sanmich
Mentor
Thomas
Both lenses have almost the same length and diameter.
In the hex, the filters sits in an inner ring to allow for the built in hood to extend. That explains the smaller filter size.
I think that the major size difference is with the hood.
The planar hood (which is BTW beautifully designed and crafted) makes the lens much bigger. On the other side, the built in hood of the hex might not be everyone's cup of tea...
[edit]: Yes, I ended up with both. I have a hard time to part with either
. Great lenses...
Last edited:
bwcolor
Mentor
Good time to bump this with the 50mm Zeiss Planar thread going strong.
I love my 50mm M-Hexs and use it mostly when reaching for this focal length. The f/1.2 is large and I'm prone to leaving it at home. I haven't other 50mm 'M' mounts, but do have a Zeiss 50mm Planar in c/y and 45mm Planar in Contax G mount. I've not carefully compared these and haven't really used the c/y lens much, but the Contax 45mm is a wonderful lens.
I love my 50mm M-Hexs and use it mostly when reaching for this focal length. The f/1.2 is large and I'm prone to leaving it at home. I haven't other 50mm 'M' mounts, but do have a Zeiss 50mm Planar in c/y and 45mm Planar in Contax G mount. I've not carefully compared these and haven't really used the c/y lens much, but the Contax 45mm is a wonderful lens.
the following is the result of a lot of investigation I have done recently.
I've owned the ZM only, so I will keep the following to only what you can observe from measurements and then provide my analysis / commentary on them. that means I will not discuss relative build quality, ergonomics, etc. which I have no insight on. well, other than to say I like the ZM and having a recent example I am hoping that the newer grease formula that they supposedly began using will mean my lens will last through the next 5 years with light use.
Anyway, on to the technical bits.
So first of all between the V4/5 50 Summicron, the 50 ZM Planar and the M-Hexanon, in a perfect world the Summicron is in fact the sharpest. Looking at the relative MTFs, I would guess the Zeiss would edge out the M-Hexanon for terminal resolution, too.
This is assuming a lot. Firstly, that focus is equivalent. Secondly, that the sensor / film / bench is of sufficient resolution to tell a difference. Finally, that we are looking at a representative example of each and not one in the top / bottom range of performance. Those are pretty big assumptions.
What it boils down to for me is this: the finer the structure you are looking at the more the Summicron differentiates itself from the ZM Planar. At MTF50, for example, the Summicron decimates EVERY current Zeiss 50 at f2 and f2.8 and the Summilux ASPH is better even than the Summicron (AT THIS MEASUREMENT). Please reference the LensRentals 50mm shootout for the measurements.
What effect, then, does this have on us end users? Almost none. In the regions that actually matter for reasonably sized enlargements all of these lenses are so close that it makes no difference unless you shoot subjects with exceptionally fine textures. In fact, if you look at a portrait by the Summicron and the Planar that are somehow identically focused at f2.8 you might think the Planar is sharper because the eyelashes and the details of the eye will look really sharp and the summicron is going to show you similar "detail" in the skin but it's going to look harsher because skin is such a fine texture. This is my experience, which I think is supported by the graphs.
It just so happens that I really like to shoot textures, so for me the V4 summicron would be ideal. But it's too big of a price difference for me to go from my ZM Planar to a V4 cron at this time. The Planar can also be shot into the sun and IMO handles OoF a lot better. So, for now I will wait.
Now, as far as the Hexanon goes, when I look at the MTFs I see a similar situation, which suggests that the Hexanon is generally speaking about the same as the Summicron and the Planar for the vast majority of things (as in, pick one of these three at random and you are unlikely to see much difference). Pick between the ZM and Hexanon on ergonomics and which one you can get a good price on, IMO.
Now, before you say that this was an overly technical explanation without much value, let me just say that lens choice is personal and the lens with the highest resolution is not always going to be the best choice for everyone. But this information has proven useful to me and I hope it will to someone else, as well.
I've owned the ZM only, so I will keep the following to only what you can observe from measurements and then provide my analysis / commentary on them. that means I will not discuss relative build quality, ergonomics, etc. which I have no insight on. well, other than to say I like the ZM and having a recent example I am hoping that the newer grease formula that they supposedly began using will mean my lens will last through the next 5 years with light use.
Anyway, on to the technical bits.
So first of all between the V4/5 50 Summicron, the 50 ZM Planar and the M-Hexanon, in a perfect world the Summicron is in fact the sharpest. Looking at the relative MTFs, I would guess the Zeiss would edge out the M-Hexanon for terminal resolution, too.
This is assuming a lot. Firstly, that focus is equivalent. Secondly, that the sensor / film / bench is of sufficient resolution to tell a difference. Finally, that we are looking at a representative example of each and not one in the top / bottom range of performance. Those are pretty big assumptions.
What it boils down to for me is this: the finer the structure you are looking at the more the Summicron differentiates itself from the ZM Planar. At MTF50, for example, the Summicron decimates EVERY current Zeiss 50 at f2 and f2.8 and the Summilux ASPH is better even than the Summicron (AT THIS MEASUREMENT). Please reference the LensRentals 50mm shootout for the measurements.
What effect, then, does this have on us end users? Almost none. In the regions that actually matter for reasonably sized enlargements all of these lenses are so close that it makes no difference unless you shoot subjects with exceptionally fine textures. In fact, if you look at a portrait by the Summicron and the Planar that are somehow identically focused at f2.8 you might think the Planar is sharper because the eyelashes and the details of the eye will look really sharp and the summicron is going to show you similar "detail" in the skin but it's going to look harsher because skin is such a fine texture. This is my experience, which I think is supported by the graphs.
It just so happens that I really like to shoot textures, so for me the V4 summicron would be ideal. But it's too big of a price difference for me to go from my ZM Planar to a V4 cron at this time. The Planar can also be shot into the sun and IMO handles OoF a lot better. So, for now I will wait.
Now, as far as the Hexanon goes, when I look at the MTFs I see a similar situation, which suggests that the Hexanon is generally speaking about the same as the Summicron and the Planar for the vast majority of things (as in, pick one of these three at random and you are unlikely to see much difference). Pick between the ZM and Hexanon on ergonomics and which one you can get a good price on, IMO.
Now, before you say that this was an overly technical explanation without much value, let me just say that lens choice is personal and the lens with the highest resolution is not always going to be the best choice for everyone. But this information has proven useful to me and I hope it will to someone else, as well.
raid
Dad Photographer
When something as beautiful (overall) as a Rigid Summicron exists, why bother with any other lens?
I am still favoring my mint Rigid Summicron, after having the pleasure to evaluate 25-35 50mm RF lenses over the years. It has superb resolution in the center, as Roland has said above.
I am still favoring my mint Rigid Summicron, after having the pleasure to evaluate 25-35 50mm RF lenses over the years. It has superb resolution in the center, as Roland has said above.
Shorter focus throw? Lighter weight? Smaller Size?
well personally when I bought my planar the price was still 781 new and a DR/rigid cron from KEH was going for 1000 in BGN.
it didn't make sense to spend 200 more on a quite old used lens when a flat field to the edges is important to me (I dont care about corners, but I care about edges). if the DR cron was going for less than the planar I would definitely have bought one.
it didn't make sense to spend 200 more on a quite old used lens when a flat field to the edges is important to me (I dont care about corners, but I care about edges). if the DR cron was going for less than the planar I would definitely have bought one.
raid
Dad Photographer
Has anyone compared the Hexanon 50/2 with the Hexanon 50/2.4?
Is one lens somehow "better" than the other at apertures 2.4 and smaller?
Is one lens somehow "better" than the other at apertures 2.4 and smaller?
djnato10
M6 Classical
I know I'm reviving a thread that is almost three years old. I just find the opinions in here pretty interesting and can mostly agree with the consensus.
I sold my M-Hex to get the Planar back in September, then decided that I couldn't live without it and ended up buying another one recently. Currently I run both lenses in my bag, if I want something a little more classic and less modern the M-Hex is my eye, if I want the super high contrast crazy sharp look it's got to be the Planar.
There really is something to be said about both lenses, and for a fraction of the price compared actual Leica lenses. They are both very impressive in their own right with great ergonomics. The focus throw seems about the same between the two, this make it very easy to swap back and forth.
I plan to do a comparison between them on my blog at some point soon.
I sold my M-Hex to get the Planar back in September, then decided that I couldn't live without it and ended up buying another one recently. Currently I run both lenses in my bag, if I want something a little more classic and less modern the M-Hex is my eye, if I want the super high contrast crazy sharp look it's got to be the Planar.
There really is something to be said about both lenses, and for a fraction of the price compared actual Leica lenses. They are both very impressive in their own right with great ergonomics. The focus throw seems about the same between the two, this make it very easy to swap back and forth.
I plan to do a comparison between them on my blog at some point soon.
taffy
Well-known
Hi thanks for reviving this thread! I just recently got the Planar and I’d love to see and learn from your comparison.
I’ve pretty much changed all my lens to the modern-look ZMs 25, 35/2.8, and 50/2 but like you, I was missing the classic look so I got the CV 35 1.4.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk