View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Dusty-Lens
Joined: 23 Feb 2020 Posts: 76
|
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2023 4:22 pm Post subject: Best Zeiss Planar version |
|
|
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?
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"? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
calvin83
Joined: 12 Apr 2009 Posts: 7555 Location: Hong Kong
|
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2023 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
calvin83 wrote:
Makro-Planar T* 50mm f/2 is also a pretty good lens if you want a versatile lens. _________________ https://lensfever.com/
https://www.instagram.com/_lens_fever/
The best lens is the one you have with you. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3953 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2023 6:24 pm Post subject: Re: Best Zeiss Planar version |
|
|
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 _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dusty-Lens
Joined: 23 Feb 2020 Posts: 76
|
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2023 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dusty-Lens wrote:
calvin83 wrote: |
Makro-Planar T* 50mm f/2 is also a pretty good lens if you want a versatile lens. |
Yep, good point, thanks. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dusty-Lens
Joined: 23 Feb 2020 Posts: 76
|
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2023 9:54 pm Post subject: Re: Best Zeiss Planar version |
|
|
Dusty-Lens wrote:
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
thebbm
Joined: 11 Dec 2013 Posts: 294 Location: France montpellier
|
Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2023 7:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
wolan
Joined: 30 Jun 2015 Posts: 577 Location: Zurich
|
Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2023 7:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
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 _________________ https://www.flickr.com/photos/149089857@N03/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dusty-Lens
Joined: 23 Feb 2020 Posts: 76
|
Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2023 9:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dusty-Lens
Joined: 23 Feb 2020 Posts: 76
|
Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2023 9:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dusty-Lens wrote:
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ultrapix
Joined: 06 Jan 2012 Posts: 566 Location: Italy
|
Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2023 9:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ultrapix wrote:
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 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
thebbm
Joined: 11 Dec 2013 Posts: 294 Location: France montpellier
|
Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2023 9:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
thebbm wrote:
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 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 3170 Location: The Netherlands
|
Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2023 10:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
calvin83
Joined: 12 Apr 2009 Posts: 7555 Location: Hong Kong
|
Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2023 11:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
calvin83 wrote:
For Sony E mount camera, the Loxia 50mm f/2.0 is pretty good opinion as it will perform better than the ZM version. _________________ https://lensfever.com/
https://www.instagram.com/_lens_fever/
The best lens is the one you have with you. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dusty-Lens
Joined: 23 Feb 2020 Posts: 76
|
Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2023 1:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dusty-Lens wrote:
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! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 3170 Location: The Netherlands
|
Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2023 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mr_tibbs2004
Joined: 23 Jul 2021 Posts: 140 Location: United States
|
Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2023 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mr_tibbs2004 wrote:
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? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dusty-Lens
Joined: 23 Feb 2020 Posts: 76
|
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2023 12:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dusty-Lens wrote:
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. ðŸ˜ðŸ˜‚ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
D1N0
Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 2531
|
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2023 12:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
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:
_________________ pentaxian |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dusty-Lens
Joined: 23 Feb 2020 Posts: 76
|
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2023 12:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dusty-Lens wrote:
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 3170 Location: The Netherlands
|
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2023 8:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
mr_tibbs2004 wrote: |
What camera was used? |
Sorry, I missed your question. Sony A7RII. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|