Reading mode: Light Dark

Zeiss Planar T* 2/50 ZM Lens Review

Go to last post
boarderphreak

boarderphreak

Senior Member
Messages
1,864
Solutions
1
Reaction score
234
Location
US
I can testify to the Zeiss 50 f/2.0
Handles and works beautifully.
 
Hey, not bad at all. I've found only one dubious statement, which is "Bokeh is pleasant, very similar to other ZM lenses in that it's not super smooth and washed away as a sea of color - there's still some detail to it".

Which focusing distance were you referring to, and how far the background was from the plane of focus? Was it 0.7m to infinity?
Also, in sample images, it would be nice to have three more photos showing:
1. how the lens holds up directly against the hard light source on the lens axis
2. same, but with the light source near the edge of the frame
3. how it renders specular highlights in OOF areas when wide open.
--
Irakly Shanidze
http://www.shanidze.com/en
 
Why "dubious?" The bokeh IS like other ZMs. ;)

But excellent points. We'll see if we can't add some more sample photos when we add the Vignetting and Sharpness sections to illustrate the bokeh and flare handling. Those are likely to be added this weekend.
--
http://lavidaleica.com - La Vida Leica!
http://litpixel.com/ee - Gallery
 
"Dubious" in a sense of missing variables :)

I am sure, you know that even 35mm Summicron-IV can be made to produce unpleasant bokeh, provided OOF area is detailed enough. It all depends on relative distances between the plane of focus and the OOF area. On the other hand, just mentioning that a lens at its maximum aperture does not completely wash away the background as opposed to a faster lens of the same focal length with all other variables kept the same, is just stating the obvious. Like you said, Planar design is hard to improve upon, therefore character of the lens is not in its residual aberrations. What matters is the rendering, and it is the rendering of OOF areas and in-focus/OOF transitions that helps make a decision whether the lens fits the job. Neither 50mm Planar, not 50mm Summicron are "boring", or "lacking character". It is just their character is harder to reveal than with lenses that have obvious flaws like 50mm Sonnar, or Noctilux.
--
Irakly Shanidze
http://www.shanidze.com/en
 
Okay, I can agree with that. Any lens' bokeh (which is entirely subjective) is subject to background/subject/camera distances, complexity and make-up of the background objects, aperture, etc.

So-called "better" lenses produce different bokeh from more "flawed" lenses which might have un- or under-corrected spherical aberration, for example. Case in point, the Planar and Sonnar ZMs. Its the flaws of the latter that create a totally different feel from the more corrected Planar.
--
http://lavidaleica.com - La Vida Leica!
http://litpixel.com/ee - Gallery
 
I really like most of the Zeiss lens lineup, and in many ways I like their color rendition better than Leica's.

BUT - there is a big BUT!

After you have sent your M9 to Leica Service in Solms for rangefinder adjustment, and your lenses similarily adjusted for "M8/M9" standard, ALL Zeiss glass frontfocus on your M9. Without exception. And tested on several M9 bodies!

The M9 rangefinder is delicate and very sensitive, much more than on film Leicas. Or rather, you see the mismatch much more clearly on digital bodies.

Somewhere Leica went astray with their digital bodies and old specifications. As a result, almost ANY Leica or Zeiss lens need to be adjusted to perform pinpoint focusing with the M9 rangefinder. And the M9 rangefinder itself must be very carefully adjusted itself.

Big problem for Zeiss is: Who has to be adjusted, by whom and who should pay? Zeiss built and adjusted to old Leica specifications, or adjusted to M8/M9 de facto manufacturing?

It's not Zeiss who is doing wrong here, but Leica would hardly pay for adjustment of Zeiss lenses...

BTW - when you read most of the more comprehensive reviews of Zeiss glass (Sean Reid, Steve Huff etc, etc), almost all of them end with at short remark that the Zeiss lens in question seems a bit "off" focuswise. They need adjustments to fit the M9 rangefinder.

Sad. Really hope for a fullframe EVIL Leica soon, which would be able to use any Leica mount lens to its full, without rangefinder impact.

Bo
 
I use my Zeiss ZMs on film (Zeiss Ikon and Leica M7) as well as digital (Leica M8 and M9) and I haven't noticed ANY issues with focusing. If focus gets missed; it's most definitely my fault.

None of my bodies (except the M7) were ever touched after leaving the factory. And again, aside from the M7 - these bodies have been dragged all over the world. Not one of them has an RF out of adjustment.

So I'm not sure where this generalization is coming from...
--
http://lavidaleica.com - La Vida Leica!
http://litpixel.com/ee - Gallery
 
Those tests are a bit deceiving; you might get the idea that the lens (or lenses in general) are horrible wide open. Of course, some are... These tests are worst case scenarios.

But yes - wide open the contrast is a bit lower and details not quite as sharp as say, f/4. But when shooting "real world" stuff, you'd be impressed even at f/2. Rest assured, the Planar is VERY good even from wide open.
--
http://lavidaleica.com - La Vida Leica!
http://litpixel.com/ee - Gallery
 
Maybe you should have a close look again at your images, and do a thorough focusing test. Or just live very happily with what you think is sharp an in-focus...

Pls don't just take my word for it. Read Sean Reid and other very serious photographers, or Mario B (4th post) http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1038&thread=39769462

I take the liberty of quoting him:

"One word of caution on Zeiss / Voigtlander lenses.

After a some "misfires", back in June 2011 my M9 was serviced by Leica which calibrated the rangefinder to their latest very tight standards. As a result, no "out of the box" Zeiss or Voigtlander lenses from 28mm and up is properly focusing anymore on my M9 (and no Leica olds, unless recalibrated in Solms by means of cam milling - ff - or replacement - bf).

Check the following link for some tech talk on that.
http://www.popflash.com/...zeiss-50mm-f/1.5-zm-c-sonnar-t-lens-black-usa-new/

I would frankly advise you to personally test any lens different from latest Leica's on your M9 prior to buying."

Best
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Richard Murdey
Nikon's Z-lens portfolio, a alternate perspective
Replies
6
Views
745
msu79gt82
M
stevenbrantley
Leica M11 frame lines with a Zeiss Biogen T 25mm f/2.8 ZM lens?
Replies
5
Views
856
David Kieltyka
David Kieltyka
Richard Murdey
Single-Sentence Reviews of Every Z-mount or M-mount Lens I’ve Tried on my Nikon Z 6
Replies
1
Views
997
Richard Dutton
R
I
How do you compare the Nikkor 50mm 1.2 AI-S, Planar T* 1,4/50 and Nokton 58mm 1.4 SL II-S
Replies
9
Views
667
Michael Benveniste
Michael Benveniste
R
Anybody using Summilux 50 1.4 as the only 50 lens?
Replies
19
Views
125
eliehbk
E

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top