Leica M 50 mm: Planar vs. Summicron vs. Summarit?

<p>I have just had a radical clearout of old Leica lenses (including 4 50 mm Summicrons of various ages and conditions), which leaves me needing a superb new 50 mm lens to put on my M4 for some occasional traditional b+w photography as a change from digital. Does anyone have a recommendation based on experience of some or all of the above 3 lenses? I'm really looking for good contrast and central definition at full aperture and a flat field from f4 or so downwards.</p>

<p>Nobody has tested any of these yet.</p>

<p>For the f2 lenses, here is Erwin Put's comment after testing the Zeiss lens (see http://www.imx.nl/photo/zeiss/zeiss/page65.html) </p>

<p>The bold characters are my underlining:</p>

<p><strong>"Planar-T 2/50 ZM</strong><br />For several generations the Planar design has tried to challenge the Summicron 50mm and never became as good. Now at last we have a lens that equals the Summicron-M 50mm <strong>and is even a trace better in the curvature of field area</strong>. The optical performance of the Planar is simply as good as that what can be expected form the Leica Summicron. The Double-Gauss design has been studied exhaustingly and it is now possible to equal but not surpass the Summicron design as long as you stay within the D-G limits. It is worth some study to note that the curved elements of the Planar bring no significant improvements in comparison to the many planar surfaces of the current Summicron.<br />This conclusion makes the claim of some Leica collectors, that the current Summicron is a lesser design than the all-curved predecessor, somewhat hollow."</p>

<p>Although not mentioned in the Puts comment, unless you buy the Summicron-M used, the Planar is a lot less expensive, but possibly larger and heavier than the Summicron (I have not checked that).</p>

<p>FWIW, there is a test on the Zeiss Planar by a Norwegian press-photographer..In his experience though the Planar was very sharp, the background at wide apertures was horrible. A fault i also see on the lenses with Aspheric elements.. i use my original 50mm Summicron, collapsible! i like the way it works. OK a "flare-fighter" it's not.One picks one's battles carefully.B/w allows one to increase contrast which this lens lacks. i fail to understand this "quest" for more and more sharpness. Better to simply take and make photographs.i have used many more modern lenses.The 50mm Elmar(new and old),Summilux(N+O),Summicron(Rigid,goggles and one from the 90's) plus a few Canon Serenars. They were all excellent. A friend has an old Elmar f3.5 on a 1935 Leica. The results are simply wonderful. Side note, once i took a panorama with my Summicron on a South African beach towards time of sunset(the magic hour).There were 6 perfect frames. They were printed in a pro lab for equal color, density and contrast. Each was enlarged to 16 x 20". Therefore the panorama was 120" inches wide.That's 10 feet wide! Yup there was curvature! It was pointed out to me the Earth is curved!(horizon).</p>

<p>I'm a big fan of the planar. In fact, I sold my summicron after buying the planar. Obviously both are very nice lenses - so it's not like you can really make a wrong decision here.<br>

In the end, I felt like the summicron was a little too flare-prone for my uses.<br>

I've been using the planar in a lot of portrait sessions lately. Some examples if you care to see them:<br>

http://zeissimages.com/showgallery.php?puid=805</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The Zeiss ZM 50mm f2 Planar is the best 50mm lens I have used for my Leica Ms. Its sharpness and contrast are superb, and, to be honest, I like it a lot more than the 50mm Summicron for these reasons (Am comparing it with the older 50mm Summicron that was made in Wetzlar in the late 1960s through 1970s; I haven't used the current version, but, judging by its performance, the Planar probably outperforms the current Summicron too.).<br /><br />You can look here for some pictures I took with the 50mm Planar and the 35mm f1.4 Summilux ASPH of a friend and his folk band performing one cold night in New York City some time ago:<br>

<br /><a href="http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=13989&id=1045985586&l=33c10f0ffb">http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=13989&id=1045985586&l=33c10f0ffb</a></p>

 

<p>I've got the Planar on my Contax G2, and the collapsible 'Cron on my M6. To me, the Planar is clinically sharp, and the Summicron collapsible has the most beautiful bokeh in a 50. And I happen to like the occasional flare effect. <br>

I'm in total agreement with what Jason Gold said: "Better to simply take and make photographs."</p>

<p>Nice images Tim! With the M8 making the 50mm lens into a 65mm equivalent, the combo did a great job.</p>

<p>I have to say that the construction quality is excellent on the Zeiss M lenses, but the <strong>choice of materials</strong> have bothered me; mainly the soft screws, the soft helical tube components & poor grease.</p>

<p>I've already serviced a couple of (mint condition) "floating element" designed units that had their focus feel go stiff & uneven. The internal tracks had <em>ever so slightly</em> gone out of tolerance. This because the grease thickened more on one helical than the other. The operator then used it as the focus was stiffening, which caused the flexing of the tracks.</p>

<p>Next, the screws have too much loctite in the threads and you have to be very careful (Due to their <strong>softness</strong>) not to mar them. Optics are great, but unless Zeiss corrects these issues, (when given a few years to age) I see these lenses garnering a tarnished reputation. <strong>There's a reason they're "cheaper".</strong></p>

<p>Under the description as stated my go to lens is the 50mm f1.5 Zeiss. It is much less expensive than the Summilux and gives that old time look. </p>

<p>I agree with Jason on this as well. I had the "new" 50mm Summicron and just never liked any of my negatives over a number of years. They were very harsh, in my opinion. I went back to the rigid Summicron I started with it the early 70's and then got a very nice collapsible. For black and white they both make gorgeous negatives and I can never decide which of these old lenes I like the best....This is a start of my site..</p>

<p><b>Signature URL removed. Not allowed per photo.net Terms of Use.</b></p>

<p>Thanks for your views (including the "inside" information from Gus). Just to reply to Jason - in terms of optical performance, I would have been fine with any of the Summicrons I've just sold - my problem is that I live on the coast of SE England, where it is relatively humid (never less than 70 to 75%) and old lenses tend to develop haze and mold in my possession (even though I arrange for good air circulation for lenses I'm using regularly and pack others away in Ziplok bags with silica gel). I think Gus may have persuaded me that Leica build quality is better, I agree with Robbie that late Summicrons have high contrast - since I will be doing b+w only, this is relatively easy to manage. What I really need is a lens that will give no trouble (i.e. require no maintenance) for about 25 years, by which time I will be 86 and the condition of my lenss may not matter too much. I just need to find if the new Summarit has the same contrast as the Summicron - a bit less and it would be perfect. I'm already fairly well covered for "interesting" lenses, since I have a Canon 1.8 Serenar, 2 Voigtander 1.5 Noktons and 2 1.5 Jupiters which have been cleaned and re-collimated to work properly.</p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

<p>One approach to purchasing lenses I take is the frequency of use versus build quality and even image quality (I think we often tend to buy lenses based upon 16 x 24 inch print quality, and end up making 8 x 10 photos). My everyday lenses are a Summicron (35mm) and Elmarit (90mm), so I want them to last well. A 12mm is a Voightlander, if only because no one else but Cosina makes one (and also Leica afficionado Erwin Puts praised it, which removed at least one possible veil of objection). My other VC lenses (28 f1.9, 35, 75, 50 f1.5) have lasted very well to date, and as they are each not used more than perhaps 15 or 20 times each year, they will certainly stand up over a long period with reasonable care. If you shoot mainly with the 50mm, the Leica lens may make good sense, but be aware that even Leica equipment is not bullet proof (my experience with my 1989 Summicron helical wear being one example; it received no bad conditions of use, such as exposure to the presence of sand or other mineral dust atmospheres, that can be really disastrous to fine equipment).</p>

Lots of good points here. I am annoyed by the flare potential of my tabbed Summicron, but only after 20 years when I

had one unimportant shot marred by this. The knowledge that there are alternatives opened me to the possibilities of

non-Leica and I love my ZM 25 and 50 1.5. I toy with idea of putting another new Sonnar on ice because of Gus's

concerns, but that is too extreme. Over on RFF Roger Hicks says he mostly uses the C Sonnar now and already I've

given mine a lot of use and a little abuse with no ill effects. One of the reasons I won't sell the Summicron is its

durability being proven, although it actually needs a service now. I also very much value the Summicron for its

compactness, and would probably go past the planar to the new Summarit which is more compact again, if I was

getting another 50. Or, after seeing Robbie Beddel's beautiful work, especially 'To the Magic Castle', Normandy, I

might consider an older 50.

<p>There is no such thing as a bad Summicron. The Zeiss lenses are excellent. Personally, I see a difference between the Summicron and the 50mm Sonnar. So do others, even non photographers. But, both are fantastic. Picking a lenses is more about how you feel that day than anything else...well, maybe the conditions of the shooting situation dictate which lens, but not as often as discussed, if you are not a professional. For me I pick the camera put a lens on it and have some fun. As an addendum I have found that the 75mm f2.5 Summarit meets all my needs, if you ever go in that direction.</p>

<p>I'm concerned about your fungus problem, David. Please read my <a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00K1Qa">suggestions in this thread</a> for an inexpensive solution.</p>

<p>I have done extensive lens comparisons for 50mm lenses at rangefinderforum.com over the years. A clean Summarit can be great for B&W photography. A Summicron is sharper at the corners. A Planar is of slightly higher contrast than the Summicron, and with great color rendering. I prefer the older 50mm lenses.<br>

The Heliar 5cm 3.5 CV lens is excellent for glow and overall sharpness and high resolution.</p>

 

 

<p>"The Heliar 5cm 3.5 CV lens is excellent for glow and overall sharpness and high resolution."</p>

<p>Raid, I'm surprised that the highly thought of and tested Heliar has significant optical aberrations (which I understand is the common source of "glow").</p>

<br />

 

 

<p>Arthur,<br>

The Heliar is an old design with high resolution and sharpness. It is a special lens for certain types of photos. </p>

<p>The Summarit is a special purpose lens since it has a very special character to it that you either hate or you love. The Summitar is more liked.</p>

<p><<The Summarit is a special purpose lens since it has a very special character to it that you either hate or you love. The Summitar is more liked.>><br>

I was in fact referring to the "new" 50 mm f2.5 Summarit, not the "classic" re-badged Xenon.</p>

<p>I now understand. This is very different then. The new Summarit lenses may be close in quality to the new Summicron lenses, but this is only my feeling and without side by side comparisons. </p>

<p>I was told by my college instructor in 2005 that the original Planar 50mm of the 1960s was the sharpest lens ever as it included rare elements in the glass which are now prohibitively expensive. It appears to my amateur eye to be a bit sharper than my Summicrons but very much heavier. I hardly ever use it now as it is fitted to a Contarex.</p>

<p>I have several old CZ Planar lenses,and they are quite sharp. I have a 50/2 Blitz for the Contarex, and I have a CZJ 5cm/.1.5 Sonnar in Leica which is one of my favorite lenses. There may exist differences between the older CZ Planar lenses. The Contarex line go the best that Zeiss could design. </p>