View Full Version : Mike Johnston on the 50 Planar
Mike Johnston has selected the Zeiss Planar 2.0 ZM as his new favorite 50: http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/
Mike has written more interesting reviews of more 50's then anyone I can think of. So I take this as high praise for the Planar ZM. Anyone care to post some shots? What's the bokeh like on this lens. Johnston goes for the old school glow so I'm curious.
Nachkebia
02-19-2007, 06:26
I have seen his writings and I read his blog but not pictures, he is a great photographer? where can I see his photos? pardon me for asking though :D
His talent as a photographer has very little to do with his talent as a writer. They are 2 very different activities. You can look through his blog where you will find examples of his work and form your own opinion about his photographic skills. He did not refer to the lens as the best or a winner in some contest just his personal favorite.
I might love or hate his photographs but I like very much his writings on the subject of lenses. On the subject of writing about lenses I'll quote Johnston "Lens connoisseurship has been a significant hobby of mine for more than ten years now. I call it a "hobby" because it really doesn't have very much to do with photography; what careful testing of lenses mainly shows is that the performance differences between good modern lenses are (for practical purposes) small, sometimes vanishingly small—in fact often requiring that selfsame careful testing even to distinguish!".
I value his opinion on lenses. I know some photographers who are very talented, more talented then Johnston or myself but they just aren't that obssesive about equipment (they are however obssesive about their images) or knowledgeable about the diferences between different M mount 50's for instance. So if I wanted to ask someone about the characteristics of the Zeiss versus the Leica I'd ask someone like Johnston.
I'm sure Tiger Woods discusses with the guys at Callaway (or whatever brand he is paid to use) about various driver technologies and the fine points of handling. I am sure the Callaway guys play golf but whether they are great golfers is immaterial.
He wrote an article last year in B+W Photography magazine which was on the subject of being a sole parent bringing up his little boy, accompanied by photographs of his life with his son over some years. I have to say I found the combination of photographs and text very compelling. Perhaps he is more writer than photographer, but I at least will hold my hand up and say I enjoyed those photographs.
I have seen is writings but not pictures, he is a great photographer?I also saw that article & the pictures and I was not particularly impressed with the pics. Is he a great photographer? No, but he's quite a good writer.
I agree, his comments were all about his personal liking for the balance of characteristics offered by the planar and not an attempt to declare it the best 50 if all time for all men. His view is subjective and he makes it very clear that this is so, along with the list of attributes he likes in a lens.
He is a good writer, but I found of his articles a touch less than compelling, when he once suggested staying away from Nikon lenses if you want to produce images with 'glow'. I dont own nikon lenses but would venture that this is a somewhat narrow interpretation of the capabilities of that brand. It was stated in that UK Black and white photography article as fact not a subjective opninion which I found a bit odd. Still, I do often like reading his articles. I own a 50 planar and it is a great lens...I have the gear, no excuses, no BS, so have to get on with it now....!
Benjamin Marks
02-19-2007, 09:33
Mike is a good writer, but his link to the piece (not by him) about the Chudnovsky brothers, the Unicorn Tapestry archiving/restoration and digital photography is really something. Quite a treat. It is a reminder that the world out there is really interesting.
You know the reaction to my original comment is typical of internet forums.
First the snide remark: Is he a great photographer? Well, I can count the greats on one hand and the last time I checked, none of them are contributers here. That doesn't stop anyone from offering his opinion.
Then "he has a lot of ads on his blog" Wow, the guy is trying to generate income from his writing and photography. Must be a shmuck, (either that or he doesn't have a fat bank account to support his hobby).
Don't like his writing? No, problem. His views are very subjective and are slanted to his personal prejudices about what makes a lens attractive. Don't agree that the 50 Planar is a stellar lens, no problem there either. But spare me the attitude - It's no wonder every thread turns into a pissing contest.
Tom, it's got nothing to do with disagreeing with me. Read my post.
LazyHammock
02-19-2007, 11:24
Hank,
I think this has got a little out of hand. Having seen many of Nachkebia's posts I'm sure his original post was an innocent question - English is not his first language and he is a very curious and passionate student of photography (Nach, I'm sorry if I am out of line speaking for you here).
