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.
