The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

One 50mm lens for M9

jeffnesh

Member
So I'm about ready to dive feet first into an M9. I can *just* scrape together the funds if I find the right deal...not much left for lenses. I like to 50mm FOV, someday I'll round out with 35 and maybe 75/90.

I'm looking for advice on a decent 50 that is within range. Used, old, whatever...can I get that for around $1k? I don't know my crons from my luxes, or other brands... any guidance would be helpful as I lay plans.

Thanks,
Jeff
 

leicashot

New member
It's Mike, but I'm glad we're in agreement. :)
Oops sorry Mike. Yeah we're in agreement cause I've compared the Summicron, Planar and Noctilux at f/2. The Noctilux was the best, by far better than the Summicron, with the Planar slightly behind the Noct.
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
The Zeiss 50 2.0 Planar is the best buy in the group and can be found around $750 . (It will take some work to find any M mount 50 ....I just did the searches yesterday ).

I ve used all the versions of the Leica glass 50mm summicron,summilux,asph ,noctilux and the zeiss 50/2. Sharpness is last on my list of considerations ..they are all great. Rather the character of the lens is shown in contrast,color and bokeh . At F5.6 they are all superb. Ken Rockwell has a test of most variations ....my results differ a bit but you get the idea of how they render and whats important.

Finding any Leica 50 under $1000 is either the Summarit (very respectible but F2.5) or lens 20 years old (which often need CLA).

So really under $1000 ...the Zeiss is one of just a few options and a superb lens in its own right . See ErwinPuts reviews of the lens. Technically is exceptional ..just not as much of the Leica look as the Leica Glass.
 

dseelig

Member
I ave had the 50 summicron summilux all versions the nokton 1.5 and the zeiss 50 f2 the zeiss is a great lens the nokton a dog . If you donot need the speed get the zeiss.
 

leicashot

New member
The Zeiss 50 2.0 Planar is the best buy in the group and can be found around $750 . (It will take some work to find any M mount 50 ....I just did the searches yesterday ).

I ve used all the versions of the Leica glass 50mm summicron,summilux,asph ,noctilux and the zeiss 50/2. Sharpness is last on my list of considerations ..they are all great. Rather the character of the lens is shown in contrast,color and bokeh . At F5.6 they are all superb. Ken Rockwell has a test of most variations ....my results differ a bit but you get the idea of how they render and whats important.

Finding any Leica 50 under $1000 is either the Summarit (very respectible but F2.5) or lens 20 years old (which often need CLA).

So really under $1000 ...the Zeiss is one of just a few options and a superb lens in its own right . See ErwinPuts reviews of the lens. Technically is exceptional ..just not as much of the Leica look as the Leica Glass.
Please describe this 'Leica look' everyone keeps talking about. I honestly have never seen it. Is it the 'glow' of old lenses wide open, or the newer high contrast and sharpness wide open of new lenses?
 

baudolino

Active member
Please describe this 'Leica look' everyone keeps talking about. I honestly have never seen it. Is it the 'glow' of old lenses wide open, or the newer high contrast and sharpness wide open of new lenses?
good question and I don't know which it is but I for sure like the high contrast, flare resistance and sharpness wide open (and at any other aperture) of the new lenses. some people say that the "look" is too clinical or whatever but I find it special and very welcome.
 

dubes

New member
I don't have an M9 (yet), but I'm a great fan of the Zeiss Planar 50mm f/2, which I've used on an M6 and a Sony NEX. This was my first M-mount lens and continues to be one of my most used, both because I like the 50mm focal length and I like the way the lens draws. It's plenty sharp and it does great with color (I can't recall if I've used it in black & white). Truly a bargain for what you get, but as others have noted all M-mount lenses seem to be in short supply these days. :(

Mike
 

leicashot

New member
good question and I don't know which it is but I for sure like the high contrast, flare resistance and sharpness wide open (and at any other aperture) of the new lenses. some people say that the "look" is too clinical or whatever but I find it special and very welcome.
I agree that for some time back when the 35/1.4 ASPHERICAL was released the Leica look, or 'Leica resolution advantage' (as i saw it) on film especially was quite apparent, but these days people really can't tell. How do i know? Because people assume that most of the pictures in my folio must have been taken with a Leica, when actually, most were taken with a Nikon, using either Nikon or Zeiss glass.

....and don't get me started on how good the Hasselblad or other medium format systems are :eek:
 

jonoslack

Active member
....and don't get me started on how good the Hasselblad or other medium format systems are :eek:
HI Kristian
How good are the Hasselblad or other medium format systems?
:angel:

I rather like the Leica 50 summarit . . . actually, I also REALLY like the Zeiss 50 f1.5 sonnar (it has real character - even though there is a bit of focus shift).

But I can't honestly say that I've ever used the 50 f2 planar
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
Please describe this 'Leica look' everyone keeps talking about. I honestly have never seen it. Is it the 'glow' of old lenses wide open, or the newer high contrast and sharpness wide open of new lenses?
Certainly in the eye of the beholder..but the pre asph leica glass produces images with the leica glow . The pre asph summiluxes are technically not up to the modern standard wide open but can be used creatively to create the painterly look . It is also in how leica glass renders color and even bokeh. Each design has a signature or look.

I try to match my lenses to their intended use and type of light. Sum microns for example excell in strong contrasty light like we have in florida. Summiluxes are superb in overcast city light .....on a rainy day I grab the 35 lux . At the beach in Florida it's the 28 Summicron.

The 50 zeiss planar I bought from Dave . Used it on the street in Prague for black and white work on the M8. I thought it was a great combination because the high contrast helped in the overcast lighting . Used the same lens in Colorado for mountain landscapes..too much contrast ..Summicron would have been better.

Sean Reid wrote about this on his website ...
 

David K

Workshop Member
Kristian,
I think you are teasing us with your claim not to know the Leica look. The superb images taken with the Noct which you recently posted are a perfect example. Those are the kind of images I associate with Leica glass. I can get beautiful images with my Nikon kit... but they simply do not look the same.
 

leicashot

New member
HI Kristian
How good are the Hasselblad or other medium format systems?
:angel:

I rather like the Leica 50 summarit . . . actually, I also REALLY like the Zeiss 50 f1.5 sonnar (it has real character - even though there is a bit of focus shift).

But I can't honestly say that I've ever used the 50 f2 planar
The Hasselblad H4D-40 is absolutely incredible, and thats using a 35-90 f/4-5.6 (24-70). The files are so robust and can take a lot of movement in post processing. The detail is incredible, the Leica M9, except maybe the S2 with its superior lenses, has no chance ;-) - but it's no M ;-)

Never tried the Summarit but I suspect its much better than the credit it gets. The Planar is the faultless do everything lens, superior to the summicron in sharpness wide open. Bokeh is very similar, maybe slightly warmer colors. The Sonar on the other hand is a tricky little lens that really needs to be properly calibrated and shot at f/1.5 to really see it's character, which i find really nice, like a slightly exaggerated pre-asph Summilux.
 

leicashot

New member
Certainly in the eye of the beholder..but the pre asph leica glass produces images with the leica glow . The pre asph summiluxes are technically not up to the modern standard wide open but can be used creatively to create the painterly look . It is also in how leica glass renders color and even bokeh. Each design has a signature or look.

I try to match my lenses to their intended use and type of light. Sum microns for example excell in strong contrasty light like we have in florida. Summiluxes are superb in overcast city light .....on a rainy day I grab the 35 lux . At the beach in Florida it's the 28 Summicron.

The 50 zeiss planar I bought from Dave . Used it on the street in Prague for black and white work on the M8. I thought it was a great combination because the high contrast helped in the overcast lighting . Used the same lens in Colorado for mountain landscapes..too much contrast ..Summicron would have been better.

Sean Reid wrote about this on his website ...
All great points agreed on all.
 

leicashot

New member
Kristian,
I think you are teasing us with your claim not to know the Leica look. The superb images taken with the Noct which you recently posted are a perfect example. Those are the kind of images I associate with Leica glass. I can get beautiful images with my Nikon kit... but they simply do not look the same.
Well certainly the Noct has a unique modern Leica look as it cannot be replicated by any other lens on the planet. Though the traditional look people talk about is not the same thing people are referring too these days.

I would bet that if I shot my Nikon D3s with a Nikon or better, the Zeiss 35/1.4 and compared to another photographer shooting a Leica, most would have a hard time telling the difference, especially because of today's processing tools. In the old days it was easier to analyse the chromes on a lightbox or projector.

Most of the shots people guess were taken with a Leica in my folio weren't, because I shot them in good lighting and I know how to get the most out of each lighting setup. This is a big part of the overall result. IMHO, the very best lenses for 35mm are some of the Zeiss ZF/ZE lenses for SLR's. The very best 35/2 in the world is the Zeiss ZF/ZE, and same with the 100mm, 21mm and maybe even the 50/2 Makro.

As much as I love the Leica M system more than anything else, I am not a believer in the 'Leica look' being superior to everything else. I believe in my abilities to use the most suitable camera for the job, and to do the very best I can with it.
 

mathomas

Active member
I agree that for some time back when the 35/1.4 ASPHERICAL was released the Leica look, or 'Leica resolution advantage' (as i saw it) on film especially was quite apparent, but these days people really can't tell. How do i know? Because people assume that most of the pictures in my folio must have been taken with a Leica, when actually, most were taken with a Nikon, using either Nikon or Zeiss glass.

....and don't get me started on how good the Hasselblad or other medium format systems are :eek:
Agreed. I guess I'm a Zeissophile. All my system cameras take, or are natively, Zeiss: Leica M, Contax, Hasselblad, and Sony Alpha.
 
Top