Hacker
黑客
Roger Hicks said:
Roger, this is an interesting list. For the CV 12, I can understand that there is no other alternative. I'm curious as to your reasons for the others, e.g. Thambar f2.2.
larmarv916
Well-known
Well, I keep a Sonnar 50 F1.5 on my M5 and it has been a wonderful performer. I have a 35mm ZM and just recently a 25mm ZM also. I really enjoy the way the put a "shine" so to speak on the subject.
I really enjoy the 50mm perspective and would like to play with a Zeiss F2 50mm just for comparison between it and the F1.5 images at identical F stops. The 35mm is Better in may ways...I think than my Summicron ASPH F2. Which I sold. I also have Nikon RF and of course Leica M and lenses.
Iam having trouble loading photos into these "replys"...thanks to my daughter for loading these.
This is shot with the 50mm 1.5 at F2 at 1/125 sec with Delta 400
Anyway, the 50 Zeiss f1.5 out performs several of my Lecia normal lenses, regardless of age. Although in all fairness I have not shot anything with the new Leica 50mm ASPH Summilux. The 35mm is really great in the "air" or space that it gives subjects. I like the spacing or depth between objects more so than my Summicron 35 ASPH. That seems to be a quality that the 50 also has...better feeling or fullness of space and solidity capltured. Maybe that's just me. The Zeiss lenses seem to have a flater field than the Leica lenses, inparticluarly the wide the F stop. The focal plan is like a sheet of clearlity.
This is shot on NPZ 800 rated at 640ASA and wide open at 1/60sec again with the Zeiss 50mm
I do agreee with several other of you that the color reproduction and contrast is much closer to what is expected or desired. So many lenses tend to give to much contrast on color chrome films. If I can get my hands on a F2 zeiss and do a direct test between these 2 lense that would be fun.
I really enjoy the 50mm perspective and would like to play with a Zeiss F2 50mm just for comparison between it and the F1.5 images at identical F stops. The 35mm is Better in may ways...I think than my Summicron ASPH F2. Which I sold. I also have Nikon RF and of course Leica M and lenses.
Iam having trouble loading photos into these "replys"...thanks to my daughter for loading these.
This is shot with the 50mm 1.5 at F2 at 1/125 sec with Delta 400
Anyway, the 50 Zeiss f1.5 out performs several of my Lecia normal lenses, regardless of age. Although in all fairness I have not shot anything with the new Leica 50mm ASPH Summilux. The 35mm is really great in the "air" or space that it gives subjects. I like the spacing or depth between objects more so than my Summicron 35 ASPH. That seems to be a quality that the 50 also has...better feeling or fullness of space and solidity capltured. Maybe that's just me. The Zeiss lenses seem to have a flater field than the Leica lenses, inparticluarly the wide the F stop. The focal plan is like a sheet of clearlity.
This is shot on NPZ 800 rated at 640ASA and wide open at 1/60sec again with the Zeiss 50mm
I do agreee with several other of you that the color reproduction and contrast is much closer to what is expected or desired. So many lenses tend to give to much contrast on color chrome films. If I can get my hands on a F2 zeiss and do a direct test between these 2 lense that would be fun.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Hacker,
15/2.8 -- extra speed
Tri-Elmar: same f.l. on M8 (16) and MP (21)
24/2.8 -- Closest equivalent to 35mm on M8
Noctilux: sheer speed
Thambar: I'd always wanted to try this lens but was expecting to be disappointed. I wasn't. It's stunning -- the lone purpose-made soft-focus lens for Leica RF.
Cheers,
R.
15/2.8 -- extra speed
Tri-Elmar: same f.l. on M8 (16) and MP (21)
24/2.8 -- Closest equivalent to 35mm on M8
Noctilux: sheer speed
Thambar: I'd always wanted to try this lens but was expecting to be disappointed. I wasn't. It's stunning -- the lone purpose-made soft-focus lens for Leica RF.
Cheers,
R.
Prosaic
Well-known
larmarv916, excellent images
larmarv916
Well-known
Thanks for the complement...."Prosaic" you might apperciate the bottom image more than most...in that it was taken at the Roman Musuem in Koln. Next to the Great Domo of Koln. The lighting was so low.....that I spent almost the whole time shooting wide open. I derated the ZPN as it seems to make a dramatic difference in final contrast curve and also less visible grain. Which I do not understand. I had one day open before havin to return to California after attending the 2007 Frankfurt Book Fair.
In case anyone is interested..the two figures are both of the same famous Roman historical personality...who spent time in germany. Most recently this roman general was made famous in a recent movie.
The other thing I think the series of shot taken inside the Koln Musuem show is that the Zeiss Sonnar f 1.5.....does in my view perform better than my Noctilux on a F-stop to F-stop direct basis. Also the contrast is also very gracious when dealing with those very high zone values between 7 to 9 I did hand meter the statutes to get a really accurate exposure.
The other thing I find with the Zeiss Sonnar is that it really does better in the middle distances...but that may be due to most of my work keeps me within no more than 35 to 50 feet distance of my subject.
I wish I could have postsed the roman figures larger on the page, as the transition from sharp to unsharp is almost like a misting or ground glass that starts at the edge of the shoulders. But such is life. But seeing all the excellent results posted on the Rangfinder Forum for the Zeiss F2 lens...now I need to sample that as well.
I do think a thread for the Zeiss 35 and 25 lenses would yeild some exciting results.
In case anyone is interested..the two figures are both of the same famous Roman historical personality...who spent time in germany. Most recently this roman general was made famous in a recent movie.
The other thing I think the series of shot taken inside the Koln Musuem show is that the Zeiss Sonnar f 1.5.....does in my view perform better than my Noctilux on a F-stop to F-stop direct basis. Also the contrast is also very gracious when dealing with those very high zone values between 7 to 9 I did hand meter the statutes to get a really accurate exposure.
The other thing I find with the Zeiss Sonnar is that it really does better in the middle distances...but that may be due to most of my work keeps me within no more than 35 to 50 feet distance of my subject.
I wish I could have postsed the roman figures larger on the page, as the transition from sharp to unsharp is almost like a misting or ground glass that starts at the edge of the shoulders. But such is life. But seeing all the excellent results posted on the Rangfinder Forum for the Zeiss F2 lens...now I need to sample that as well.
I do think a thread for the Zeiss 35 and 25 lenses would yeild some exciting results.
back alley
IMAGES
there is/was a thread for zm 25 images...once upon a time.
FPjohn
Well-known
Matchless
Matchless
The image of the Koi is matchless.
Matchless
The image of the Koi is matchless.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Thanks, Roger, but I really wish you would have made a bit more effort to put into words what it is about the images from this lens that you like so much.
I used to have a 50/1.5 Opton Sonnar that I used on a Contax IIa, and I felt that sometimes, under the right conditions, it gave pictures with an interesting "look." After thinking about it for a while, I decided to quantify it this way: The lens seemed to flare enough stray light to knock down the contrast of highlights and shadows, but without impairing detail sharpness. The result was a bit like taking pictures on a very slightly foggy day when the sun has just come out -- it's as if the atmosphere has become tangible, but not enough to obscure vision.
I can't tell from your writeup whether the quality you like about the Sonnar-C is something like this, or something else entirely. Looking at the example photos doesn't help because, viewing them online at low resolution, I don't really see anything special about them (other than that they're nice photos, of course.)
Any thoughts?
I used to have a 50/1.5 Opton Sonnar that I used on a Contax IIa, and I felt that sometimes, under the right conditions, it gave pictures with an interesting "look." After thinking about it for a while, I decided to quantify it this way: The lens seemed to flare enough stray light to knock down the contrast of highlights and shadows, but without impairing detail sharpness. The result was a bit like taking pictures on a very slightly foggy day when the sun has just come out -- it's as if the atmosphere has become tangible, but not enough to obscure vision.
I can't tell from your writeup whether the quality you like about the Sonnar-C is something like this, or something else entirely. Looking at the example photos doesn't help because, viewing them online at low resolution, I don't really see anything special about them (other than that they're nice photos, of course.)
