How do you use your Sonnar's?

D

drjoke

Well-known
Local time
12:01 AM
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
217
I have two Sonnar's. I have ZM Sonnar 50mm and Rollei Sonnar 40mm. Both complements each other pretty well in focal length. Yet, I find that with the strong Sonnar signature, I tend to use both lenses the same way: when I need to highlight a single subject at the center of my frame with the pronounced bokeh effect. Now I find that I like to photographs a very busy scene, where detail is all over the place (a busy street scene, etc.) rather than having a single subject in the middle. This is especially true when I use 35mm rather than 50mm. In this case, the signature of Sonnar does not really help, and I feel that I am better served with a lens whose sharpness is more even.

That is just me ranting my idea. I was wondering whether you feel the same way about Sonnar. When I pull up Sonnar on flickr, I also find that most people tend to use Sonnar the same way.
 
I have a Canon 50/1.5 sonnar on my IIIa, I use it for everything. But I know what you mean - it's not good at everything like a Planar (or what have you) design is.
 
drjoke, Ive been using the new zm sonnar exclusively on a job since january, pushing a few hundred rolls at this point, probably shot six rolls a day last month at a minimum. Im slowly getting the hang of the zmsonnar (and I still cant shoot it wide open...) Have you shot much with this lens stopped down around f8? Im starting to feel its almost an entirely different lens at soon as you approach f8. The contrast seems to go way, way up and it certainly is tack sharp in its own way. It is still very unique at any stop, but make sure you spend some time with it down past 5.6 before you rule out what you are trying to use it for. Roll up some 400 speed film and go out on a bright sunny day and see what you can do. For what this does wide open, making subject pop out, it kinda does the opposite effect stopped down. Its a very odd little lens, but shooting street with it stopped down will provide you with nothing but detail...
 
This is how I use mine :)
L1060420.jpg
 
Well, the C Sonnar is prevalently a portrait lens as far as I am concerned, and not only because it cuts off your background in a wall of cream... it also has a gentler way of drawing the detail below f 5.6, here-s an example of a fairly conventional male portrait shot on Neopan 400 at f2.8:
2299101070_cf1ce63a17_b.jpg


Then, there's the capacity to act as a "reporter's" lens, as people at Zeiss say, which starts at around f 5.6 - you can see that in this shot made against some strong light at f11, always on Neopan 400:

2294811202_869e0ff5f1_b.jpg


Or in this one, shot at f5.6 on Acros:

2277471713_28a08023be_b.jpg


or finally here, shot at f8.0 on Agfa Scala:

2073880501_1e196fc048_b.jpg


I have even attempted to shoot textures with it, it gives a peculiar effect of sharpness without extreme harshness - this one at f8.0 on Neopan 400 again:

2296178531_8f2cd5ba9b_b.jpg


Finally, who said this lens is no good for architecture ! Here's one made at f8.0 on XP2:
753889835_9bc94be759_o.jpg


So, this is a many faced tool, however definitely difficult to replace as a means to get unique portrait photographs.
 
mfogiel said:
Well, the C Sonnar is prevalently a portrait lens as far as I am concerned, and not only because it cuts off your background in a wall of cream... it also has a gentler way of drawing the detail below f 5.6, here-s an example of a fairly conventional male portrait shot on Neopan 400 at f2.8.....
Click to expand...
Thanks for taking the time to put this post together. This is perhaps the most helpful overview illustrating the use of this intriguing lens.
 
WoolenMammoth,

What kind of a job that would require the use of Sonnar? Are you a portrait photographer, who just happens to snap non-portrait every once in a while? Why do you choose Sonnar as your exclusive lens of choice on your job. It's quite interesting.
 
dr joke-

Im shooting a book of portraits in a few different cities. The sonnar is one of many lenses involved in the project, but Ive been shooting with it since I got it in January. Its a really interesting lens with alot of unique properties.

