Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Best Zeiss Planar version
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2023 4:22 pm    Post subject: Best Zeiss Planar version Reply with quote
Which Zeiss Planar version has the most contrast, microcontrast, saturated colors and "3d pop"? (Basically the things that are often associated with Zeiss lenses and T* coatings.)

1) Contax G 45/2 is praised as extraordinary by many.

2) The ZM Planar 50/2 looks very good from what I see but is it indeed better than the Contax G 45/2?

Has anyone tried both? Any impressions will be helpful!

There are also the below, but they seem to match less the above criteria:

3) The ZF/ZE, CY, QBM 50/1.4 are highly regarded but from online examples seem to be a bit less punchy than the two above.

4) The CY 50/1.7 seems sharper than the 1.4 at equivalent apertures but again a bit less punchy than 1 and 2.

5) Or perhaps other classic lenses with even more contrast, microcontrast, saturated colors and "3d pop"?


PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2023 5:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Makro-Planar T* 50mm f/2 is also a pretty good lens if you want a versatile lens.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2023 6:24 pm    Post subject: Re: Best Zeiss Planar version Reply with quote
Dusty-Lens wrote:
Which Zeiss Planar version has the most contrast, microcontrast, saturated colors and "3d pop"? (Basically the things that are often associated with Zeiss lenses and T* coatings.)

1) Contax G 45/2 is praised as extraordinary by many.

2) The ZM Planar 50/2 looks very good from what I see but is it indeed better than the Contax G 45/2?


First caveat: I have never used these two lenses, so I can't say anything about them. I have, however, used a few other Zeiss ZM lenses (not my own, just borrowede for tests), and I know their mechanical qualities.
Most high perfomance normal lenses are either big or really big. And with "high performance" I mean things like the Otus 1.4/55. They are nearly impeccable at f2, using e. g. 43 MP FF sensors. I assume (!) neither the ZM 2/50 nor the G 2/45 would belong to this class; they rather seem to be "very good classical planars".

Dusty-Lens wrote:

There are also the below, but they seem to match less the above criteria:

3) The ZF/ZE, CY, QBM 50/1.4 are highly regarded but from online examples seem to be a bit less punchy than the two above.

4) The CY 50/1.7 seems sharper than the 1.4 at equivalent apertures but again a bit less punchy than 1 and 2.

5) Or perhaps other classic lenses with even more contrast, microcontrast, saturated colors and "3d pop"?


I know and own the CY 1.4/50 and 1.7/50 lenses (along with a few other normal lenses). Optically, neither of them is outstanding. Several other good vintage f1.4 and f1.7 normal lenses are as good or even slightly better (depending on the criteria you apply). Generally speaking, the differences in the optical performance of good vintage MF normal lenses are rather small (look at the bokeh, for instance: http://www.artaphot.ch/systemuebergreifend/objektive/479-standard-lens-bokeh-ii). I therefore would base the decision more on handling qualities such as size/weight, smoothness of focusing, size and texture of focusing ring, and operation of the aperture ring. Judging these properties is a very personal matter, and it's probably best if you can play around with some lenses before actrually buying them.

S


PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2023 9:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
calvin83 wrote:
Makro-Planar T* 50mm f/2 is also a pretty good lens if you want a versatile lens.


Yep, good point, thanks.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2023 9:54 pm    Post subject: Re: Best Zeiss Planar version Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
Dusty-Lens wrote:
Which Zeiss Planar version has the most contrast, microcontrast, saturated colors and "3d pop"? (Basically the things that are often associated with Zeiss lenses and T* coatings.)

1) Contax G 45/2 is praised as extraordinary by many.

2) The ZM Planar 50/2 looks very good from what I see but is it indeed better than the Contax G 45/2?


First caveat: I have never used these two lenses, so I can't say anything about them. I have, however, used a few other Zeiss ZM lenses (not my own, just borrowede for tests), and I know their mechanical qualities.
Most high perfomance normal lenses are either big or really big. And with "high performance" I mean things like the Otus 1.4/55. They are nearly impeccable at f2, using e. g. 43 MP FF sensors. I assume (!) neither the ZM 2/50 nor the G 2/45 would belong to this class; they rather seem to be "very good classical planars".

Dusty-Lens wrote:

There are also the below, but they seem to match less the above criteria:

3) The ZF/ZE, CY, QBM 50/1.4 are highly regarded but from online examples seem to be a bit less punchy than the two above.

4) The CY 50/1.7 seems sharper than the 1.4 at equivalent apertures but again a bit less punchy than 1 and 2.

5) Or perhaps other classic lenses with even more contrast, microcontrast, saturated colors and "3d pop"?


I know and own the CY 1.4/50 and 1.7/50 lenses (along with a few other normal lenses). Optically, neither of them is outstanding. Several other good vintage f1.4 and f1.7 normal lenses are as good or even slightly better (depending on the criteria you apply). Generally speaking, the differences in the optical performance of good vintage MF normal lenses are rather small (look at the bokeh, for instance: http://www.artaphot.ch/systemuebergreifend/objektive/479-standard-lens-bokeh-ii). I therefore would base the decision more on handling qualities such as size/weight, smoothness of focusing, size and texture of focusing ring, and operation of the aperture ring. Judging these properties is a very personal matter, and it's probably best if you can play around with some lenses before actrually buying them.

S


As a bit if a background I am a photographer for 2 decades and I have 100+ lenses. My question is specifically regarding contrast, microcontrast and colours from planars. I appreciate you feedback on the 1.4 and 1.7, thanks!

Btw, to the off-top points, I have the Otus and as an example I also have the Panason S Pro 50 1.4. The later is incomparably better in any optical aspect. But, again, my question here is not about that, nor about handling or something else, but a specific one.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2023 7:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
i had contax planar 50 mm 1.7 , 1.4 , rollei QBM 50mm 1.7,
canon fd 50m 1.4
minolta pg 50m 1.4


for me the rollei QBM was way sharper than the 2 contaxt wide open
and canon fd 50m 1.4 i what i kept and sold all other


PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2023 7:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I was impressed by the ZM Planar 50/2. In fact, this lens is the only one I regret to have sold. I am sure I'll buy it again
Regards


PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2023 9:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
thebbm wrote:
i had contax planar 50 mm 1.7 , 1.4 , rollei QBM 50mm 1.7,
canon fd 50m 1.4
minolta pg 50m 1.4


for me the rollei QBM was way sharper than the 2 contaxt wide open
and canon fd 50m 1.4 i what i kept and sold all other


Thanks for sharing your experience!

I have the QBM but its 50/1.8 which is actually an Ultron and 1.8 not 1.7 planar like the CY version. Really good, QBM Schneider-Kreuznach Rollei SL Xenon is sharper, but the Rollei has better contrast and bolder colour.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2023 9:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
wolan wrote:
I was impressed by the ZM Planar 50/2. In fact, this lens is the only one I regret to have sold. I am sure I'll buy it again
Regards


Thanks fir the insight.

To me it's a choice between the ZM 50/2 and the Voigt VM Apo-lanthar 50/2. The Voigt is a modern design, very sharp but I would like to see how they compare in terms of contrast, microcontrast and colour.

Same for the 35 options - down between the ZM Biogon 35/2.8 and the VM Apo-lanthar 35/2.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2023 9:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Did you ever try the Contarex version? I didn't but I guess that it could be a good contender, If backlight resistance is not deemed a priority


PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2023 9:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Dusty-Lens wrote:
thebbm wrote:
i had contax planar 50 mm 1.7 , 1.4 , rollei QBM 50mm 1.7,
canon fd 50m 1.4
minolta pg 50m 1.4


for me the rollei QBM was way sharper than the 2 contaxt wide open
and canon fd 50m 1.4 i what i kept and sold all other


Thanks for sharing your experience!

I have the QBM but its 50/1.8 which is actually an Ultron and 1.8 not 1.7 planar like the CY version. Really good, QBM Schneider-Kreuznach Rollei SL Xenon is sharper, but the Rollei has better contrast and bolder colour.



my bad, i also have QBM 1,8 planar version not 1.7


PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2023 10:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ok, this may be blasphemy but to be honest, I quite like the Pentax-M 50mm f/1.7, when it comes to saturated colors, contrast and 3D pop. Image taken wide open, no post processing. Double click for full size (focus is slightly before the eyes).

PentaxM5017169 by devoscasper, on Flickr

This image also shows 3D quality, contrast and saturated colors:

PentaxM5017DSC09983 by devoscasper, on Flickr


PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2023 11:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
For Sony E mount camera, the Loxia 50mm f/2.0 is pretty good opinion as it will perform better than the ZM version.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2023 1:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
Ok, this may be blasphemy but to be honest, I quite like the Pentax-M 50mm f/1.7, when it comes to saturated colors, contrast and 3D pop. Image taken wide open, no post processing. Double click for full size (focus is slightly before the eyes).

PentaxM5017169 by devoscasper, on Flickr

This image also shows 3D quality, contrast and saturated colors:

PentaxM5017DSC09983 by devoscasper, on Flickr


I've always found the Pentax/Takumar SMC (and now HD) coatings to be great, actually no worse than T* coatings from the same period. Your examples are really illuminating my initial question. Excellent contrast, microcontrast bold colours.

Do you find that the 50/1.7 has more of the above compared to other Pentax 50s?

I really like the pop and colour s if the 28/3.5 and 35/3.5 some of the best contrast and colour from that time.

Thanks for sharing!


PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2023 5:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Dusty-Lens wrote:

I've always found the Pentax/Takumar SMC (and now HD) coatings to be great, actually no worse than T* coatings from the same period. Your examples are really illuminating my initial question. Excellent contrast, microcontrast bold colours.

Do you find that the 50/1.7 has more of the above compared to other Pentax 50s?

I really like the pop and colour s if the 28/3.5 and 35/3.5 some of the best contrast and colour from that time.

Thanks for sharing!


Yes, of all Pentax 50s I tried, the Pentax-M 50/1.7 is my favorite. Performance of the Pentax-M lenses is quite a mixed big IMO, some are great, others a disappointment.
Love the 100/2.8 as well.

Don’t know if the lenses you mention are the M or K version. In have the K 28/3.5, and it is great indeed.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2023 8:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
Ok, this may be blasphemy but to be honest, I quite like the Pentax-M 50mm f/1.7, when it comes to saturated colors, contrast and 3D pop. Image taken wide open, no post processing. Double click for full size (focus is slightly before the eyes).

PentaxM5017169 by devoscasper, on Flickr

This image also shows 3D quality, contrast and saturated colors:

PentaxM5017DSC09983 by devoscasper, on Flickr


What camera was used?


PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2023 12:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
Dusty-Lens wrote:

I've always found the Pentax/Takumar SMC (and now HD) coatings to be great, actually no worse than T* coatings from the same period. Your examples are really illuminating my initial question. Excellent contrast, microcontrast bold colours.

Do you find that the 50/1.7 has more of the above compared to other Pentax 50s?

I really like the pop and colour s if the 28/3.5 and 35/3.5 some of the best contrast and colour from that time.

Thanks for sharing!



Yes, of all Pentax 50s I tried, the Pentax-M 50/1.7 is my favorite. Performance of the Pentax-M lenses is quite a mixed big IMO, some are great, others a disappointment.
Love the 100/2.8 as well.

Don’t know if the lenses you mention are the M or K version. In have the K 28/3.5, and it is great indeed.


M42 mount, SMC Takumars. I think that the M42 and K 28/3.5 are the same.

I really recommend the 35/3.5 absolutely overlooked gem. Dirt cheap. If you like the 28/3.5 (and 50/1.7) it is a worth addition to a set with beautiful IQ.

I had the 100/2.8 but sold it as I kept the Sonnar 100/3.5 and Nikkor 105/1.8 and Kaleinar 100/2.8.... and...and they became too many, so I sold several 100-105 lenses. 😁😂


PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2023 12:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Dusty-Lens wrote:




M42 mount, SMC Takumars. I think that the M42 and K 28/3.5 are the same.



Many Takumars were carried over to SMC Pentax, but not the 28, that was a new design. Source: Pentaxforums.com

Super (and Multi-coated)Takumar:


SMC Pentax 28/3.5:


PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2023 12:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
D1N0 wrote:
Dusty-Lens wrote:




M42 mount, SMC Takumars. I think that the M42 and K 28/3.5 are the same.



Many Takumars were carried over to SMC Pentax, but not the 28, that was a new design. Source: Pentaxforums.com

Super (and Multi-coated)Takumar:


SMC Pentax 28/3.5:


Yes, indeed. It is different. The results looked indistinguishable to me though, but it is a minor change so that might explain it.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2023 8:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
mr_tibbs2004 wrote:


What camera was used?


Sorry, I missed your question. Sony A7RII.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1