1,5/50 Sonnar review

Curses! Blast you!! I've been afraid I might want one of these. After reading that, I'm sure.

One problem: no budget. I'll have to think 🙂eek: ), and maybe re-prioritise. Damned GAS!

...Mike
 
mfunnell said:
Curses! Blast you!! I've been afraid I might want one of these. After reading that, I'm sure.

One problem: no budget. I'll have to think 🙂eek: ), and maybe re-prioritise. Damned GAS!

...Mike
Click to expand...
Dear Mike,

Sorry!

I tried to emphasize the drawbacks as well as the advantages, but, um... er...

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger,

Thank you for posting this. I've known well enough that this lens is what will finally force me to get a M mount camera. I've been otherwise quite happy with my Bessa R and my Canon LTM lenses, but as you comment in your piece, I'm one of those who love the classic Sonnar (and Tessar and other asymetric designs) so I'll just keep an eye open for a R2 while saving my pennies.

Thanks again,

William
 
I have fabricated the excuse that it only focuses to .9 meters not .7 as my reason not to buy one and I am sticking with it.
 
Thankyou for the first-look type review.

What I wonder about on this lens is why they did not stick to the classic 7 elements in three group design of the 30s. Classic Sonnar's in LTM are hard to come by and sell for quite a bit when you can find them. A 7/3 Sonnar designed for the Leica standard in screw or M-Mount would have well received. Any idea if it was "just" manufacturing cost, or is the "air Element" an improvement in the design?
 
Brian,
The current design is a return to an earlier Ernostar design from the 1920's that led to the classic Sonnar design. See http://www.prairienet.org/b-wallen/BN_Photo/Ernostar.htm for some interesting information & diagrams from Kingslake.

My guess is that with modern multicoating, the air glass element is able to offer an advantage without needing to be concerned about transmission loss or flare as was the case when Zeiss came out with the first 1,5/50.

William
 
So... an Ernostar in M-Mount! Just when you least expect...
 
Brian,

one less glass element combined with modern coatings and glass gives
you the behavior of classic Sonnars with higher contrast wide open.
Which is exactly what I see when comparing the C-Sonnar to
Canon or Nikkor, in a way it makes the lens more usable wide open.
I think it's great.

Roland.
 
Roger,
I have enjoyed your review,and have learnt some new things from it. As a subscriber to your site, and without trying to wax lyrical about it, I can say it is the most useful site for learning how to enjoy high level amateur photography. I just wish there were a specific corner for the digital darkroom users, but this is my personal point of view.
However, as much as you have given your high preference for the C Sonnar, I believe you have failed to illustrate its main photographic strength and selling point: it is THE portrait lens par excellence.
The way it combines softness with high contrast ( at least above f2.0) and resolution with a buttery in and out of focus, which is also very ABRUPT, even at f2.8, makes it an ideal tool for a half body human subjects rendering. I like it most combined with a chromogenic film for female subjects, and with silver B&W film for male portraits. I enclose some shots (mostly taken at f2.8) to illustrate my point - unfortunately, my best portraits will not be included, because they are private.
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1019892254&size=l
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=2080930169&size=l
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=870520088&size=l
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1019894492&size=l
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=2081717026&size=l
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1019034753&size=l
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1434532050&size=l

I find, at f5.6 this lens becomes more of an all purpose tool, but with still its unique combination of resolution and softness which works well both with human subjects and not.
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1809723689&size=l
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=709096134&size=l
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=2073880501&size=l

Moreover, it has its niche application in the shots that draw heavily on the bokeh:

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=866800228&size=l
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1042614305&size=l
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1971721096&size=l
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1581934608&size=l

Personally, I think this lens is one of the most interesting photographic tools I own. I have actually bought a second copy of it, this one modified by Zeiss to focus correctly wide open, and I intend to do some tests as time permits, in order to make up my mind which version suits better my needs. I will share the results with you, obviously.
It also wouldn't be such a bad idea, to go back to dr Nasse, and give him some feedback, in order to contribute to a better fine tuning of this product, and above all, to convince him, their marketing has been quite negligent about it. I have read your comments about the degree of influence an "official tester" can have on Zeiss decisions, and it doesn't look like it is a lot...
However, I think even if Zeiss draws most of their income from other fields, the legend of the Zeiss lenses in photography, is certainly one of the cheapest forms of deserved publicity they can create ( while making great tools for demanding photographers).
Looking at the ZM line, I actually wonder, how it is possible that people continue buying Leica lenses at such inflated prices?
Outside of some specialist high speed lenses, which Zeiss has not produced in the ZM line (yet), there is no doubt for me that Zeiss delivers comparable optical and build quality+superior flare control, at 1/3rd of the price and with a drawing and 3d effect (yes, I insist on this) which is much more pleasing in final images.
I think this Leica preference is simply based on a tradition of a long line of first rate products, AND on a kind of mythical status, earned by clever marketing. Maybe Zeiss should have sold the C Sonnar at USD 4.000 price tag, showing us superb shots (by a noted photographer) of a George Clooney or Angelina Jolie ??? I am sure people would have been dumping their ASPH Summiluxes in favour of the C Sonnars, to be able to take shots like that... ;-).
 
Last edited:
A very convincing portfolio. They do a terrific job of selling me the lens, altho it's really your eye that's responsible.
 
Paul T. said:
A very convincing portfolio. They do a terrific job of selling me the lens, altho it's really your eye that's responsible.
Click to expand...

indeed. mfogiel, you mentioned using it at ~f2.8 for portraits. Have you ever tried it side by side with the Planar? Can you describe the differences between them in these apertures?
 
When, like me, you do not purchase lenses for more than US 1000 per
lens, there are three competitors for fast 50mm M mount, good bokeh,
high contrast portrait lenses:

the C-Sonnar, the pre-asph Summilux and the Nokton.

Much of the differences between the three boils down to usability and which body you use.

For instance, the C-Sonnar is more usable on an M2 or M3, due to DOF marks
in the finder. The Nokton (I've tried two) is simply too big for me.

The truth is in the pudding. The RFF gallery is full of excellent portraits
taken with all three lenses.

I wish Zeiss came out with an affordable M-mount 50/1.4 with .7m min. focus.

Or Nikon, of course.

Roland.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

nzeeman
C Sonnar T* 1,5/50 ZM and jupiter 17 similarities
Replies
0
Views
691
nzeeman
nzeeman
menos
Konica Hexanon Dual 21-35 f3.4-4 - collimation
Replies
12
Views
11K
menos
menos
A
My X100 Review - A few weeks in
2
Replies
22
Views
5K
cpharris
cpharris
bitoffun
Petri Super Color Corrected "Green-O-Matic"
2
Replies
20
Views
24K
KoNickon
K
L
I took the plunge[r]!!! [LONG]
Replies
14
Views
2K
gb hill
gb hill
Back
Top Bottom