I don't currently have either a 45 or 50 ZM Planar, but going from memory of owning both multiple times, I found them to be pretty similar, and both with the rather characteristic "zeiss look" (not surprising of course)
ZM50 cost a fair bit more than a 45, though is easier to focus and doesn't require a bulky adapter.
Always could go the Techart route, but then for the price of a 45/2 and a Techart adapter you could just pick up a FE 55/1.8, which I think is a better overall lens than either of them
millsart wrote:
I don't currently have either a 45 or 50 ZM Planar, but going from memory of owning both multiple times, I found them to be pretty similar, and both with the rather characteristic "zeiss look" (not surprising of course)
Hmmm, good to hear, maybe have to try that one also.
millsart wrote:
....for the price of a 45/2 and a Techart adapter you could just pick up a FE 55/1.8, which I think is a better overall lens than either of them
Better overall maybe with some criteria (not mine), but rendering style wasn't for me. There are some uses, where I prefer FE55 rendering style, but for majority of my stuff I prefer older Zeiss (e.g. G45, C/Y1.4/50, ZE1.4/50) rendering style. I will most likely use FE55 for some shootouts during summer, but not as "main" normal lens.
I was curious about the two Planars as well (I may pick one up) so compared the MTF's. Probably not much in the difference between the two, though the 45 appears to have an advantage in the center and the 50 perhaps a slight advantage towards the edges.
As an aside, I'm not too crazy about the FE 55 egg shaped bokeh, at least as compared to the Sigma Art 50 (which shows round bokeh in the exact same situation). I have no idea if these Planars have nicer bokeh than the FE 55 though.
Phillip Reeve wrote:
That G45 is surely a nice lens, I rediscovered mine recently.
Has anyone ever compared it to the ZM50? A ned adapter would cost me about as much as replacing my G45 with a used ZM50 and I would get nicer bokeh at f/2 and a decent focusing ring. But I am wondering if the ZM will have a similar clarity.
i haven't seen or done a direct comparison, but ron scheffler posted full sized test shots with the zm 50 that led me to believe that the g45 seems to perform a little bit better than the zm 50 even in the corners (could have been his adapter?).
it sounded like there might have been some rings left over from the order for doing the g45 conversion, that actually would be cheaper than a new adapter (though ordering another batch would not).
Phillip Reeve wrote:
That G45 is surely a nice lens, I rediscovered mine recently.
Has anyone ever compared it to the ZM50? A ned adapter would cost me about as much as replacing my G45 with a used ZM50 and I would get nicer bokeh at f/2 and a decent focusing ring. But I am wondering if the ZM will have a similar clarity.
I continue to get annoying veiling flare (low contrast, anyhow) from my ZM50 in bright sunlight, even when the front of the lens is shaded from direct sunlight. This is true at f/5.6 and f/8, not just large apertures.
sebboh wrote:
it sounded like there might have been some rings left over from the order for doing the g45 conversion, that actually would be cheaper than a new adapter (though ordering another batch would not).
hmm, I didn't follow that project too closely, how much did one cost and would I need other tools than a set of screwdrivers and a 1.7/55?
Some 2/50 sold in the low 400€s and the G45 usually sells in the low 300€s so it wouldn't be an expensive swap. And I would prpbably retain a better resale value plus better bokeh at f/2 and 10 aperture blades vs. 6 hmm...
Taylor Sherman wrote:
I continue to get annoying veiling flare (low contrast, anyhow) from my ZM50 in bright sunlight, even when the front of the lens is shaded from direct sunlight. This is true at f/5.6 and f/8, not just large apertures.
Have you tried different adapters? Just wondering if that could be caused from an internal reflection/ flare off the adapter.
Phillip Reeve wrote:
hmm, I didn't follow that project too closely, how much did one cost and would I need other tools than a set of screwdrivers and a 1.7/55?
Some 2/50 sold in the low 400€s and the G45 usually sells in the low 300€s so it wouldn't be an expensive swap. And I would prpbably retain a better resale value plus better bokeh at f/2 and 10 aperture blades vs. 6 hmm...
sounded like flashinm might have a set he decided not to use.
you also need some kind of rubber ring to get the nameplate off the front of the lens (chair feet of the right size would work or creative rubber band use).
does the zm 50 have noticeably better bokeh at f/2? i've never been certain.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Have you tried different adapters? Just wondering if that could be caused from an internal reflection/ flare off the adapter.
I have a Metabones and a Fotodiox, but I haven't A/B'd them in those situations. Recently I was using the Fotodiox. But I use other lenses on it without the problem.
All I can say is, WOW! There have been some damn great photos these past few pages. 8)
I'm just catching up with the recent posts lately and I'm jelly! I wish it weren't thundering and raining outside. You all are inspiring me to go out and shoooooot.
Taylor Sherman wrote:
I continue to get annoying veiling flare (low contrast, anyhow) from my ZM50 in bright sunlight, even when the front of the lens is shaded from direct sunlight. This is true at f/5.6 and f/8, not just large apertures.
