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

Zlatko Batistich

New member
For anyone doubting my claims that the Planar exceeds the sharpness of the Summicron wide open, take a look for yourself ;)

Beautiful bokeh wide open
Wow, that is stunning good bokeh & sharpness! Really wonderful. I guess we'd have to see how the Planar and Summicron draw the same subject to really compare them, but the superb quality of the Planar is undeniable in those examples.
 

baudolino

Active member
Well, those images do not really "prove" much to me, beyond the accepted truth that the Planar is an excellent lens. And why wouldn't it be? It is a Zeiss lens, after all (ok Cosina lens but who cares) and a design well proven through decades of photographic history. Another consideration may be the focus shift or back-focus of the Planar that some users have reported (any comment?). Is the Planar "better" than the Summicron? Possibly, but resolution is not necessarily where I would see it as superior. My experience with the Summicron is (a) extremely high resolution - even too much for the M9 sensor, resulting in frequent cases of annoying moire, (b) lower contrast, probably partly due to (c) a tendency to flare with a diffused light source just outside the field of view, (d) very gradual transition from a sharp object to unsharp background (gives appearance of much deeper DOF but may not be everybody's cup of tea for portraits, for example). My observation is that the Planar is more contrasty than the Summicron and more resistant to flare. The higher (micro)contrast of the Planar possibly makes an impression of greater "sharpness" even though the resolution may in fact be the same or marginally lower or whatever (frankly, it is the least of my concerns). In the end, I consider the most relevant comments those concerning the different rendering of the different lenses, or their "character". In this regard, the Lux 50 Asph rules in my view, probably followed by the Planar (just because I prefer its contrastier rendering, better resistance to flare and the steeper transition from sharp areas to the unsharp background, compared to the Summicron). But the Summicron is a Leica lens which also means that it has the same ergonomics as all the other Leica lenses which may or may not be a consideration for some users. And the Summicron is of course capable of fantastic results, too (just look at Thorsten Overgaard's website....).
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
Please jump in and clarify for me . I don t think the planar has higher micro contrast. Isn t it macro contrast ...thats what creates the strong edge sharpness and the appearance of a sharp transition from sharp to unsharp . Micro contrast shows up in the skin and the Pink fabric where you can see the more subtle tone gradients .

This is where MF shines because you get better tone separation and deeper color .

The 50 asph IMHO has the best all around performance and is balanced with great sharpness,high contrast,excellent bokeh ..but of course its quite expensive and always out of stock.





Well, those images do not really "prove" much to me, beyond the accepted truth that the Planar is an excellent lens. And why wouldn't it be? It is a Zeiss lens, after all (ok Cosina lens but who cares) and a design well proven through decades of photographic history. Another consideration may be the focus shift or back-focus of the Planar that some users have reported (any comment?). Is the Planar "better" than the Summicron? Possibly, but resolution is not necessarily where I would see it as superior. My experience with the Summicron is (a) extremely high resolution - even too much for the M9 sensor, resulting in frequent cases of annoying moire, (b) lower contrast, probably partly due to (c) a tendency to flare with a diffused light source just outside the field of view, (d) very gradual transition from a sharp object to unsharp background (gives appearance of much deeper DOF but may not be everybody's cup of tea for portraits, for example). My observation is that the Planar is more contrasty than the Summicron and more resistant to flare. The higher (micro)contrast of the Planar possibly makes an impression of greater "sharpness" even though the resolution may in fact be the same or marginally lower or whatever (frankly, it is the least of my concerns). In the end, I consider the most relevant comments those concerning the different rendering of the different lenses, or their "character". In this regard, the Lux 50 Asph rules in my view, probably followed by the Planar (just because I prefer its contrastier rendering, better resistance to flare and the steeper transition from sharp areas to the unsharp background, compared to the Summicron). But the Summicron is a Leica lens which also means that it has the same ergonomics as all the other Leica lenses which may or may not be a consideration for some users. And the Summicron is of course capable of fantastic results, too (just look at Thorsten Overgaard's website....).
 

baudolino

Active member
Sorry if I made a mistake between macro and micro contrast - my understanding has been that "sharpness" is the product of resolution and micro-contrast. My own experience with the planar is that it has a more contrasty overall rendering than the Summicron but that the Summicron perhaps has higher resolution (as in lines per millimeter). Which of them is "sharper" I don't know but the Summicron was not my favorite because of the flare, mostly. I now have the Lux 50 Asph and that lens is the best of them, for sure. For a cheaper alternative, the Planar would probably be my choice in terms of image quality and the Summicron in terms of ergonomics.
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
Sorry sharpness isn t the issue . Resolution and macro contrast create the appearance of sharpness. Micro contrast affects the tones ..like on a grey scale ..fabric ,skin etc are more life like when you can see the subtle shading .

Also whats better really depends on what you are shooting and how you prefer to render the images . The same image could be crisp and punchy or garish and harsh depending on how you want the image to be presented.

Most photographers find lenses that “work “ for the type of work they are doing and how they want photographs to look . The planar and the summicron are both great ..but very different . IMHO the photographs of the young girl would be better with the summicron ..but that doesn t mean the lens is better for everything.
 

Brian S

New member
I like the 50/2 Summicron, I used to have 8 of them, but cut back to 5.

This is one of those discussions that would probably best be answered with

"what kind of look are you after?" If you want the sharpest possible lens, you will get one set of answers. Want a smooth and silky look, a different set.