I think most people like to see images to back up claims, most reviews do not include great images though.
As for finding more Planar images, I only have a couple in my gallery but one shows the nice out of focus areas the lens is capable of wide open.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=47013&ppuser=1572
Cheers,
Nick
back alley
02-19-2007, 11:27
might be time for a deep breath for all parties involved here.
back alley
02-19-2007, 11:32
breath in
breath out
breathe deep the gathering gloom
;)
Dan States
02-19-2007, 17:59
If only to bring this baby back out of the ditch I'll say that I've had all the Summicrons from LTM to modern and I like my Planar better than any of them. It never flares, is sharp as hell and prints well at multiple contrast grades depending on how I'm feeling that day...typical of lenses with really great stray light control.
The Summicron is certainly outstanding, but has more flare and veiling glare overall and vignetting at F2 is a lot stronger (though not ugly at all). That and the fact that it's about 2.5 times the prices pushed me into the Zeiss camp on this one.
Best wishes
Dan
Very interesting article. Mike is a very good writer - I enjoy his blog, but somehow, I liked the SMP columns more.
About lens reviews (in general) - I wonder how extensively a reviewer gets to use the equipment before formulating an "extensive" review? How many rolls do you think he shot before commenting on the lens' handling. In Mike's old reviews (on The 37th Frame), he generally reviewed lenses (his articles on "The Best" 35mm and "The Best" 50mm lens) that he had owned and used extensively over the years. Same with his article on 50mm Lenses and the Metaphysical Doubt.
This new review just does not strike me as being that "reliable" for lack of a better word - being temporarily loaned these lenses (Stephen?), admittedly shooting the least with the planar, and the fact that he shoots mostly with a DSLR nowadays. Still, entertaining reading.
By the way, Hank, congratulations (http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2007/02/random-excellence_16.html).
Simon Larbalestier
02-19-2007, 21:56
I enjoy reading Mike's reviews and articles and i do not see the need to always have to have a correlation between being able to write well and taking good photographs.
I have seen is writings but not pictures, he is a great photographer?
For me the above comment comes across as sarcastic.
I too am considering a 50/2 planar at some point so Mike's personal observations have been bookmarked and filed away.
FWIW I admire Mike greatly for bringing up his son single-handed and be a photographer - i wish i had had that chance but that's getting way off topic.
Nachkebia
02-19-2007, 22:12
50/2 planar is as great as it get`s actually but point is in something else, when someone get`s excited about a blogger`s (I read his blog) comments that it is top notch lens without seeing any photo it is bit disappointing....
50/2 planar is as great as it get`s actually but point is in something else, when someone get`s excited about a blogger`s (I read his blog) comments that it is top notch lens without seeing any photo it is bit disappointing....
When someone who's opinion I respect -because I have used many of the lens he has written about over the years and his opinions matched my experience and he has been able to articulate just what makes those lenses attractive to me -all of which gives him a certain amount of credibility with me - says lens X is his new favorite. That's enough to make me take a second look without the benefit of an in depth review accompanied by images.
If being a great photographer was a pre-requisite for having a credible opinion on a lens, well then no one here myself included could measure up to that standard.
If only to bring this baby back out of the ditch I'll say that I've had all the Summicrons from LTM to modern and I like my Planar better than any of them. It never flares, is sharp as hell and prints well at multiple contrast grades depending on how I'm feeling that day...typical of lenses with really great stray light control.
Thanks for a straightforward answer to what I thought was a pretty straightforward question. Now I guess we will have to check whether or not you are a great photographer and ask you to illustrate everything you just said with photos before we decide whether your opinion is worth anything or not :)
A couple of the photo's here illustrate the Planar's fingerprint nicely:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/zeissikon50mm/
Sorry, I couldn't have a look Nachkebia's site it seems to be down right now.
bunkawen14
02-20-2007, 00:16
A few comments on Mike Johnston's work.
I don't know him personally, but would like to say that as someone who divides his energies between writing and photography, I respect his work highly in both areas.
It is easy to understand the sentiment expressed here that one would like to see some images to go along with the praise of the Zeiss lens.
