I recently added the Zeiss Planar 50mm F2 M-mount to my lens stable. The marginal value it adds to my collection is debatable, so I took some test shots to see if I could prove to myself that it was worth the $600 for the "Zeiss magic" (microcontrast, colors, 3D pop, whatever).
First off, hats off to Fred and others who make detailed comparison reviews. My simple comparison took a surprising amount of effort. It's not easy controlling every factor to make it a fair comparison.
Cast of Characters
From left to right:
- Voigtlander 50/3.5 Heliar (VM)
- Zeiss Planar 50/2 (ZM)
- Voigtlander 55/1.4 SLII-S (VF)
- Sigma Art 50/1.4 DG HSM F-mount (SF)
[List UBBcode formatting didn't work?]
Something I'm interested in understanding is the tradeoffs in image quality as lens complexity rises. Note the rising complexity and size in this lineup (# elements / # groups).
- VM (5/3)
- ZM (6/4)
- VF (7/6)
- SF (13/8)
How much color and contrast ("microcontrast") is lost as the number of elements and optical groups rises? Can the color and contrast be recovered in post-processing? Is there some magic "dimensionality" that is absorbed by lens complexity?
I'll structure my comparison like Fred's reviews with links to sections as the analysis expands.
I recently added the Zeiss Planar 50mm F2 M-mount to my lens stable. The marginal value it adds to my collection is debatable, so I took some test shots to see if I could prove to myself that it was worth the $600 for the "Zeiss magic" (microcontrast, colors, 3D pop, whatever).
First off, hats off to Fred and others who make detailed comparison reviews. My simple comparison took a surprising amount of effort. It's not easy controlling every factor to make it a fair comparison.
Cast of Characters
From left to right:
- Voigtlander 50/3.5 Heliar (VM)
- Zeiss Planar 50/2 (ZM)
- Voigtlander 55/1.4 SLII-S (VF)
- Sigma Art 50/1.4 DG HSM F-mount (SF)
[List UBBcode formatting didn't work?]
Something I'm interested in understanding is the tradeoffs in image quality as lens complexity rises. Note the rising complexity and size in this lineup (# elements / # groups).
- VM (5/3)
- ZM (6/4)
- VF (7/6)
- SF (13/8)
How much color and contrast ("microcontrast") is lost as the number of elements and optical groups rises? Can the color and contrast be recovered in post-processing? Is there some magic "dimensionality" that is absorbed by lens complexity?
I'll structure my comparison like Fred's reviews with links to sections as the analysis expands.
I recently added the Zeiss Planar 50mm F2 M-mount to my lens stable. The marginal value it adds to my collection is debatable, so I took some test shots to see if I could prove to myself that it was worth the $600 for the "Zeiss magic" (microcontrast, colors, 3D pop, whatever).
First off, hats off to Fred and others who make detailed comparison reviews. My simple comparison took a surprising amount of effort. It's not easy controlling every factor to make it a fair comparison.
Cast of Characters
From left to right:
Voigtlander 50/3.5 Heliar (VM)
Zeiss Planar 50/2 (ZM)
Voigtlander 55/1.4 SLII-S (VF)
Sigma Art 50/1.4 DG HSM F-mount (SF)
Something I'm interested in understanding is the tradeoffs in image quality as lens complexity rises. Note the rising complexity and size in this lineup (# elements / # groups).
VM (5/3)
ZM (6/4)
VF (7/6)
SF (13/8)
How much color and contrast ("microcontrast") is lost as the number of elements and optical groups rises? Can the color and contrast be recovered in post-processing? Is there some magic "dimensionality" that is absorbed by lens complexity?
I'll structure my comparison like Fred's reviews with links to sections as the analysis expands.
Landscape comparison - Zeiss Planar 50/2 vs. Voigtlander 55/1.4 SLII-S vs. Voigtlander 50/3.5 Heliar
