Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/12/12

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] ZM 50/2 planar ?
From: kididdoc at cox.net (Steve Barbour)
Date: Wed Dec 12 04:39:00 2007
References: <20071211085558.C0A291158D3@ws1-7.us4.outblaze.com>

On Dec 11, 2007, at 1:55 AM, Marty Deveney wrote:

>
>
> I've been conducting some tests on the Zeiss 50/2, a couple of six- 
> element Summicrons of varying vintages and a Konica Hexanon-M 50/2  
> over the last few months (the tests are ongoing).  These lenses are  
> mostly the same basic symmetrical six-element double Gauss design,  
> as is the Zuiko 50/1.8 for the Olympus OM SLR cameras (I threw a few  
> of these in for comparison).  The first six-element Summicron (Type  
> II) is the exception; it differs slightly and is a six elements in  
> five groups design.
>
> In good conditions all the RF lenses perform equally.  All are very  
> well corrected for spherical abberration (the Zuiko less than the  
> others), which means that the issue of optimisation for contrast or  
> resolution is not an issue - the designers can optimise for both.   
> Nonetheless, the designers of each of these lenses have made some  
> choices - the Konica appears to have slightly more spherical  
> abberration and is slightly lower contrast but equivalent in  
> resolution.  Handheld monochrome images from the Zeiss and  
> Summicrons using 400 speed film were indistinguishable.  These  
> lenses all have slightly different colour rendition.  If you use  
> colour a lot and are very sensitive to colour rendition from lenses  
> you may prefer one lens over the others; in digital capture it's  
> easy to fix and doesn't matter.  If I'd shot a target, I don't doubt  
> I'd have got the same results as Erwin Puts, who found that the  
> Zeiss was slightly better in most respects than the latest Summicron.
>
> The Zeiss is really outstanding in contrasty light, on back-lit  
> subjects and with oblique light that may fall on the front element;  
> the Summicrons are very flare-prone in this latter circumstance and  
> the Hexanon moderately so.  The Summicrons I tested and also the one  
> I used to own also flared a lot when taking a picture directly into  
> a bright light.  The Zeiss is very flare-resistant.  At least part  
> of this is due to the Zeiss T* coatings; they are standard-setting.   
> The Zuikos I tested (3) are also flare prone, but I think this can  
> be put down to poorer collimation, cheaper glass types, single- 
> coated internal surfaces and other measures that were taken to make  
> this a budget lens.  Olympus were never very good at coating - hough  
> they seem to have improved immensely recently.  It is also easier to  
> tell when a lens on an SLR is going to flare - you can see it.  The  
> Zuiko is still a bargain since you can get very nice ones for  
> $US30-50.
>
> I sold a nice latest type Summicron because the flare issue bothered  
> me - I just seemed to have the knack of finding conditions where it  
> would flare and as a result I lost 2-4 pictures per roll.  I  
> replaced it with a Hexanon because one turned up at the right time  
> at the right price and I like the look it gives very much.  If I  
> hadn't found the Hexanon I'd have bought a Zeiss.  If you have a  
> modern Summicron you are happy with, you're unlikely to gain much by  
> buying the Zeiss.  If you are plagued by flare, you main gain  
> something by getting a Zeiss.  I know you have a Nocti, a DR and a  
> pre-asph Summilux Steve (have you been spending time with Jeffrey?)  
> - so if you're looking for a modern 50 to complement those the Zeiss  
> is probably the best.  If you already have a six-element Summicron  
> and you like it, there's not much to gain.
>
> The Summilux ASPH is another question altogether . . . these f2  
> lenses are still better performers inside 1.5m and the Summilux ASPH  
> still has visible aberrations.  I have always figured that if you  
> can see them, it doesn't matter how well corrected they are, you'll  
> still know they are there.  But if you had to choose just one 50 mm  
> lens . . .



thanks Marty...that's helpful...will let you know...Steve


>
>
> Marty
>
>
> Gallery:
> http://gallery.leica-users.org/main.php?g2_itemId=7617
>
> Most people can only judge of things by the experiences of ordinary  
> life, but phenomena outside the scope of this are really quite  
> numerous.
>        Shen Kuo - 'Dream Pool Essays'
>
>
> -- 
> 10 Great Gift Ideas- Take a Look!
> http://mail.shopping.com/?linkin_id=8033174
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information


In reply to: Message from freakscene at weirdness.com (Marty Deveney) ([Leica] ZM 50/2 planar ?)