Lens Choices

[Xmas]

Sure? May I recommend this article on the history of the planar?

http://vintage-camera-lenses.com/carl-zeiss-planar-history-part-1/

check out the cemented surface of the third group in the planar for the 1953 Contarex, it looks pretty flat to me.

http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/Zeiss_Planar_50mm_story/00_pag.htm

The Planargon 35 mm also have four flat surfaces, and the 1955 Planar 55mm f1.4 two in the second element.

Thank you for the two links

The second compromises both our postures when/if you read the table describing the radia, refractive index and dispersion, it is apparent only one surface in each lens is planar ie has an infinite radius.

If you then look at better diagrams of the ZM it is then similarly clear that

- it also has only one planar surface set
- and it is a close analogue of the fifties cyclops design

My mistake sorry

This does not make it bad as Cosina (ie Zeiss) will have manufactured it with the year 200x glass catalogue. And it is a design with lots of freedom for correction, whereas the type IV cron with a 197x catalogue is more austere.

You will need PanF and tripod to detect any difference. I did not try that comparison.

In street shooting with each I got them both to flare (ie not just veil) distressingly frequently and I found the post 94' Elmar or Cosina /2.5 5cm a better compromise for just out of sun shots, as well more compact. Most of the time I use Canon /1.8 preferring a medium contrast lens. Note the deep optional hood for the Cosina makes a difference to flare.

But YMMV!

 

[cuthbert]

Yes traditionally the Planar has just two flat surfaces that are cemented together in the third group, however this looks more like the Summicron IV:

Guess what is it?

Nikkor Auto 50mm f2, introduced in 1964:

http://www.nikkor.com/story/0002/

Regarding the Voigtländer Nokton, I have no direct experience, but "have read on the web" that the lens obscures more of the area seen in the viewfinder. Might be true or not - but worth checking.

I think it's a problem for the Nokton 1.1 that is big (and Ken doesn't like it), the 1.5 looks a more compact lens however even the tiny hood of my Summicron DR eats a corner of the viewfinder.

This was coated, and what was surprising is that coatings were of more colors than typical for the era. This one also had cyan coatings; most coatings of the era are either amber, yellow, blue, or purple.

How can one understand all those funny names? Elmar, Elmarit, Summar, Sumarit, Summaron, Sumittar, Summicron... i'd guess there will be in the future Elmaron, Elmacron, Noctimar, Summalux, etc... And then the "Leica"-branded lenses have funny names like "Vario-Elmar"... Come on, an Elmar design can never be a Zoom... Anyways...

LOL. So much for the myth of 1950s Leitz lenses being the best. And then in the 60s the japanese took over. I think now the LTM leitz glass is mostly bought by collectors; i'd suppose users prefer to go for 1960s Canon or
Nikon lenses.

The big fall of the German camera industry. Oh, how the mighty have fallen. Like Flavio Briatore said: "Let's see the japanese now yutaw taw."

Short guide to the Leica names by KR:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/lens-names.htm

In short they depend from the F stop of the lens itself, the faster the more expensive and "noble", on the top of the food chain there is the Noctilux, on the button the Hektor, that used be Barnack's dog.

For the suffix "it" it also indicates a faster lens based on a existing one, so the faster (f2.8) version of the Elmar is the Elmarit, the Summarit was a pumped up version of the Summar (Sonnar like Leitz lens) etc...this page is interesting:

http://blog1.poco.cn/myBlogDetail-htx-id-1211257-userid-42113193-pri--n-0.xhtml

Vario is German for zoom, traditionally Zeiss West and East always called their zooms Vario-something, for instance Vario-sonnar, so a Leiz f2.8 zoom is a Vario-Elmarit. Got that?

For the superiority of Leitz, everybody who knows something about History knows that Zeiss lenses until the 60 outperformed the Leitz counterparts, for instance the Sonnar 1.5 was much better than the Xenon first and Summarit later, the 2.0 performed better than the Summar etc...before the war the best RF was the Contax II and III, not the Leica III. Leitz started to become a "legend" when they introduced the second type of Summicron (the first one was simply a Summitar, like the first Summilux was an evolution of the Summarit that had a bad reputation) then things changed, but before that the best lenses were not Leica.

Think about the Soviets: instead of copying Leitz design they acquire all the Zeiss technology and launched the Jupiter and Industar lines of lenses to be used on Leica II clones.

 

[miha]

Think about the Soviets: instead of copying Leitz design they acquire all the Zeiss technology and launched the Jupiter and Industar lines of lenses to be used on Leica II clones.

Maybe because Jena was in the Soviet sector?

 

[Xmas]

Maybe because Jena was in the Soviet sector?

Dresden was the Zeiss factory the soviets got the ex Zeiss technicians to make them several production lines.

The zooms are normally triplet derivatives, so vario Elmar is not that bad necessarily.

The soviets also copied Mandlers type IV summicron design for the Helious think using four plane surfaces as optimising a lens means making it cheap to manufacture!

 

[miha]

And the Leitz factory was in the British sector...

BTW, German made Leica Vario lenses (and those produced by Kyocera for them) are some of the very best zooms ever produced.

 

[cuthbert]

And the Leitz factory was in the British sector...

BTW, German made Leica Vario lenses (and those produced by Kyocera for them) are some of the very best zooms ever produced.

You mean Zeiss...for what I know most of the Leitz Vario-Elmarits were made by Minolta during the famous Leitz-Minolta alliance.

I DO have a made in DDR Zeiss Jena Vario-Sonnar in Praktica mount (so it's a Vario-Prakticar) and it's the best 80-200 I have ever tried, very sharp at f4.0, it does have a hint of swirly bokeh, and it's also REALLY made in Germay.

 

[miha]

You mean Zeiss...for what I know most of the Leitz Vario-Elmarits were made by Minolta during the famous Leitz-Minolta alliance.

Nope, I mean Leica. Only four zooms were made by Minolta, one by Sigma and an older one from the Liecaflex era by Angenieux.
The 21-35mm f3.5-4, 35-70mm f4, 35-70mm f2.8, 28-90mm f2.8-4.5, 70-180mm f2.8, 105-280mm f4.2 were made by Leica in Germany, the 80-200 f4 by Kyocera in Japan but designed by Leica, all top noch zooms, best in class but horrendously expensive.

 

[cuthbert]

Nope, I mean Leica. Only four zooms were made by Minolta, one by Sigma and an older one from the Liecaflex era by Angenieux.
The 21-35mm f3.5-4, 35-70mm f4, 35-70mm f2.8, 28-90mm f2.8-4.5, 70-180mm f2.8, 105-280mm f4.2 were made by Leica in Germany, the 80-200 f4 by Kyocera in Japan but designed by Leica, all top noch zooms, best in class but horrendously expensive.

According to this website:

http://www.nemeng.com/leica/013c.shtml

The 80-200 was made by Minolta, along with the 35-70 (but perhaps it's another 35-70) and other zooms, plus two wide angles.

 

[cliveh]

With the recent acquisition of an M2 I'm looking at two 50mm lens, the Zeiss 50 f2 Plannar and the Voightlander Nokton 50 f1.5 ASPH lens. Which would you go for? I'm unfamiliar with either. The Leitz 50 f2 is out of sight.

f2 Plannar, no contest.

 

[ColColt]

That's what I went with...due Tuesday.

 

[miha]

According to this website:

http://www.nemeng.com/leica/013c.shtml

The 80-200 was made by Minolta, along with the 35-70 (but perhaps it's another 35-70) and other zooms, plus two wide angles.

You should reread the site and my post. I have specified the exact speed of each lens to avoid confusion. Unsuccesfuly.

Kyocera made 80-200: http://www.overgaard.dk/pdf/Vario-Elmar-R_80-200_mm_Technical_Data_en-1.pdf

The f2.8: http://leica-camera.pl/wp-content/downloads/Puts_Column_70-180_mm_Leica_R_Lenses_en.pdf

35-70 lenses: http://www.overgaard.dk/pdf/Leica-35-70-f4- R-lenses.pdf

 

[cuthbert]

You should reread the site and my post. I have specified the exact speed of each lens to avoid confusion. Unsuccesfuly.

Kyocera made 80-200: http://www.overgaard.dk/pdf/Vario-Elmar-R_80-200_mm_Technical_Data_en-1.pdf

The f2.8: http://leica-camera.pl/wp-content/downloads/Puts_Column_70-180_mm_Leica_R_Lenses_en.pdf

35-70 lenses: http://www.overgaard.dk/pdf/Leica-35-70-f4- R-lenses.pdf

And you should re-read my post:

According to this website:

http://www.nemeng.com/leica/013c.shtml

The 80-200 was made by Minolta, along with the 35-70 (but perhaps it's another 35-70) and other zooms, plus two wide angles.

Have you paid attention to the part in bold?

Then, the selling strategy behind offering a 80-200 f4 and another 80-200 but f4.5 escapes me, to be honest.

 

[miha]

The f4.5 versions were made earlier and never sold along with the f4 which came later.

 

[miha]

Nope, I mean Leica. Only four zooms were made by Minolta, one by Sigma and an older one from the Liecaflex era by Angenieux.
The 21-35mm f3.5-4, 35-70mm f4, 35-70mm f2.8, 28-90mm f2.8-4.5, 70-180mm f2.8, 105-280mm f4.2 were made by Leica in Germany, the 80-200 f4 by Kyocera in Japan but designed by Leica, all top noch zooms, best in class but horrendously expensive.

A small correction: even the 35-70 f4 was built by Kyocera Japan along with the 80-200 f4 lens. Both were designed in-house by Leica.