Id suggest that labeling a lens as a "portrait" lens is somewhat pedestrian and pretty limiting- take the elmar-m for instance. I dont think anyone would call this a "portrait" lens, however for women under 25 or so and men in general, it offers a look that nothing out there can get near. Its pretty amazing and probably nobody's first choice as a "portrait" lens. Just about any f/2 lens wide open will work as a "portrait lens" if you have some skill and can anticipate the properties and quirks of whatever lens you have. The zm sonnar makes object pop from 1.5 to a 2.8split but after that it sorta submerges the foreground into the background, its a subtle, yet really odd thing I have yet to see in another lens. Once you get to 5.6 on this lens, Id rather be shooting people with something else, shooting people up at f11 is really not a look Ive gotten a handle on figuring out at all. Contrast goes *waaay* up but the lens kinda pushes the forground into the background, its *exactly* the opposite of what happens wide open, its really odd.

Its a super cool lens, I love it to death despite the learning curve it has. It makes everyone look like they have marble eyeballs which is a really interesting effect. Its much more than a portrait lens, its kind of a whole world into itself. I feel bad for all the people that read the internet and hang themselves with the talk about the (not imagined) focus shift the lens has and all that, they are missing out on the actual experience of using the lens as opposed to talking about all the things that are wrong with a tool they've never touched to formulate a first hand opinion on in the first place. Its a killer lens to take *pictures* with. People, brick walls, dogs, trees, focus charts, whatever you like to take pictures of, it'll take good ones.

I'll add, one of my favorite lenses of all times is the 40 sonnar that is on my rollei 35. For those that know that lens, they'll be delighted if they get a zm sonnar, its very very very similar. There are big differences in look between the zm sonnar and the old sonnar opton Ive been playing with for a bit, the old opton is much more predictable and much more "normal" (and not nearly as contrasty) in comparison.

I really like the lens alot. The other main lenses Ive used in this project are a 70's cron, a new elmar-m, 60's summilux, collapsible cron, old rigid cron, hexanon, summitar, summarit and a sonnar opton, all 50mm. There isnt *anything* that is close to or similar to the ZM sonnar (including the opton) it totally stands out as its own thing. The time you put into this lens absolutely is worth what you get out of it.

My main gripe with the lens is the diaphragm design. I dont know jack about the physics of lens design, but it would have been cool if they were able to put more blades in the diaphragm. Any street lights or bright background light sources show up in the exact shape of the diaphragm, which at 2.8 or so is unmistakably the clearly defined outline of your iris which is not particularly round... Maybe its that way for a reason, but it would be way cooler if the blades made more of a circle. This lens with a summitar iris would be pretty dreamy... Whatever, there are bigger things to complain about in life.

The short answer to your question is yes, I take pictures of people. however the pictures Ive taken of things with the zm sonnar have yet to inspire me to have wished I had used a different lens. Its just a great, super fantastic lens. I have some reservations about how useful its been to me at 1.5 which Ive posted about at length in the zm forum, but thats hardly a knock, its a rad lens which does something that really nothing else quite does, its a keeper.
 
Last edited:
Do you find that Sonnar tends to bring out more color? Or, is this just a characteristic of ZM lenses in general? Both of my Sonnar's (ZM 50mm and Rollei 40mm) produce more saturated pictures than my Hexanon's (50mm and UC 35mm). I just got my ZM Biogon 35mm, so I cannot make a fair judgement regarding ZM lenses. But, I am suspecting that the Biogon is not as saturated as my ZM Sonnar.
 
kully said:
I have a Canon 50/1.5 sonnar on my IIIa, I use it for everything. But I know what you mean - it's not good at everything like a Planar (or what have you) design is.
Click to expand...

I have the Canon 50/1.5 too, and find that it's like having two different lenses: sonnar signature wide open (and to about f2.8), but razor sharp stopped down (particularly from f5.6). I'm going to shoot some more landscapes w/ it to see how it performs in that context; as a "people" lens it's terrific. I have been v impressed w/ how it renders colors, too. (I know the OP was asking about the new zeiss sonnar, but just to expand the discussion to include sonnar design lenses more generally...)
 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom