Zeiss ZM Sonnar 1.5/50 vs Pre-ASPH Summilux 1.4/50

Zeiss ZM Sonnar 1.5/50 vs Pre-ASPH Summilux 1.4/50

  • ZM Sonnar-C 1.5/50

    Votes: 80 53.0%

  • Pre-ASPH Summilux-M 1.4/50

    Votes: 72 47.7%
  • Total voters
    151
dof

dof

Fiat Lux
Local time
11:23 AM
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Messages
774
The varied responses to the poll, "CV Nokton 1.5/50 vs Zeiss ZM Sonnar 1.5/50" got me thinking about another showdown: How do the Zeiss Sonnar and the venerable pre-ASPH Summilux compare? What are their relative merits and weaknesses, if any? Please discuss!
 
Both have a wonderful character. I went with the Sonnar first, but I was quite bothered by the front focusing. It could be more psychological than anything, and indeed, some live with it just fine, but I plunged for the Summilux III.

With that said, I still can't get myself to part with the Sonnar just yet... If you can live with the front focusing, it's much cheaper than a third version of the Summilux and is just as, if not more, characterful.
 
I like the look wide-open of the Sonnar but not particularly when it's stopped-down. I don't go for lenses that draw differently depending on the aperture. That and the focusing makes for way too much thinking for me (so to speak). So I'm a Summilux guy. Love mine. :)
 
I like the pre-asph lux because wide open it's soft and not too contrasty, but by 4-5.6 it's nice and punchy. And it looks great at all apertures–it'll even give you swirly bokeh if you want it badly enough! Anyway it can be had for not too much more than the sonnar, which I haven't used so this is a completely one-sided analysis. :D
 
I had a 50mm Summilux pre-ASPH vs3 (E46) before the Noctilux and it was a great lens. If I would have to replace the Noctilux I would go for the Summilux again. Wide open the ZM Sonnar is interesting but I don't consider it as an allround lens.
 
Thanks everyone for your insights thus far!

kywong said:
Both have a wonderful character.

With that said, I still can't get myself to part with the Sonnar just yet... If you can live with the front focusing, it's much cheaper than a third version of the Summilux and is just as, if not more, characterful.
Click to expand...

I am a fan of "character" lenses and of 50s in particular. I've got a feeling that I'd be in the same predicament with having both, each for its unique charms.

Benjamin Marks said:
Different beasts. Do you like apples or oranges? Should you be forced to choose?
Click to expand...

I must admit my selfish motivation for starting this thread is that I own the pre-ASPH Summilux and am tempted by what I've seen/read about the Sonnar enough to consider owning both. I understand that the title of the thread is provactive of making an either/or choice, but the thrust of my question is more open-ended. Why do you like apples? Is it the crisp feeling of biting into one? Or oranges? Does the sweet and bitter scent that opens up when peeling them get you? The rush of heat to the head when you first bite into one?

peter_n said:
I like the look wide-open of the Sonnar but not particularly when it's stopped-down. I don't go for lenses that draw differently depending on the aperture. That and the focusing makes for way too much thinking for me (so to speak). So I'm a Summilux guy. Love mine. :)
Click to expand...

I'm curious Peter, what about the look of the Sonnar when stopped down? Does it get too sharp or is it just too different from its look when used wide-open? I often think that the 75mm Summilux has a kind of split personality, and one that I enjoy.

Double Negative said:
If you don't care for the "Sonnarisms" than go for the Planar. Zeiss provides us with two lovely options... :D

Of course, the Planar "only" goes to f/2. The Summilux opens up a stop wider - but at quite a considerable jump in price (err, 3x).
Click to expand...

This gets at some of my questions. I so often read about "Sonnarisms", only to find the most concrete example of what this means is that the design tends to be "flare-resistant". Visually, I like many examples of how others use this lens.

I've kind of ruled out the Planar because I fear it would behave much like the current 50mm Summicron in that it's just too well corrected for my taste. It's definitely a "personality" thing for me.
 
