I miss this lens. In all ways that are supposed to matter, the 1.2GM is better, but there is a certain look to the rendering from the ZA that makes it special. I have far too many 50s, but I should have hung onto this one.
Having owned the Leica Sl 50lux, I can say this is easily a lens you could confidently use without feeling like you are missing something.
I just nabbed a new copy from sony for a discount for 600 bucks and its easily one of the better 50mm lenses ive owned. My copy is illegally sharp, with good corrections and fast autofocus.
If you can find a mint copy for 600 bucks, I cant see any reason to buy the gm lenses personally, unless you just want them.
The Planar is still an excellent option and is in my opinion actually underrated and not just on emount but across the entire market and I say that as a very happy owner of the 50mm f1.2 GM
Lovely B&W shot of the dog! Ditto @saxguy’s portrait, above.
I appreciate that the way it handles colour is one of this lens’ strengths, but it looks to me like it would be great for B&W too. As it happens, I’ve just ordered the Voigtländer 50mm f/2 APO for our A7R iv, but I could certainly be tempted by this ZA Planar as a complement (just as I would love to have a 50mm Summilux to complement the CV 2.0/50, albeit for rather different reasons).
Congratulations on acquiring the lens. I really like your photos. In the third picture, the boy almost jumps out of the picture. The lens sometimes has extremely strong Zeiss pop, even though it's a Sony. I used the 50 Planar to photograph my daughter's entire childhood and took countless pictures over the years. It was my "all-rounder" for many years. It was often compared to the 85 GM/1.4, even though the focal lengths are very different. It was said that the 85 GM has a much better bokeh than the 50 Planar. So, I bought the 85 GM even though I already had an 85 Batis. What can I say - I spent several months intensively photographing with the 85 GM and then it mostly sat in the showcase for years. Some pictures were lifeless and didn't compare to the vibrancy of the Planar, no matter what I did in Lightroom. Last year, my pity was so great that I sold the GM. I used the Planar very intensively and I still own it. The pictures were simply beautiful and lively, sometimes with a very pronounced three-dimensional effect and the subject jumping out of the monitor. Skin tones were always successful and some pictures were impressive. The only downside to the Planar, in my opinion, is its weight of 750 grams. The lens could have been made lighter for sure. The 50 Planar was replaced as an "always-on" lens by the Batis 40/2. I am satisfied with f2, it weighs 360 grams, and it can take impressive pictures. Nevertheless, I am glad that I still own and can sometimes use the 50 Planar.
Thanks for the kind words @Andrew CD It's funny cause I have been shooting photos of Gordon (the dog pictured in b/w) for most of his life. Now he's quite elderly, so the photos change. This black and white is a nice one to me for how he is now. Glad you like it too.
@Schwarzlicht Thanks! I recalled your lovely photos of your daughter from over the years when I thought of this lens. I wanted a fast AF 50/1.4 to compliment my GM 24 for concerts and low light. Of all the options, I liked the ZA the best from the photos I had seen--more than the GM's or 55. I had the 50 ZA loosely on my list to try for a while. I picked up a shooter's copy and it's been really solid with lovely Zeiss color and yes--this lens has a ton of 3-D sometimes. I generally shoot small, manual focus range finder lenses, so this is a specific event use lens for me, so hasn't gotten a ton of run but I'll learn it better as I go along.
I have really enjoyed it for some video work I have been doing as well.
What I like about this lens, and it may not be other's experience, is it lacks the slight green cast in the shadows I had with my GM 50/1.2 and the raws are easier to work with. I wish the Sony Zeiss 35mm was as good as this 50.
Jonas B wrote:
But the bokeh, especially to the left side, is somewhat disturbing. It reminds me about my old Canon FD 50/1.4.
Not smooth, true. But I don’t find it disturbing—I think it helps with the separation of planes. Then again, I am more interested in character and imperfection than most here it seems 🤷🏼♂️
nehemiahphoto wrote:
This is a great b/w lens.[...]
I have now read several comments saying this 50mm is good for black and white images. That's puzzling to me. The same has been said about the Sony FE 40/2.5 G.
In my experience it really doesn't matter much which lens I use for B&W. My usual workflow includes custom color profiles for the lens and camera combination used. That's to get a neutral starting point for further processing. After that I do whatever is needed and I can't say I have any lens that is especially suited for color or B&W.
So, what is it making a lens suited for black and white? Low macro contrast as many legacy lenses give us? High macro contrast as many modern lenses (the 40G for example) give us? Something else? or, is it just something to say when gotten happy with a B&W conversion?
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Not smooth, true. But I don’t find it disturbing—I think it helps with the separation of planes. Then again, I am more interested in character and imperfection than most here it seems 🤷🏼♂️
Heh. But if it helps it's nothing imperfect about it! In other images it may perhaps be helpful not to demand "smooth"...
I agree with you generally that the conversion process is generally the biggest driver of BW quality (assuming the photo itself is worth having in BW in the first place).
However, some lenses have very good transfer of color saturation/intensity. There is likely a more scientific name for this trait. Those lenses tend to produce higher contrast BW images or ones capable of greater tonal separation in BW images. The two examples that come to mind for me are the Contax 50/1.7 and the Zeiss ZE 85/1.4. To a lesser extent, the Contax 85/1.4, Sony ZA 50/1.4 discussed here, and the Leica M 50/2 pre-ASPH (I have the v4) also have this sort of trait.
If I know I am going to shoot BW, i reach for one of those.
Jim
Jonas B wrote:
I have now read several comments saying this 50mm is good for black and white images. That's puzzling to me. The same has been said about the Sony FE 40/2.5 G.
In my experience it really doesn't matter much which lens I use for B&W. My usual workflow includes custom color profiles for the lens and camera combination used. That's to get a neutral starting point for further processing. After that I do whatever is needed and I can't say I have any lens that is especially suited for color or B&W.
So, what is it making a lens suited for black and white? Low macro contrast as many legacy lenses give us? High macro contrast as many modern lenses (the 40G for example) give us? Something else? or, is it just something to say when gotten happy with a B&W conversion?...Show more →