It also must be said that you get what you pay for. Johnston's most natural counterpart is Sean Reid, who tests equipment rigorously and publishes the results on a subscription based site.
They're friends, by the way, and Sean is an admirer of Mike's work in print and with camera.
One must read Johnston's three blog items to fully appreciate the spirit of his comments about the Zeiss. He makes clear that this is a matter of personal taste. And he also makes clear his lack of patience with humorless web chat mavens and gear snobs of various descriptions, and he is not interested in debating anything with anyone, or indeed providing proof for what is simply the personal preference of a guy with, for what it's worth, a great deal more experience than most of us will ever log.
Johnston has also invited readers who use the Zeiss lens to post their images on his site, so it is not as if we've been left completely in the lurch.
Without intending this as an insult to anyone, I find it ironic that people question Johnston's photographic skills on this forum, which after all is a place where all of us emit opinions about things all the time, and where great photographic skills are not necessarily in great abundance.
The point is that you take this stuff for what it's worth, and in every instance what it's worth is every member's decision to make.
Finally, here is Johnston's latest post. In my opinion it makes perfect and perfectly delightful advice:
...Or, How to Be Cool in Nine Easy Lessons:
1. The fewer lenses you use, the cooler you are.**
2. Committing to one camera is very cool, even if you own two or three of them.
3. The longer you've been using the same film, the cooler you are.
4. The closer your camera is to "mint," the less cool you are.***
5. Using a camera that's as old or older than you are is very cool.
6. The shorter your longest lens is, the cooler you are.
7. The more often you carry your camera with you, or keep it within easy reach, the cooler.
8. Cool people do not use zooms. Really cool people use cameras that can't be fitted with zooms.
9. The more you will shoot for every frame you'll show, the cooler you are.
*Satire Alert.****
** Four is fairly cool. Three is definitely cool. Two is very, very cool. One, and you are a God, and I kowtow to you.
*** And a corollary: the more you care what brand of camera you shoot, and especially the more you let other people know what brand you shoot, the less you even have a clue what cool is.
**** I think. On the other hand, I think I kinda believe all these things, deep down.
i think mr. johnston's pretty cool as a photographer. he's a straight-shooter, no pun intended, and a great antidote to all the overbearing hacks out there.
bunkawen14
02-20-2007, 02:16
There was quite a lot to chew on in Mike Johnston's latest lens reporting, all of which is more interesting and more fruitful for discussion than his ability as a photographer.
How about this assertion, for example:
"Another aspect of all this is that digital de-emphasizes some of the importance of the optical characteristics of the camera lens. Bayer array sensors just don't resolve microdetail very well, and they don't seem to "interact" with the lens image like film does to create a unique "fingerprint." Of course, images are more malleable in digital—you can correct even compound distortion with DxO, for instance, and of course there is a huge range of corrections for "grain" and "sharpness" and so forth. And yet, digital just doesn't render highlights as well as film does, and the subtle and distinct ways lenses render highlights is one good reason to care about optics."
For those who have missed the writing that sparked this thread, it's worth a look:
http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/
Simon Larbalestier
02-20-2007, 02:50
Tom thanks for the inclusion in your post - actually i've had a big change around in lenses in the last few weeks due to hard look at things.
I understand your point about Mike's review - i think Nachkebai's comment felt like one had to write as well as one takes photographs for others to take value in a review which i think is just not true.
Nachkebia
02-20-2007, 02:55
I just asked if anyone has seen his photos, if that is wrong pardon me :D
"I have to admit, I still would pay more attention to a 'favorite' lens declaration from Erwitt, Salgado, or Pellogrin ... or our own Beniliam, Nachkebia, Hanz, Tuna, X-ray, Larby etc ... (I am no doubt leaving many talented photogs out, but the list is actually quite full on RFF) ... simply because these photogs are shooters."
Flyfisher Tom,
I spent six years in the Washington press corps and another seven making my living doing portraits, editorial, and advertising, and I have 60,000 Tri-X negatives in my closet. I'm no Erwitt, but it's not exactly like I haven't taken a picture in my life.
...And, personally, I'd like to see some of the fish you've caught before you call yourself that. (s)
--Mike J.
bunkawen14
02-20-2007, 03:36
The effort at credentialling here, most of it seemingly completely uninformed by any sense of Mike Johnston's background, or even the details of the post that started this thread, is patently absurd.