Last edited:
thomasw_ said:
I have owned the the 2nd/3rd version summilux 50s and do own the zm 50/1,5. Currently I own the summilux asph 50 as well and it is completely in another all-round class; the only 50 lens I like as much as the asph summilux for all-round usage is the elmar-m 50/2,8 -- but even with it, there are lowlight usage limitations. I love the zm 50/1,5 at f1,5 especially, even though all-round it is quite sweet; but at f5,6 and beyond it looks like a lot of other lenses. If you are looking for an all-round lens, I think the sonnar is just OK; as a specialty lens shooting between f1,5 to 4, the sonnar is so beautiful and unique. I wouldn't sell mine for double what I paid, as I can't find another lens on the market like it....in the sub-4000$ range. I think the focus problems with the sonnar are way over rated; in practice, I have had more focussing issues with my summilux 75. It is just a matter of getting acquainted with the lens. Trust me, it is no big deal ;)
Click to expand...

I love the Elmar. And, at first, kvetched about the f/2.8 maximum aperture. However, today I just walk around with Neopan 1600 loaded and a neutral density filter.

That said, If I were to buy another 50, it would be the pre-asph 'lux (III).
 
dof said:
I'm curious Peter, what about the look of the Sonnar when stopped down? Does it get too sharp or is it just too different from its look when used wide-open? I often think that the 75mm Summilux has a kind of split personality, and one that I enjoy.
Click to expand...
Both. It is different looking and apparently sharper. It may be contrast instead of sharpness, or perhaps the lens coating. Difficult to articulate but I like the look of the Summilux a lot better. I sold a v.2 a couple of weeks ago because I bought a v.3 as I wanted the 0.7M near focus. Lovely lens. :)
 
Well, I don't have the pre-ASPH Summilux 50 because I do have the Summilux 75 and that, I'm told, is "similar only more so" to the 50 (to the extent that makes any sense). The 75 is, perhaps, my favourite lens. But just today the C Sonnar 50/1.5 arrived. It is now attached to my M3, though I've yet to take a shot with it. I am hoping for good things.

...Mike
 
I wonder if Summilux 50 version E43 is different from E46 in it's signature. I know it only goes to 1m vs .7m, and newer one has a built-in hood. But is there any other difference? As far as Sonnar - I like Sonnars in general, and my Nikkor LTM 50/1.5 fills that gap nicely. I think (and I hope they will) if Zeiss makes a Planar 50/1.4 - that would be a really killer lens and will give SUmmilux run for the money. I used to have Planar 50/2 and it was a very good lens, so if they make 1.4 version I'll be very interested. Current Sonnar 50 - l like it too, but as others said - it's hardly a "all-around" lens. Plus there are several other older lenses that have that Sonnar look - from Canon, Nikon, etc.
 
I'm curious too

I'm curious too

But from what I've seen on flickr, etc., Can't see any significant signature difference of E46 pre asph versions to my '66 CLA'd v2. However, I still want an E46 version for the .7m close focus. I really like this pre-asph v2 lux, so I'd need to have the v3 at the same time to compare before selling the v2.

At first the 43mm filter size was difficult, but the hood parts from the CV Noktons, and Heavystar's 43 to 46 stepup/hood combo are readily available, as well as the original expensive hoods.

I end up using mine with the short stock CV 40/1.4 screw in hood and cap, keeping a Hakuba ND4 filter handy so I can shoot wide open and not max out the shutter.

Krosya said:
I wonder if Summilux 50 version E43 is different from E46 in it's signature. I know it only goes to 1m vs .7m, and newer one has a built-in hood. But is there any other difference? As far as Sonnar - I like Sonnars in general, and my Nikkor LTM 50/1.5 fills that gap nicely. I think (and I hope they will) if Zeiss makes a Planar 50/1.4 - that would be a really killer lens and will give SUmmilux run for the money. I used to have Planar 50/2 and it was a very good lens, so if they make 1.4 version I'll be very interested. Current Sonnar 50 - l like it too, but as others said - it's hardly a "all-around" lens. Plus there are several other older lenses that have that Sonnar look - from Canon, Nikon, etc.
Click to expand...
 
I had both summilux v2 and v3. I noticed no difference. The hood and close focus were the big differences. the v2 was more compact, though. Some have said the v3 coatings were more resistant to flare. I failed to notice.

I do notice a huge difference with the asph version. The zm 50/1,5 behaves similar to the v2/3 in its wider apertures. Not the same just similar.
 
Same here. I've only used B&W but there seems to be no difference. Maybe the coatings make a difference in color. I bought the v.3 for the 0.7M near focus too.
 
meven said:
Yes, but the OP is talking about the pre-ASPH.
Click to expand...

LOL. I love these kinds of corrections and I stand corrected. The competition between the sonnar vs pre- asph summilux is closer but the focus shift of the sonnar turns me off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom