I am selling this one because I also have the black one.
In the past, Zeiss lenses do not have contrast as good as Leica at f2. This Planar outperforms other Contax lenses at f2, it is similar to Summicron 50 2 at f2 in terms of contrast and resolution.
This Planar 50 2 and Summicron 50 2 are very much the same at most f nos. This Planar is slightly sharper at f4 and higher. On the other hand, Summicron has better contrast, I mean large object contrast characterized by the line 5lp/mm in the MTF graph.
The colour reproduction of the Planar is more frank,whereas Summicron has the traditional colour rendition of Leica. The tone turns slightly more cyan.
In terms of Bokeh, this Planar is definitely better than Summicron. It has no signs of astigmatism except at the very margin of the photo.
If you like better colours, go for Zeiss. If you like better contrast, go for Leica.
I have Zeiss Biogon 25 2.8 of M-mount. It is extremely good. I am very impressed. I trust Zeiss in wide angles.
I also have both Zeiss Biogon 35 2 and Leica Summicron 35 2 ASPH. This time Leica is definitely better at f2. At other f stops such as f4 and 5.6, the biogon is sharper but Leica has slightly more contrast, though the difference is small.
I have an MP with built in meter as well. Out of various metering options, I prefers M3 with external meter.
For MP, I have to move my camera near my object to take a reading, I don't feel happy. In dark places, the light from the meter reading obscure my focusing. Even with my MP, I still prefer external metering.
For M3, I never attach the meter to the flash socket. I use a Voigtlander meter which is small so that I feel comfortable to take readings from my subject. Any small meters will do, it does not have to be Voigtlander. I have Minolta meter which I only use to take readings from flash, it is still too big for me.
Meter is nothing complicated, it is difficult to go wrong with it. Why don't you trust Voigtlander meter ?
The thing which could go wrong is the technique of using the meter. The angle of view of the meter is quite wide, I should think about 70-90 degree. You get wrong readings if you are too far from the subject and so I always take the reading by placing the meter within 10 cm from the subject.
I tested the meter with my Sony DSC717, Contax AX, RX, Minolta flash meter V. They are all consistant with each other.
Can you name me a meter which is inaccurate ?
Has anyone heard of/ had any experience with the new ZM 85mm lens? I understand its one of the Zeiss (not Cosina) manufactured ones, hence its exorbitant price tag (more than both the Leica 90/2 Apo Asph and 75/2 Apo Asph!). Wondered whether anyone knows whether it can truly justify this price premium over the apparently very good Leica glass. Just curious because I'm in the market for a longer length lens shortly...
Go for it. Its performance in the MTF is groundbreaking. Although many people do not trust the MTP, it is certainly worthwhile looking at it before you pay for the pricy premium, but ZM85 2 will worth every penny you pay.
I paid USD3600 for one of my Zeiss 85 1.2, it is certainly one lens I have to keep.
Since I already have 85 1.2 and Leica M90 2 ASPH, I am not going for this particular one.
Well, I do not have direct experience with the Canon 85/1.2 L lens. I have seen many prints from this lens in a Canon 1Ds1 but I have never seen it with colour film. It is certainly a lens I am eager to try.
C Sonnar 50 1.4 is the lens of choice if you use a lot of 1.4, otherwise go for the ZM Planar 50 f2. The f2 of ZM 50 f2 is better than the f2 of C Sonnar, so are the other f. nos.
ZM 35 f2 is a bit embarrassing at f2, but from f2.4 onwards, it has a breathtaking performance. I really like this lens. This lens performs really well at small apertures. On the other hand, ZF 35 f2 has a good f2, but do less well in small apertures.
I should believe C21 and 18 will be good. In fact, the lens ZM 21 f4 will be better than ZM 21 f2.8. Zeiss knew she could compete with Leica at the wide angles, this is why she is making so many of them at the moment. I am really surprised at Leica when she announced the Tri-elmar 16-18-21. She should have made some primes instead. It is over for Leica as far as wide angles is concerned.
I only have the Leica M35 2 ASPH but not the older ones. Both ZM35 2 and Leica M35 2 ASPH are very good.
At f2, Sum M35 2 ASPH is contrasty and sharp. It is a good low light lens. I would not use ZM35 f2 at f2 for its poor performance. It produces poor chromatic aberrations.
ZM 35 f2 quickly brightens up as soon as the aperture stops down 1/3 from f2. This lens is a joy to use at every other f-stops with the only exception at f2. I would believe the best f stop for this lens is f4, although I have not test this formally. I would believe the colour rendition of this lens is slightly better than Leica M35 2 ASPH. I would also believe with the exception of f2, it is not possible to find another lens in the market which can beat the ZM35.
I still prefer using Leica M35 2 ASPH in black and white.