What is there to object to exactly, that someone posted something online saying that his personal favorite among 50mm lenses at the moment is a Zeiss Planar?
Dan States
02-20-2007, 04:23
Back in "the day" when Mike was on the LUG we often saw his photos on line. I believe he was even on the Leica MSN Group Hans Phalen started that may still be out there somewhere. He's a great shooter who couldn't stand some of the puffed up blow-hards on the LUG.
He rightly rejected the pseudo scientific commentary of guys like Puts who suck folks into their orbit with just enough science to keep them confused, but not enought to be right.
Best wishes.
Dan
PS...I'll say it again, the Planar IS awesome...
bunkawen14
02-20-2007, 04:50
The M-Hexanon, which Mike praises in the same piece, is awesome, too, and since I already own it, there is no cause for envy or lust.
Benjamin Marks
02-20-2007, 05:10
What I find interesting about Mike's work is that he does not have to share his insights at all. I find an incredible generosity of spirit in those like Mike and Sean who have experience both photographically and in life and choose to make that available to the broader photographic community. No one has to read anyone's blog or review; just as no one has to spend time exchanging views here. BUT life is richer and more interesting for me when I participate in these activities. And, without casting too many aspersions ;-) there are plenty of people who participate here and in other on-line photography forums, because in these "places" we find people as passionate about making photographs and about photography's tools and processes as we are. I mean, honestly, the notion of getting into an an actual argument with another person over a piece of photographic equipment . . . it's pathetic, but I think it's fair to say that anyone reading this implicitly understands the passions involved.
Ben Marks
Nachkebia
02-20-2007, 06:07
He has posted new topic "Great 50mm lenses" if anyone understands relation between this and planar 50/2 topic please explain (he posted very nice photos) :D
This is utterly ridiculous.
Yes, if he was talking about the 'decobobulation of the microcontrast' being essential in infusing his images with a soul not found in Leica images I would expetc the cry, "show us amazing pics to back up the gushing". He did not. He said it has little distortion, even resolution across frame etc. These are simple qualities which every test of the blinking things have shown to be the case. He is not telling you you have to like these qualities either, but simply that he, personally and subjectively, does!
Nach, I understand your interest in seeing his pics was to se his pics, nothing more....
...but there are some posts here that are ridiculous in suggesting that his opinions are of little value when his comments were a very basic, personal appraisal of very basic qualities (supported elsewhere in every lab type test I have seen) the balance of which he subjectively 'liked'. Its a blog guys, not a review you had to pay for for Pete's sake.
Do any of you listen to sport commentary? I suggest you tune out those commentators who were not top pros because they are obviously incapable of worthwhile insight. MJ makes it clear that he rates himself as a photog of only 'average skill' but 'v good in the darkroom'. He is honest and does not claim to be a great!
I am going to burry myself in some mud at the bottom of the pond.
Nachkebia
02-20-2007, 06:26
I personally can not listen to American sport commentators, they are so cheesy! and overly friendly! (don`t take this serious) :D
Sports Commentators???????
Have you ever watched a Liverpool Match? Now those announcers are a little..... I mean a lot over the top.
Nachkebia
02-20-2007, 06:44
at least they are naturally cool and over the top :D :D :D
I'm trying to resist a Planar, since I recently cleared out most of my 50mm lenses. I decided to keep a collapsible Summicron and a CV Nokton (to which I remember Mike is "allergic", though I don't know if it was a distaste for the handling or the imagery).
I'v enjoyed reading Mike's helpful commentary for a few years, now, but I've learned to be more careful since his column talked me into an RF645.....
bunkawen14
02-20-2007, 08:30
This is only very slightly off-topic, and since I've never figured out how to start a new thread (instructions, please), I thought I'd share it here. It's from The New York Times:
Essay
Flame First, Think Later: New Clues to E-Mail Misbehavior
function getSharePasskey() { return 'ex=1329714000&en=27234df5c6a72130&ei=5124';} function getShareURL() { return encodeURIComponent('http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/20/health/psychology/20essa.html'); } function getShareHeadline() { return encodeURIComponent('Flame First, Think Later: New Clues to E-Mail Misbehavior'); } function getShareDescription() { return encodeURIComponent('Social neuroscience offers clues into the neural mechanics behind sending messages that are taken as offensive, embarrassing or downright rude.'); } function getShareKeywords() { return encodeURIComponent('Computers and the Internet,Psychology and Psychologists,Electronic Mail'); } function getShareSection() { return encodeURIComponent('health'); } function getShareSectionDisplay() { return encodeURIComponent('Essay'); } function getShareSubSection() { return encodeURIComponent('psychology'); } function getShareByline() { return encodeURIComponent('By DANIEL GOLEMAN'); } function getSharePubdate() { return encodeURIComponent('February 20, 2007'); } By DANIEL GOLEMAN
Published: February 20, 2007
Jett Lucas, a 14-year-old friend, tells me the kids in his middle school send one other a steady stream of instant messages through the day. But there’s a problem.
Skip to next paragraph (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/20/health/psychology/20essa.html?em&ex=1172120400&en=182ac666f9cfd573&ei=5070#secondParagraph) http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/02/19/health/20essay190.jpg Christian Northeast
“Kids will say things to each other in their messages that are too embarrassing to say in person,” Jett tells me. “Then when they actually meet up, they are too shy to bring up what they said in the message. It makes things tense.”
Jett’s complaint seems to be part of a larger pattern plaguing the world of virtual communications, a problem recognized since the earliest days of the Internet: flaming, or sending a message that is taken as offensive, embarrassing or downright rude.
The hallmark of the flame is precisely what Jett lamented: thoughts expressed while sitting alone at the keyboard would be put more diplomatically — or go unmentioned — face to face.
Flaming has a technical name, the “online disinhibition effect,” which psychologists apply to the many ways people behave with less restraint in cyberspace.
In a 2004 article in the journal CyberPsychology & Behavior, John Suler, a psychologist at Rider University in Lawrenceville, N.J., suggested that several psychological factors lead to online disinhibition: the anonymity of a Web pseudonym; invisibility to others; the time lag between sending an e-mail message and getting feedback; the exaggerated sense of self from being alone; and the lack of any online authority figure. Dr. Suler notes that disinhibition can be either benign — when a shy person feels free to open up online — or toxic, as in flaming.
The emerging field of social neuroscience, the study of what goes on in the brains and bodies of two interacting people, offers clues into the neural mechanics behind flaming.
This work points to a design flaw inherent in the interface between the brain’s social circuitry and the online world. In face-to-face interaction, the brain reads a continual cascade of emotional signs and social cues, instantaneously using them to guide our next move so that the encounter goes well. Much of this social guidance occurs in circuitry centered on the orbitofrontal cortex, a center for empathy. This cortex uses that social scan to help make sure that what we do next will keep the interaction on track.
I'v enjoyed reading Mike's helpful commentary for a few years, now, but I've learned to be more careful since his column talked me into an RF645.....
But do you regret is, I don't! MJ's evaluation was not clinical and certainly not typical, but I could relate to the camera as a photographer before I bought it compared to the Mamiya 7 for the sam reasons. I dont regret it, all factors considered. He did not need to be Cartier Bresson to do this. I am not CB either, neither are most of us...see the parallel?
at least they are naturally cool and over the top :D :D :D
No, we must be talking about different people. The announcers I have heard behaive like the they are sitting in a pub infront of a TV shouting out at the players, refs, coaches, fans, mascots....... They let everyone have it, and occationally make a comment about the match too.
(truth be told I catch a lot of UK soccer matches late in sleepless nights, So I am pretty sure they are Liverpool announcers, or I may just be confused)
No, we must be talking about different people. The announcers I have heard behaive like the they are sitting in a pub infront of a TV shouting out at the players, refs, coaches, fans, mascots....... They let everyone have it, and occationally make a comment about the match too.
(truth be told I catch a lot of UK soccer matches late in sleepless nights, So I am pretty sure they are Liverpool announcers, or I may just be confused)If you are watching on the Fox Soccer Channel it sounds like you are watching (or hearing) supporters commentate on the matches, not sports journalists who are the usual commentators. Since we all know that Liverpool are a rubbish team it is hardly surprising that their supporters talk rubbish as well. :) ;) :D
But do you regret [it?]
Nope. It's a great camera, and I probably enjoy it more than I would have liked a Mamiya 7. It's certainly more affordable. My only regret is that I don't use it enough.
But can I live without another 50mm M-mount lens?
Back in "the day" when Mike was on the LUG we often saw his photos on line. I believe he was even on the Leica MSN Group Hans Phalen started that may still be out there somewhere. He's a great shooter who couldn't stand some of the puffed up blow-hards on the LUG.
He rightly rejected the pseudo scientific commentary of guys like Puts who suck folks into their orbit with just enough science to keep them confused, but not enought to be right.
Best wishes.
Dan
PS...I'll say it again, the Planar IS awesome...
I do have the Planar 50/2 - as a matter of fact I just loaded a R3A with some APX 400 for some shooting tomorrow. I like the lens, but that is my opinion. We should not forget that the Summicron is an old design that has been massaged and improved upon for 50 years. It is the result of 'evolution" rather than "revolution. The Planar is a brand new design and that the glass and coatings are the results of modern technology applied to the original Planar formula.
Unless you are very fond of shooting lens targets with ultra slow document film and using very heavy tripods, there is very little difference between a Summicron, a Planar, a Heliar (the 50f2) and others. There are differences in how the lenses renders out of focus areas, there are variations on edge fall-off and there are simple ergonomics. A so called "lesser" lens that fits your hand better is most likely going to give you better pictures than the most 'superlatived" of the latest compilations of glass!
As to Erwin Puts; he is a good friend of ours and I respect his knowledge and dedication. Our shooting style is different though. I shoot Tri-X handheld and Erwin uses slow films and tripods. There are few instances when I can shoot in such a manner that iIoutperform either the lens and/or the film.
I have the 50/2,5 VC lens and it is more than adequate as a lens in the way i use it! Nice and compact and as it is designed to look and feel like a 35/2 Summicron - it fits my egonomics theory too!
Please go to
http://flickr.com/photos/rapidwinder/sets/ (http://flickr.com/photos/rapidwinder/sets/)
I have just finished scanning about 150 shots there under Film/Developer and there are a multitude of shots done with a variety of 50's among them.
I have seen his writings and I read his blog but not pictures, he is a great photographer? where can I see his photos? pardon me for asking though :D
I know this is an 1 week old thread, but I just noticed it.
Like many others here, I love Mike Johnston's writings. I thing the Sunday Morning Photographer (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sunday1.shtml) he was writing on Michael Reichmann's Luminous Landscape was great reading and I was very sorry when he stopped. Mike's column is the first thing I read in every issue of B+W Photography, just like Herbert Keppler's column is the first page I jump to in Pop Photo (when I read it...).
Vlademir, if you are interested in Mike's photographs, you can buy some there:
http://topprints.blogspot.com/
Cheers,
Abbazz
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/168/411024655_4c97e8d663.jpg?v=0http://farm1.static.flickr.com/182/411024623_6f0c74fca2.jpg?v=0
Hi!
Just a quick test of Bokeh from the 50/f2 Planar and from the Nokton 40/f1,4 SC as comparison.
Shot with Agfa 400S Surveillance film. Silver Image in UK sold this film cheap and a friend gave me 2 cans of it (320 feet).
"I have to admit, I still would pay more attention to a 'favorite' lens declaration from Erwitt, Salgado, or Pellogrin ... or our own Beniliam, Nachkebia, Hanz, Tuna, X-ray, Larby etc ... (I am no doubt leaving many talented photogs out, but the list is actually quite full on RFF) ... simply because these photogs are shooters."
--Mike J.
Miek:
Great to see another shooter here. Please post some of your images and favorite stories behind them. I would love to know more about your work.
Best regards,
x-ray
Don
The designers all use the same auto design PC based software, which you can 'nudge' if you are clever, the design is optimised for production cost.
The last cron uses a similar grouping to the new planar, differences are not going to be big unless you believe the ad hype.
We believe everything our politicos say dont we?
Noel
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.