1,5/50 Sonnar review

[charjohncarter]

Thanks for the post. Your concept of 'quailty threshold' is interesting. I've thought about this many times, but never put words to it, when using my Petri 7s, Konica C35, and Olympus 35RC.

 

[mr_phillip]

Bugger. I'd more or less decided that the ZM 1,5/50 would be my next lens, but I've spent way too much money recently on other stuff to be able to justify it, and I'd used the few doubts I had about the focus-shift issue as justification for putting it off.

Well damn it, the way you describe focusing on the closest point of interest and letting the DoF fall behind it is exactly what I've always done. It was what I was taught to do many years ago by a film camerawoman (who routinely used Zeiss movie lenses BTW) and it's always served me well. Looks like it's going straight back to the top of the wishlist.

 

[mfogiel]

Assaf,
Yes, the Planar is simply darn sharp from wide open, and more contrasty, so you have to be careful when you use sharp film, because when you shoot people, you can see what they had for breakfast... It is more acceptable with chromogenics, here's a shot at f2.0:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1096255141&size=l
or with a high speed low resolution film - here's a shot with Neopan 1600 at f2.8:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1951130777&size=l

If you use a sharp film and come too close, you'll get something like this - this is shot with the Makro Planar 100 and Delta 400, but it's just to give you the idea:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1794817250&size=l

BTW I am really curious about Roger's impressions of the Sonnar 85/2. it should be the only lens on the market which outperforms the just mentioned MP 100 !!!

 

[Assaf]

mfogiel, amazing...
Is the Neopan 1600 pulled? It looks just too good
Any wide open example on Neopan 1600?

 

[Roger Hicks]

BTW I am really curious about Roger's impressions of the Sonnar 85/2. it should be the only lens on the market which outperforms the just mentioned MP 100 !!!

Well, I'm still waiting for it. Zeiss has been promising it for months...

Sorry about the skimpy coverage of portraits but (a) I don't shoot many and (b) I prefer longer lenses. When my chum asks for his Thambar back I'll be in trouble...

Cheers,

R.

 

[gertf]

Thanks for the review Roger!

Great to see the focus shift test, no real issue visible to me!

 

[horosu]

Well, Roger's Sonnar is calibrated to show no focus shift at f 1.5, if I remember correctly

 

[sevres_babylone]

Thanks for the detailed first look, Roger, and for posting the link here.
But, oh, with the concurrent thread about the Ricoh GRD II, this is all too much for me. Wasn't it Dylan who sang: Your debutante knows what you need, but RFF knows what you want.
Now back to work, so maybe I can afford one or the other...

 

[Hacker]

Anyone contemplating a 1,5/50 Sonnar may find this new 'First Look' interesting. It's not a full review -- I normally do those only for money -- but there are a lot of pics (around 2 dozen) and a fair amount of information, plus a focus shift test.

http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photoschool/ps%20firstlook%20sonnar%2050.html

Cheers,

Roger

From the link above:

"Later lenses -- all after early 2007 -- were therefore calibrated for sharp focus at f/1.5, at which point the above rule of thumb can be applied to get over the focus shift problem."


I thought the lens comes calibrated at f2.8, and only upon request will Zeiss calibrate it at f1.5. This is the single deterrent factor for me. Otherwise, I would love to own one.

 

[thomasw_]

I would like to get Don aka x-ray's impressions of this test. I wonder whether he will sell his problematic summilux 50 asph and go with one of these zm 50/1,5s?

 

[Roger Hicks]

From the link above:

"Later lenses -- all after early 2007 -- were therefore calibrated for sharp focus at f/1.5, at which point the above rule of thumb can be applied to get over the focus shift problem."


I thought the lens comes calibrated at f2.8, and only upon request will Zeiss calibrate it at f1.5. This is the single deterrent factor for me. Otherwise, I would love to own one.

I have a HEAVY request in with Zeiss to clarify this. Both Frances and I thought we understood that all later lenses are calibrated to f/1,5 -- this from conversation with senior people at Zeiss. As soon as I get a reply I will post here and (if needed) modify the site.

Of course we are dealing with internet chatter versus what we thought we both heard at Oberkochen, but I have been wrong too often to say 'I AM RIGHT!'

Cheers,

R.

 

[Hacker]

I have a HEAVY request in with Zeiss to clarify this. Both Frances and I thought we understood that all later lenses are calibrated to f/1,5 -- this from conversation with senior people at Zeiss. As soon as I get a reply I will post here and (if needed) modify the site.

Of course we are dealing with internet chatter versus what we thought we both heard at Oberkochen, but I have been wrong too often to say 'I AM RIGHT!'

Cheers,

R.

Thanks. I have seen many threads--late 2007--on the Sonnar and even recent tests indicate that focus is on f2.8, not f1.5.

Believe me, I would get this in an instant. The thought of sending to Germany and getting the flange milled scares me .

 

[kshapero]

A couple of C Sonnar pics

A couple of C Sonnar pics

Wide open

Shot f11

 

[gertf]

Well, mine is now on its way

 

[jbf]

mfogiel... I understand you recently purchased a Sonnar calibrated for f/1.5. Have you noticed any back focusing, etc on the lens?

(At least I think it was you who purchased a recalibrated/optimized f/1.5 zm sonnar off of an rffer)

 

[gertf]

I talked to Alex at Popflash yesterday and he said that all their Sonnars was calibrated for 1.5.

Thanks, Tony rang me today (He's a real gentleman if there ever was one) to let me know that my lens will be sent tomorrow. I forgot to ask, but now there's no need

 

[mfogiel]

jbf
Tests will follow, I need a few days more.

 

[jbf]

Sweet. I'm interested in seeing how it turns out. Good luck.

 

[firebird]

I bought one straight from the Zeiss website just a month ago and this one is clearly calibrated for 2.8
It would be appreciated if Zeiss could be more clear in their communication on this subject.
I'm thrilled by what I've seen from this lens so far but I have yet not learned how to control the focusplane shooting at 1.5.
Does anyone with experience with both 2.8 and 1.5 calibrated lenses see any major disadvantage with having it tuned for 1.5
Based on Rogers review it seems like a good idea to have it recalibrated

 

[nzeeman]

why dont someone do the test with 2.8 calibrated lens and someone else do test with 1.5 calibrated lens and we could see whats happening. my opinion is that focus shift is not a real problem - more of the internet forums problem. stuff like this always happen on forums.
as i saw from photos - it is soft on 1.5 but it is old design - you cant expect high sharpness like on modern lens. and also i dont think softness is problem because when you shoot low light you usualy shoot on low speeds - that makes image soft anyway - so sharpness is not important in those situations.