Best to look through the gallery and decide which look you want.
 
Last edited:

Zlatko Batistich

New member
"what kind of look are you after?" If you want the sharpest possible lens, you will get one set of answers. Want a smooth and silky look, a different set.

Best to look through the gallery and decide which look you want.
Based on your experience, what is your opinion as to which lens offers which of those two looks? I'm not sure how to search in the gallery for photos from a particular lens. I really like the look of the Summicron, but haven't tried the Planar.
 

Brian S

New member
Flickr Tags make it easier to find images taken with individual lenses.

I tend to organize my online galleries by lens, camera, and events.

http://www.ziforums.com/album.php?u=15

http://www.seriouscompacts.com/gallery/showgallery.php?ppuser=22&username=brian

But I am a lens fanatic.

Summicron and Planar: high resolution, highly corrected for aberrations;
Sonnar: center sharp, Smooth and Silky bokeh, lots of field curvature and more chromatic aberration

I normally keep a Sonnar of some type on the M8 and M9. The M8 hasa 1936 uncoated 5cm f1.5 on it, and the M9 has a C-Sonnar on it.

This is a 1935 CZJ 5cm f1.5 Sonnar on the M9, converted to Leica mount.



Wide-open at F1.5
 

kevin2i

New member
. . .

My Nocti is at DAG due to rear focusing on the M9, and I am waiting for a new (old) 50 Collapsible Summaron to arrive -- coated, exc, $400, hard to resist.

Oops, I meant Summitar, just got it . . .

Collapsed:

Nice match with the gray . . .


Probably not the best choice for your first 50mm . . . however for $400 it does have character, and is compact.
Wide open:
 

kevin2i

New member
72-year old Sonnar 5cm F1.5, wide-open on the Leica M9.
Yes, these old lenses do hold up well. Certainly better than most mid-range zooms in your back-lit image. 'Edge' detail suffers vs modern designs - I have noticed my Summitar is not flat field (edges 'front-focus' the center - ie focus is equidistant from the camera).
and a Russian J-3, wide-open, on the M8.
Very interesting bokeh.
 
D

denoir

Guest
A very simple way of comparing the 50 Cron with the ZM 50/2 (certain aspects anyway) is to look at the MTF charts:



Leica red, Zeiss black. In the f/4 chart the Leica is actually at f/5.6.

It pretty much shows the usual Leica & Zeiss difference. Zeiss usually has less field curvature and less astigmatism. Leica usually on the other hand prioritizes minimizing SA & CA.

There are exceptions, but as a rule of thumb modern Leica lenses are superior wide open and in the center part of the frame while Zeiss ZM tend to be a notch better and more consistent across the frame stopped down. Zeiss also puts more effort in making the sagittal and tangential lines as parallel as possible all the way to the corners. This means that the blur spread is even in all direction giving a stronger impression of crispness.

Zeiss rendering style is more uniform across the entire product line while Leica lenses show more diversity.

A good case can (unfortunately) be made for having an overlapping set of Zeiss and Leica lenses as they're good at different things.
 

leicashot

New member
A very simple way of comparing the 50 Cron with the ZM 50/2 (certain aspects anyway) is to look at the MTF charts:



Leica red, Zeiss black. In the f/4 chart the Leica is actually at f/5.6.

It pretty much shows the usual Leica & Zeiss difference. Zeiss usually has less field curvature and less astigmatism. Leica usually on the other hand prioritizes minimizing SA & CA.

There are exceptions, but as a rule of thumb modern Leica lenses are superior wide open and in the center part of the frame while Zeiss ZM tend to be a notch better and more consistent across the frame stopped down. Zeiss also puts more effort in making the sagittal and tangential lines as parallel as possible all the way to the corners. This means that the blur spread is even in all direction giving a stronger impression of crispness.

Zeiss rendering style is more uniform across the entire product line while Leica lenses show more diversity.

A good case can (unfortunately) be made for having an overlapping set of Zeiss and Leica lenses as they're good at different things.
I'm curious as to how you can tell SA and CA from these graphs? While the Zeiss is more uniform across the frame, I really see no noticeable advantage of the Leica in the center, in these charts or in my own tests. To me, the Zeiss is the clear winner, and it should be considering it's a much newer lens. Considering Leica's age, it puts up a great fight.
 
D

denoir

Guest
As a rule you can't tell SA and CA from the graphs, or at least not definitively. SA will appear simply as a drop in resolution, typically in the high frequency components. CA will look like divergence in the tangential and sagittal lines. There could however be a number of other causes, such as astigmatism for instance.

No, my SA/CA comment was not based on the MTF chart but from experience.
 

leicashot

New member
As a rule you can't tell SA and CA from the graphs, or at least not definitively. SA will appear simply as a drop in resolution, typically in the high frequency components. CA will look like divergence in the tangential and sagittal lines. There could however be a number of other causes, such as astigmatism for instance.

No, my SA/CA comment was not based on the MTF chart but from experience.
I only ask cause my experience was the opposite with Zeiss having superior control over CA ;)
 

Brian S

New member
On the older Type 1 Rigid Summicron and Collapsible Summicron, chromatic aberration is so well corrected that the IR index is within the F2 DOF marks. Typically the IR index is found between F4 and F8 for most 50mm lenses.

A good test of this would be to try the older Summicron on an M8 without an IR cut filter.
 
Top