast?

Thanks

 

[ferider]

You might get many, many different opinions on that, which for me boil down to the two lenses being almost equivalent in practice.

I recommend to check out example photos in the Flickr M mount forum (see my signature).

Roland.

 

[Turtle]

I have the ZM planar, but from comments I have read and comparisons, I dont think there is a huge difference in look between the two.

ZMs generally are of high contrast, v low flare, high resolution etc. They produce very crisp images. I shoot mono only so the high contrast is no issue for me. I know good/bad are subjective, but overall ZMs produce a modern looking image character but with very smooth OOF in all lenses I have used/seen (I have the 28,35, 50planar). I love mine and would not dream of spending leica money on their equivalents.

 

[Andrew Sowerby]

I agree with Roland: check out the M-mount Flickr group. Both are fine lenses.