Any thoughts?
larmarv916
Well-known
The Koi and I thankyou
The Koi and I thankyou
Thanks for the showing your apperication...FPJohn
The Koi are for me an interesting subjct as they will be very intereactive and they vanish into the darkness of the pond. They also have as any community very different personalities.
Going back to the aspects of the modern Zeiss Ikon 50 / Sonnar.....I think the Koi show off the what the sonnar does well. It gives a very clear tangile reproduction of the phyiscal mass of each member and also the space between each is accurate. Also the slight ripple on top of the water is also tangable and not lost in its phyiscal mass.
Thanks again.
The Koi and I thankyou
FPjohn said:
Thanks for the showing your apperication...FPJohn
The Koi are for me an interesting subjct as they will be very intereactive and they vanish into the darkness of the pond. They also have as any community very different personalities.
Going back to the aspects of the modern Zeiss Ikon 50 / Sonnar.....I think the Koi show off the what the sonnar does well. It gives a very clear tangile reproduction of the phyiscal mass of each member and also the space between each is accurate. Also the slight ripple on top of the water is also tangable and not lost in its phyiscal mass.
Thanks again.
Tuolumne
Veteran
larmarv916 said:
So, are you saying this photo of the koi would look significantly different if shot with another 50mm lens, say the f1.4 Summilux? I am ahving a hard time believeing that. It would be interesting to see as close to a direct comparison as possible, although I understand thta is strictly impossible. (It would have to be with a still life subject or model.) I think people read alot of what they want to see into such a subtle analysis when a direct comparison is impossible.
/T
fuwen
Well-known
Tuolumne said:
Well, sometimes it is difficult to judge on the net, but lenses of different brands do have different character, and I am speaking based on personal experience and looking at friends' photos myself.
larmarv916
Well-known
Tuolumne said:
I try and respond and thank people who find any image we happen to produce that they enjoy. As to your observation about would the same subject look different if shot by a summilux at the same F-stop. I would have to say yes.
And here is why, I have shot this same pool of Koi with my Summilix and Noctilux, the Zeiss Sonnar ZM as well as a Nikn RF and found each has distinct thumbprints of recreation. My late version "Non ASPH" Summilux did not come close to giving the same level of performance. Neither did the Noctilux, not as clear or sharp and the spacial volume was much different. In fact after comparison between my Summilux and the Noctilux I saw no reason to keep my Summilux. The Nikon 50 F1.4 could not give the sharpness, and the spacial reproduction was much rounder?
So go figure...That is also why I inculded the Roman figures from Koln to try an show the Sonnar's personality at a different distance and of a people size model. As the statues are lifesize. I find that in many cases just the different distance to the subject between lenses delivers real visual creative differences. Take a lookt at the technical reviews of Erwin Puts on dicussions of Leica lenses of the same focal length and you find over and over these types of differences of image creation from even the same company. Every optical computation delivers a different result.
I like to use the Koi Pond as a good testing ground of helping me settle techincal issues between lenses, films, developers. So Iam very sure I could shoot the same subject at the same F-stop and distance and shutter speeds and produce very different images. All on the same roll film. Remeber my orignal comments are that I like the benefits I see from the Sonnar more. also I noted that I have not had a chance to test the new ASPH Summilux as well.
Best Regards
peterleyenaar
Member
larmarv916, Is your C-Sonnar calibrated at f1.5 or f2.8 ?
Thanks
Peter
Thanks
Peter
Tuolumne
Veteran
larmarv916, it would be very interesting to see example of the Koi pond shot with your other leses. Certainly better than another MTF chart!
/T
/T
larmarv916
Well-known
Comparison Thread on Sonnar C's.....excellent reading.
Comparison Thread on Sonnar C's.....excellent reading.
Well if it matters...the serial number for my lens is...15600338 Now that we know that earth shaking factoid. Iam at a loss as to how that will effect my creative efforts.
I would like to direct attention to the "current thread" at Rangfinder Forum on compartive differences between the two Sonnar C versions. There is an excellent private test listed by a member "Mfogiel" from Milano, Italy. Where he shows compartive focus scales of depth, as well as a very nice shot of two girls ( in his later 4th posting ) The girl on the lefts eyes are the targeted focusing point.
But when you look at the shape of both girsl heads and features. I leaves you with very real sensation of being in the frame with the girls in the first person, Very "3D". Also the depth of field scales used Again we see that the two versions of the same lens are affected by skewing of the calabration of either the F2.8 or F1.5 This informal test demonstration by "Mfogiel" is a really effective and excellent illustration.
When I purchased my Sonnar C....I did not care or let that affect my efforts. I do find again that the behavior benefits give me results I perfer over similar other 50mm F1.4 or F1 lenses in the fastest aperature zones. I shot some test shots in Stuttgart's train station...splitting aperature of F2.8 - F4 super sharp and again the transition from sharp to out of focus was consistantly as impressive. Which I have not found in the Lecia and Nikon lense of similar concept.
Comparison Thread on Sonnar C's.....excellent reading.
peterleyenaar said:
Well if it matters...the serial number for my lens is...15600338 Now that we know that earth shaking factoid. Iam at a loss as to how that will effect my creative efforts.
I would like to direct attention to the "current thread" at Rangfinder Forum on compartive differences between the two Sonnar C versions. There is an excellent private test listed by a member "Mfogiel" from Milano, Italy. Where he shows compartive focus scales of depth, as well as a very nice shot of two girls ( in his later 4th posting ) The girl on the lefts eyes are the targeted focusing point.
But when you look at the shape of both girsl heads and features. I leaves you with very real sensation of being in the frame with the girls in the first person, Very "3D". Also the depth of field scales used Again we see that the two versions of the same lens are affected by skewing of the calabration of either the F2.8 or F1.5 This informal test demonstration by "Mfogiel" is a really effective and excellent illustration.
When I purchased my Sonnar C....I did not care or let that affect my efforts. I do find again that the behavior benefits give me results I perfer over similar other 50mm F1.4 or F1 lenses in the fastest aperature zones. I shot some test shots in Stuttgart's train station...splitting aperature of F2.8 - F4 super sharp and again the transition from sharp to out of focus was consistantly as impressive. Which I have not found in the Lecia and Nikon lense of similar concept.
gertf
Established
Thanks for the photos lamarv916! I just received mine from Tony Rose and looking forward to developing the films I've exposed so far. I'll try and have some scanned by next week. I also do not know whether I have the 1.5 or 2.8 calibrated version, but I don't see how it matters as long as you know whether it front focuses or back focuses on a specific aperture. I'll do some tests just to find out how mine focuses and let you know.
The handling and build quality of the lens is excellent. Appears to be just as good as the 50 Summicron and 50 pre-asph summilux I used to own. In fact, the focus is nicer than the pre-asph lux. And the hood is bayonet mount! Hurrah for Zeiss, it can't fall off if you don't want it off
The handling and build quality of the lens is excellent. Appears to be just as good as the 50 Summicron and 50 pre-asph summilux I used to own. In fact, the focus is nicer than the pre-asph lux. And the hood is bayonet mount! Hurrah for Zeiss, it can't fall off if you don't want it off
Hacker
黑客
Roger Hicks said:
I noticed the Zeiss Sonnar as the odd one out of the sea of Leicas.
You have convinced me about the Sonnar f1.5.
peterleyenaar
Member
larmarv916 said:
larmarv916
I did not ask for the serial number of your lens, I simply wanted to know if you lens
was calibrated at f1.5 or f2.8 as per my first post from which you quoted me,
Mea Culpa , Mea Maxima Culpa for having the audacity of asking such an incredibly stupid question and not taking in account the effect this may have on you creative efforts.
You are probably not interested in why I would ask such an impertinent question,
I recently received a Zeiss f1.5 50mm C Sonnar that has sharp focus open at f2.8 and front focus at f1.5
This in my opinion is not a f1.5 lens, a f1.5 lens should focus properly at f1.5
Perhaps you could lower yourself the answer my humble and insignificant question
so that also I may learn something
Best Regards
Peter
