In a recent post using the knock-off-ti-lux…
…I reminisced about how this lens has served me well ever since I first used it with the Voigtlander Bessa R2 years ago.
Has been used natively on film, manually adapted to other mounts, AF adapted to other mounts, and finally on native digital. It is a flawed lens wide open IQ wise but full of pleasant surprises… to me anyway. Here is a recent film sample.
Taken with a favorite film camera. The excellent Konica Hexar RF.
As mentioned in recent posts, as fun as this has been I have decided to pair the M240 with another more grownup 50mm. The ZEISS Planar T* 50mm f/2 ZM.
Why?
Well…
After the “Would you look at that crazy bokeh.” thing wears off even I must admit the lens has other shortcomings. <Gasp.> That was me gasping at my own heresy after singing this lens’ (Still valid to me.) praises for so long. And “At this price point.” is implied throughout. All of these are easily forgiven taking that into consideration, but still valid. Here are the 7Artisans forgivable issues including how the ZEISS addressed them.
- Loose clickless aperture.
- No copy I have owned likes to stay on f/1.1 since the slightest nudge will move it. And this thing pretty much would stay on f/1.1 99% of the time. A click aperture will solve that.
- How the ZEISS addresses this:
- High quality clicked aperture that easily holds the aperture set.
- Build.
- Not bad… but not great. Hefty, but not a hewn from a solid piece feeling thing.
- How the ZEISS addresses this:
- Top notch build one would expect from a ZEISS lens. Quite a looker also.
- Infinity.
- Close up and for middle distances these lenses are fine. But I cannot say that I have had a copy that consistently focuses at far distances wide open.
- Now if you stop down to about to f/4 or f/5.6 or more you are good to go. But blowing the foreground to smithereens with the far distance in focus is not on the table in my experience.
- How the ZEISS addresses this:
- Infinity is infinity. Simple.
- Sometimes you are not looking for character.
- A lens like the Contax G Zeiss 45mm f/2 comes to mind. While this f/1.1 7Artisans entertains by its sheer oddity the Zeiss entertains by its sheer perfection in nearly every aspect of image capturing. I do not even invoke an, “In my opinion.” This is a lens I would put up against all glass regardless of price or pedigree… And it hints at what is to come.
- How the ZEISS addresses this:
- No surprises here. Top notch IQ that I would put up against any lens at any price point.
- Landscape.
- While not awful I did not buy this lens for accurate focus across the frame and it would be nice to have a grownup lens also.
- How the ZEISS addresses this:
- Again, as above, across the frame IQ that I would put up against any lens at any price point.
What led me to this lens?
Personal experience. I have other ZEISS lenses and hold them all in very high regard.
Stellar reviews. Read and watched reviews that pretty much put the performance of this lens on the same level as Leica M glass.
Value. While performance is compared to Leica 50mm f/2 lenses the ZEISS costs a fraction of the Leica alternatives. Closer in price to the, I am sure is also excellent, Voigtlander alternative new. For an added bit of value, I purchased my copy used.
One question that I only imagine has been asked is this.
Why the ZEISS Planar 50mm f/2 and not the ZEISS Sonnar 50mm f/1.5?
Sensible aperture.
It forces me to grow up aperture wise. While I know perfectly well that it is possible to stop lenses down, I rarely do. F/2 is a perfectly reasonable lens aperture.
Not looking for character.
A fellow ZEISS adherent mentioned that they have both and use the f/1.5 because it has more character. Makes sense. I was looking for straightforward IQ excellence, and not the character of the f/1.5.
Additional thoughts after it arrived.
Tiny and relatively light. This is great. One advantage of a rangefinder system is that they are compact. As much as I rave about ridiculously fast glass they bring a size and weight penalty I must admit makes less sense to me when using this lens. You do not feel the weight of the lens at all and the small size does not block the viewfinder.
Excellent build and aesthetics. Mentioned above but once it arrived both were better than I expected. The front chrome ring is a nice touch. The aperture and focus rings have a quality damped feel to them.
On to the image quality and user experience. In this post specifically used with a native film rangefinder.
For this test, I brought the rig of the day along while galavanting about with my son. Good conversation. Laughs were had. And managed to dispose of a roll of film while we were at it. As efficient as its Contax G cousin the Hexar regularly squeezed 37 frames out of a 36 exposure roll of film. A great result. Here are all 36 frames minus one in focus but especially meh image that did not make the cut, even for this low stakes test run.
Thoughts about the lens after using it with native film rangefinder. <Largely a cut/paste/edit from the last post.>
As much as I already like the Konica Hexar RF this lens makes it even better. I did not expect that. How? I am glad I imagined that you asked.
Colors.
I had no frame of reference until now but when comparing 7Artisans 50mm f/1.1 photos taken with the same film and camera…
…are not quite as vibrant as photos taken using the ZEISS Planar 50mm f/2. What’s that? A ZEISS lens has better colors than a 7Artisans? Quelle surprise. I know. I know. Not surprising. But it is a thing.
Ease of focus.
While I had little trouble focusing the Hexar RF with the 7Artisans focusing I did lose some exposures on every roll and it is noticeably easier to focus with the ZEISS. Partly due to the f/2 aperture, I am sure, but in general this lens is very consistent and there are nearly no misses. Only one miss of 37 exposures and that was largely due to me running my mouth while taking the pic.
Looks and feels the part.
As fun as the 7Artisans lens is, I must admit that the ZEISS lens is a better fit character wise. A bit more grown up.
Haze.
Or more specifically a lack of haze. No hood was used with either and may have served the 7Artisans well, but pointing towards the sun without a hood haze that would rear up with the Artisans…
…was not apparent with the ZEISS.
Again, quelle surprise. A ZEISS lens combats haze without a hood better than a 7Artisans lens. But it is to be noted.
Plenty of bokeh and subject isolation.
Had thought that I would be trading peerless IQ performance for less “fun” attributes like bokeh and subject isolation. But not so. It is more than acceptable for my needs which means there is less of a reason to use the faster 7Artisans. Leaves only IQ wonkiness as the main use case for the f/1.1 lens. I did not expect that.
That is all for now. Two use cases down.
One more to go.
Happy capturing.
-ELW
Eric L. Woods 