 

[Ronald Moravec]

Planar is very good optically. Neither is spectacular mechanically. I will never buy another CV lens.

 

[cuthbert]

Planar is very good optically. Neither is spectacular mechanically. I will never buy another CV lens.

That's harsh, which problems did you experience? My understanding is that the building quality of Zeiss and VL mdae by Cosina is pretty good.

 

[Xmas]

Planar is very good optically. Neither is spectacular mechanically. I will never buy another CV lens.

We'll both my ZM lenses had good IQ, the 5cm as good as the summicron.
Both ZMs had rotational play on their focus ring that could annoy some people. they were both in new condition like out of the boxes which they came with. I did not keep either too long.
No trace of optic play relative to mount.
The Voighlander Cosina /1.5 in LTM was perfect mechanically and had good IQ spot on rangefinder tracking but too big and heavy, unless you had no light.
Both the Summicron and Planar flared badly with low sun and factory hoods, the /1.5 CV and 24mm ZM were much better with high contrast scenes.

The post 94 Elmar had good IQ (similar to the Planar) and better flare resistance.
The 5cm /2.5 Cosina was shade below the Elmar in IQ and flare, but much more compact and ergonomic.

This was with PanF on tripod with Tx street shooting you would not have seen the IQ differences.

I'd note that the IQ was done with veiling flare - the low sun was in practical tests.

I've still got the little CV /2.5 on an M3, no mechanical problems after 9 years. They may be low volume.

Indeed of the nine CV I kept 12mm to 90mm there have been no problems.

Cosina can make good lenses.

I tried a ZM body over a coffee table handed it back without looking through the finder.

The Bessas and RD1 felt better to hand, not much different to Canon LTM or Leica M but that is very subjective like the aperture rings on both the ZM lenses that did not annoy me.

 

[miha]

Have a look at the summarits. With the curent f2.4 versions, the f2.5 are best buy option as long as stocks last.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

With the recent acquisition of an M2 I'm looking at two 50mm lens, the Zeiss 50 f2 Plannar and the Voightlander Nokton 50 f1.5 ASPH lens. Which would you go for? I'm unfamiliar with either. The Leitz 50 f2 is out of sight.

I like old(1970s)Nikkor glasssuch as the 50mmf/1.8 Eseries.You can get them for peanuts(I paid$30 for mine)They are sharp and don't break the bank

 

[Xmas]

Have a look at the summarits. With the curent f2.4 versions, the f2.5 are best buy option as long as stocks last.

A CV /2.5 5cm is x0.25 the $?
And I'm not selling mine.

 

[miha]

A CV /2.5 5cm is x0.25 the $?
And I'm not selling mine.

Almost true. But it's not your $

(it's in the price-range of the Planar & CV f1.5 OP wishes to spend money on)

 

[Ronald Moravec]

That's harsh, which problems did you experience? My understanding is that the building quality of Zeiss and VL mdae by Cosina is pretty good.

12, 15, 25. 12 & 15 both required adjustment and I forget the details for sure, but I think the 12 developed a grinding in the focus. The 15 was not set properly rotationally so the shade was crooked. I repaired them myself.

Then I tried the 25 on digital M9 and then I noticed one side was out of focus, say 50 feet from a flat subject. I believe that was a centering problem. I can not repair myself and I would not feel right selling it. It is now a paper weight. Oh yes, and the shade locked on with the most minute pressure. Paste silicone cure.

Perhaps they upped their game, but I am not willing to try again with real money to find out.

Forgot about the 75 mm finder that had a crooked mask so all the pics had a slanted horizon. It was replaced and the world is now level. Took me months to get done.

4 out of 4 is poor QC to me.

Did you hear of the Zeiss wobble? Many have and and the repairs are expensive.

I saw a you tube on how the fix the 21 mm R zeiss where the internals have come loose. Lock tight.

Then you have to figure how to code the ZM so it works on digital Leica.

Forget them.

 

[flavio81]

Cuthbert, thanks for the links on understanding the Leitz lens naming conventions.

Returning to the thread, to be honest when selecting a 50mm lens i wouldn't worry so much for sharpness or flare resistance; any half-decent 50mm lens is already good in those two aspects, at least at mid apertures. Rather, i would focus (pun intended) on the quality of the out-of-focus areas, contrast, and color saturation, for example.

 

[darkosaric]

Then I tried the 25...It is now a paper weight.

Can I have it ? I will pay for the shipping...

 

[Xmas]

Almost true. But it's not your $

(it's in the price-range of the Planar & CV f1.5 OP wishes to spend money on)

Maybe but my Leica dealer only has an ex demo /2.4 at 1045.0
New 1160.0 black 1250.0 silver

Non Leica dealer
Planar 599.0
Nockton 766.0

The CV /2.5 you need to get used typically less than 250.0 all in GBP (mine was 200.0)

and the OP has a Planar in post ETA this Tuesday so past sell by post.