Due to reflection issues with Sony cameras (please read my post to Official thread page 185 posts #17 and #19) this is not causes by adapter, but can be prevented with adapter. A7 & A7r are allergic to extra light coming to "mirror" chamber. This is why all Sony lenses have masks in the rear end, as well as their own adapters are masked. I have masked majority of my adapters (they way explained in post #19 I referred above).
When I'm shooting in field even sun would not shine I'm blocking the sky glare from entering the lens by holding something (usually flarebuster card but with hand) in top of the lens as well as using lens shade if possible. Usually I look from viewfinder and lower the flarebuster card until it becomes visible and then raise it a little bit and take photo. If I use reflector (I carry 120cm reflector in forest it fills in shadow side nicely when shooting towards light) then I need to support the flarebuster card with the flarebuster arm.
If I don't do this I have to adjust blacks darker on post processing and colors never look as pure. This is definitely is shooting technique, which wasn't never needed with 5DmkII, but a lot of effort is needed to mitigate Sony crappy design and material selections.
Also I would advice to make 100% sure there is no light leak in adapter. Before leaving home for a shoot I put lenses, which I'm going to shoot with, to adapters and use black tape to seal the seam between lens and adapter. And most adapters leak light from the lens release "knob", so that needs to be taped as well. Of my 20+ FE adapters over 50% have some sort of light leak, not clearly visible always but f/16 and f/22 when shooting sidelight = sun shining to lens side, but not front element it's usually very obvious. With larger apertures the light leaks are less obvious.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
As an aside, I'm not too crazy about the FE 55 egg shaped bokeh, at least as compared to the Sigma Art 50 (which shows round bokeh in the exact same situation). I have no idea if these Planars have nicer bokeh than the FE 55 though.
Tariq if with "eggshape" you refer to cat's eye effect (Toothwalker's optics pages boke page - chapter "Shape of the blur patch") then I would say that G45 has less of it. However G45 has very harsh boke wide open, and only in "flower boke"* scenarios it may look nice or with very simple background (e.g. most background in urban shooting). In my rather difficult forest backgrounds I rarely use f/2, except when shooting aperture series.
* nothing to do with flowers but flowers usually are photographed so that subject is close and background very far = quantity of blur is very high on boke
Personally I would stay away and very far away from G45 if lifeless boring blurry smooth background is your goal - also wouldn't use FE55 either. I use older Zeiss lenses because of their rendering style having lots of boke character. For those boring pictures with blurry smooth background you better use boring lenses like Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L or EF 85mm f/1.2 L. And in princible any lens build too small (=every lens except Otus 55, Sigma Art and Zeiss 1.4/50 ZA) will always produce cat's eye effect. People need to choose "large lens or cat's eye" (or use cropping e.g. fourthirds miniature sensor camera with fullframe lens).
Carl Zeiss Planar T* 2/45 @ f/2, 1/13s, Sony A7 @ ISO 100, B+W Kaesemann Circular Polarizer 46mm
(tree trunk was smoothed a little bit due to rough boke @ f/2, but blurry background is like it came out from RAW-converter)
I have managed to try some of my Hexanons on the A7 recently.They generally proof to be very good lenses.Sharp,with minimum CA,cooler colour rendition and more microcontrast than Rokkors.However wa Hexanons (24/2.8,35/2.8,28/3.5)need to be stopped down half to one f stop more to get good,even sharpness across the frame,compared to Rokkors.No colour adjustment done in the PP.Just cropping and sharpening.
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Personally I would stay away and very far away from G45 if lifeless boring blurry smooth background is your goal - also wouldn't use FE55 either. I use older Zeiss lenses because of their rendering style having lots of boke character. For those boring pictures with blurry smooth background you better use boring lenses like Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L or EF 85mm f/1.2 L. And in princible any lens build too small (=every lens except Otus 55, Sigma Art and Zeiss 1.4/50 ZA) will always produce cat's eye effect. People need to choose "large lens or cat's eye" (or use cropping e.g. fourthirds miniature sensor camera with fullframe lens).
Thanks. I have shot traditional Zeiss lenses for many decades - and do like the more lively bokeh from them in general. Most of that has been with Medium Format and I have not ran into this ugly (imo) cats eye/ egg shaped bokeh. I also don't really count extreme close shots (what you call "flower boke") since most lenses can do fine in that situation. I'm more interested in what happens with the oof areas at medium, portrait distances. In those situations, the cat's eye bokeh really bothers me as I find it extremely distracting. I suspected it likely was influenced by the size of the optics in general. Anyway, nice to know it's not as much an issue with the G 45. I will be testing/ shooting a number of 40-50mm lenses on the A7r in the coming weeks and this is something I will be looking at.
it fills in shadow side nicely when shooting towards light) then I need to support the flarebuster card with the flarebuster arm. 
