ljsegil
Well-known
I have an early, and presumably f/2.8 optimized Sonnar, and apparently my technique has not been precise enough to detect any problems from focus shift. Just focus on the eyes or perhaps ears if shift is on my mind, up close and wide open, and shoot, and if neither my subject nor I move I get a nice result with the Sonnar look (which can perhaps be characterized as a tad soft, though with its special glow, when wide open in any case). Stopped down the lens is as sharp as any 50mm I know save perhaps the CV Heliar 50/3.5 or the Leitz ASPH 50/1.4 (the latter sharp beyond sharp at any aperture, the Heliar nearly so though with a hint of the Heliar look when opened up).
The 50/1.5 Zeiss Sonnar has never disappointed me when I use it in a fashion appropriate for the task at hand and I believe can serve nicely as a photographer's only 50mm lens, giving the shooter options for varying the look of his pictures which few other lenses can provide.
Larry
The 50/1.5 Zeiss Sonnar has never disappointed me when I use it in a fashion appropriate for the task at hand and I believe can serve nicely as a photographer's only 50mm lens, giving the shooter options for varying the look of his pictures which few other lenses can provide.
Larry
cmogi10
Bodhisattva
Here's a real world shot with the sonnar.
MCTuomey
Veteran
carl, that one'll work, my gawd, and sell c-sonnars
but we all know it's your skills
but we all know it's your skills
Richard G
Veteran
You could manage fine with this as your only 50 (or only lens), especially considering its compact size for the aperture. At f2 the depth of field is a lot shallower than for a Summicron, and the out of focus at f2 and 1.5 is a complete blur, which is great but not always what you might want. I haven't used the Planar. For casual low light shooting then, at close range, the depth of field and adjustments for focus shift might lead to disappointments as some have recorded in other threads. If you work on it and test out your own copy of the lens, you can be well on top of the focus shift after 4 or 5 rolls. I am so glad to have got this lens and continue to explore what it can do. I almost got a good photograph of my wife. That is a magic lens. You can't get one from Popflash photo at the moment: out of stock. Here it is showing the sharp blur of my other recent acquisition.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Richard:
Just noticed the Chandler quote in your signature.
You might appreciate this one from Cath Milne:
Hmmm. Mutton dressed as slightly younger mutton.
Cheers,
R.
Just noticed the Chandler quote in your signature.
You might appreciate this one from Cath Milne:
Hmmm. Mutton dressed as slightly younger mutton.
Cheers,
R.
Richard G
Veteran
Thanks Roger, that is indeed very Chandleresque.
sper
Well-known
A lot of nice pictures guys and thanks for the advice! I'll have to do a lot of thinking before I make my final decision. Basically it looks like either lens would be a winner, hell they're both pretty damn fast by my standards.
Money might end up making that for me though, haha.
Money might end up making that for me though, haha.
Well, I'll probably be getting a ZM Sonnar soon, and will go for one optimized at F1.5.
I want to compare it with my original 5cm f1.5 Sonnars, converted to LTM.
1935 Sonnar in LTM, wide-open at F1.5:
Stopped down a bit.
A good J-3 provides the Sonnar look, but typically requires some work to optimize for close-in work. Something to think about if you pick the Planar. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
56KMZ J-3 at F1.5
56 KMZ J-3, at F2.
Not bad for a $50 lens off of Ebay.
If you can swing the Sonnar, do it.
I want to compare it with my original 5cm f1.5 Sonnars, converted to LTM.
1935 Sonnar in LTM, wide-open at F1.5:
Stopped down a bit.
A good J-3 provides the Sonnar look, but typically requires some work to optimize for close-in work. Something to think about if you pick the Planar. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
56KMZ J-3 at F1.5
56 KMZ J-3, at F2.
Not bad for a $50 lens off of Ebay.
If you can swing the Sonnar, do it.
Last edited:
kram
Well-known
Just discovered the thread. I have both planar and Sonnar (had the planar first, but was tempted by the sonnar for faster speed). I still have both because of there different characteristics. I think I have a latter version Sonnar, no noticeable problems with focus shift. However, one thing no one has mentioned but it came as a bit of a surprise to me.
Depth of field at the same aperature. The Planar seems to have alot more tahn the Sonnar. That is to say if I photograph a subject 10ft away at f4 on the Planar, if something was 10ft away behind the main subject, I would have to stop the Sonnar down 2 more stops or so! However, this is an appeal of the lens. If used at f1.5, f2, maybe f2.8- a short distances, say 3ft- 6ft, the background is really 'fuzzed out' (I'm sure thats not the correct technical term
), which gives the Sonnar look
Depth of field at the same aperature. The Planar seems to have alot more tahn the Sonnar. That is to say if I photograph a subject 10ft away at f4 on the Planar, if something was 10ft away behind the main subject, I would have to stop the Sonnar down 2 more stops or so! However, this is an appeal of the lens. If used at f1.5, f2, maybe f2.8- a short distances, say 3ft- 6ft, the background is really 'fuzzed out' (I'm sure thats not the correct technical term
), which gives the Sonnar look
MCTuomey
Veteran
kram, i was surprised myself when i realized that my sonnar shot at f2.8-3.2 still produces very pleasing blur and subject separation. This seems good for at least two reasons. Given enough light, shooting at f2.8, I have a bit more cushion for focus error (always a good thing imho, shift or no). Also, I can manage outdoor/daylight, narrow dof shots without resorting to ND filters to get the shutter speed down.