Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/10/06
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Marty- Here's the listing on B&H's site at $692: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/361551-REG/Zeiss_1365661_50mm_f_2_ZM_Lens.html I think I got it right :) Wendy On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Marty Deveney <benedenia at gmail.com> wrote: > Mark, > > The cheapest $US price I can find is $876. The Leica 50/2 is $1995 > and the 50/2.5 is $1295. None of the Zeiss lenses are exactly > "budget" lenses. The Nikkor 50/1.8 that you have often sung praises > of, that's a budget lens. If you can direct me to the $600 ones I'll > buy a pile and on-sell them. > > Have you tried a ZM 50/2? Erwin says: "Now at last we have a lens > that equals the Summicron-M 50mm and is even a trace better in the > curvature of field area." > http://www.imx.nl/photo/zeiss/zeiss/page65.html I found the same to > be true. Its resistance to flare is much better. I agree the > mechanical construction is not as good as a Leica lens, or as good as > the Konica Hexanon 50/2, which appears to me to be the best > constructed modern 50/2 for M cameras (the seven-element Summicrons > are the 'most built' ever, but they are all now approaching 50 and > optical design, glass making and other factors have come a long way > since then). > > The flare in this shot with the 50/2 Summicron: > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/freakscene/Russia/St_P_XXXV.jpg.html > was what finally made me stop using my 50 Summicron. It did it often. > In extended use the Zeiss didn't do that sort of thing: > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/freakscene/Randomness/File1101.jpg.html > and neither did the Konica: > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/freakscene/Randomness/File1187.jpg.html > > Some day when we catch up, I will bring a big pile of prints, all > three lenses (I still have them all) and a lens spanner so you can > pull them apart and have a look at how you think they're constructed. > > Marty > > > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 8:29 PM, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> > wrote: > >> It's optically better than the Leica 50/2: it doesn't flare and the > >> formula has been tweaked. Even Erwin puts says it is an improvement. > >> Mechanically the ZM lenses aren't as sturdy as the Leica ones, but it > >> seemed sturdy enough to me that it would survive just fine. > >> > >> The Summilux ASPH is another thing altogether. It's the ultimate (in > >> both senses of the word) fast (as opposed to superfast) 50. > >> > >> Marty > > > > > > The ZM glasses are of a lesser quality. > > The tolerances are lower. > > Its a 600 dollar lens. > > Leica lenses cost thousands. > > They could be made for hundreds with cheaper glass. Lower tolerances. > > No one would try to pawn them off as "better". > > > > Mark William Rabiner > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Leica Users Group. > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >