sper
Well-known
I'm interested in a Zeiss 50mm and I know the Planar is going to be great. However the way the Sonnar is marketed I'm interested in it over the planar. The Zeiss website even markets it as a lens that 'draws' in an old fashioned way.
What worries me though are all the threads about dealing with this lens, optimized for different apertures and all that... I'm looking for a general purpose 50mm. I'll shoot wide open when the light calls for it, or when I'm shooting a portrait. I don't want to have to decide whether I'm going to shoot wide open or at 2.8. The only reason I'm considering it over the planar is because sometimes I feel like the planar design has an almost clinical perfection. I get that with my 80mm planar on my Hasselblad.
Can the Sonnar be used as a general purpose 50mm? How much do I need to worry about it's issues with focus shift? I'll be shooting only film (unless I magically am gifted an M9). My output will primarily be film to Nikon Coolscan V. When I have the time/money I'll be printing in the darkroom.
What worries me though are all the threads about dealing with this lens, optimized for different apertures and all that... I'm looking for a general purpose 50mm. I'll shoot wide open when the light calls for it, or when I'm shooting a portrait. I don't want to have to decide whether I'm going to shoot wide open or at 2.8. The only reason I'm considering it over the planar is because sometimes I feel like the planar design has an almost clinical perfection. I get that with my 80mm planar on my Hasselblad.
Can the Sonnar be used as a general purpose 50mm? How much do I need to worry about it's issues with focus shift? I'll be shooting only film (unless I magically am gifted an M9). My output will primarily be film to Nikon Coolscan V. When I have the time/money I'll be printing in the darkroom.
Avotius
Some guy
I am one of those that falls on the side of the Planar because its less to think about when out shooting. There is focus shift with the Sonnar that you have to know how to get around, if you do then fine its a good everyday lens, two of my friends have them and they enjoy them but it just wasn't my cup of tea.
But besides the focus shift and or classic rendering or whatever, what really sold me on the Planar was the .7 meter minimum focus apposed to .9, many will say it doesnt mater and its just a minor thing, but for me it was make it or break it because I have an old thread mount Leica Elmar and it also has around a 1 meter focus limit and I ran into it all the time.
But besides the focus shift and or classic rendering or whatever, what really sold me on the Planar was the .7 meter minimum focus apposed to .9, many will say it doesnt mater and its just a minor thing, but for me it was make it or break it because I have an old thread mount Leica Elmar and it also has around a 1 meter focus limit and I ran into it all the time.
kywong
Established
Some don't find the focus shift a problem, some do (I do). You can try to learn to work around it, I haven't after having it for three years, but I only use it sparingly, you MIGHT have a better shot at learning how to work around it if you use it regularly. If you are not a fan of the way the Planar draws but worried about the Sonnar's shift, why not an old(ish) Summicron 50?
mfogiel
Veteran
For a general purpose fast lens that draws less clinically than a Planar or Summicron, the best choice is the pre asph Summilux. The C Sonnar can be used as a universal lens, but in that case it is an f2.8 lens.
thomasw_
Well-known
What's your budget?
The finest all round M mount 50 is the current Summilux ASPH -- but she is very expensive!
Marek is right about the v3 summilux pre-asph that close focuses to ,7m --- the v2 is a more stable all rounder than the zm sonnar but it focuses to 1m...which, for avotius and others like me, is just soooo annoying and limiting if you like to shoot close. But the v2 compact-wise: it is the bees-knees.
Any pre-asph is sweet if you like to shoot people...the lens design is the same except for some coating differences. marek's right, too, about the sonnar f2,8 optimized as an all rounder; that's the thing about the zm sonnar whether optimized f1,5 or f2,8; either way you are compromising. I'd get it f1,5 optimized as I can't see using a fast lens wide open w/o focus accuracy.
Another fast 50 to consider is a nikkor 50/1,4.... For f2, have you considered the summicron 50/2 Dual range? I think you might like it...and it is less than the other lenses being discussed.
The finest all round M mount 50 is the current Summilux ASPH -- but she is very expensive!
Marek is right about the v3 summilux pre-asph that close focuses to ,7m --- the v2 is a more stable all rounder than the zm sonnar but it focuses to 1m...which, for avotius and others like me, is just soooo annoying and limiting if you like to shoot close. But the v2 compact-wise: it is the bees-knees.
Any pre-asph is sweet if you like to shoot people...the lens design is the same except for some coating differences. marek's right, too, about the sonnar f2,8 optimized as an all rounder; that's the thing about the zm sonnar whether optimized f1,5 or f2,8; either way you are compromising. I'd get it f1,5 optimized as I can't see using a fast lens wide open w/o focus accuracy.
Another fast 50 to consider is a nikkor 50/1,4.... For f2, have you considered the summicron 50/2 Dual range? I think you might like it...and it is less than the other lenses being discussed.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Zeiss have adjusted mine from 2.8 ti 1.5 and I find it fine. The focus shift is only really apprent at close focus and then you jst twist the ring a tad more. It draws beautifully and is my only 50 or the rf. However, I'd be lying if I didn't admit to thinking about a 50 Planar or summicron occasionally.
Mike
Mike
Roger Hicks
Veteran
It doesn't take long for people to stop trying to answer your question and suggest something different, does it?
The Sonnar is pretty much my universal 50mm lens, insofar as I use 50s (which is a lot more than I used to, thanks to the Sonnar). For a real-world illustration of how the focus shift works, go to http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps firstlook sonnar 50.html and scroll about a third of the way down.
In the unlikekly event that I want to shoot close up at f/2.8, I focus, then rock backwards two or three inches (50-75mm). Otherwise I just use the rangefinder. The lens is optimized for f/1.5 and at f/5.6 d-o-f covers everything -- and that's at one metre! At 2 metres or above, focus shift is substantially irrelevant anyway.
Like so many things on the internet, this is blown wildly out of proportion. Yes, I've had the Planar too, and yes it's a stunning lens -- review on http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/zeiss.html -- but actually I prefer the Summarit (which is Frances's standard 50mm -- the review can be found on http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps firstlook summarit.html -- but for me the Sonnar is easily my favourite. Most 50 Summicrons leave me cold, except perhaps for a DR I borrowed from a friend once, and (once again) I've used both pre-asheric and aspheric.
Cheers,
R.
The Sonnar is pretty much my universal 50mm lens, insofar as I use 50s (which is a lot more than I used to, thanks to the Sonnar). For a real-world illustration of how the focus shift works, go to http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps firstlook sonnar 50.html and scroll about a third of the way down.
In the unlikekly event that I want to shoot close up at f/2.8, I focus, then rock backwards two or three inches (50-75mm). Otherwise I just use the rangefinder. The lens is optimized for f/1.5 and at f/5.6 d-o-f covers everything -- and that's at one metre! At 2 metres or above, focus shift is substantially irrelevant anyway.
Like so many things on the internet, this is blown wildly out of proportion. Yes, I've had the Planar too, and yes it's a stunning lens -- review on http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/zeiss.html -- but actually I prefer the Summarit (which is Frances's standard 50mm -- the review can be found on http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps firstlook summarit.html -- but for me the Sonnar is easily my favourite. Most 50 Summicrons leave me cold, except perhaps for a DR I borrowed from a friend once, and (once again) I've used both pre-asheric and aspheric.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
noimmunity
scratch my niche
I had the planar and still have the sonnar.
The planar is without a doubt the preferred choice for an all around lens. It has a consistent look that is the same at any aperture, and the focus is always spot on. The focus and more importantly perhaps the look of the sonnar, on the other hand, change depending on the aperture. (My condition for getting a 75/2 was to part, albeit reluctantly, with the planar).
The planar is without a doubt the preferred choice for an all around lens. It has a consistent look that is the same at any aperture, and the focus is always spot on. The focus and more importantly perhaps the look of the sonnar, on the other hand, change depending on the aperture. (My condition for getting a 75/2 was to part, albeit reluctantly, with the planar).
I completely agree that from f2.8 onward this is quite suitable, indeed excellent, as a general purpose lens. For me this is fine, as f2 and f1.5 are special events where it's acceptable to take a bit of extra time and effort to compensate.
I would not have mine optimized for f1.5 unless I used it wide open frequently, and considered back-focus in the mid apertures less important. As it happens, I sent it to DAG for coding and he found another compromise adjustment in which there's less front-focus at f1.5, it's ON at f2 and 2.8, and still not noticeably back-focusing beyond that.
Austerby
Well-known
I've used the Sonnar as a general 50mm lens ever since I bought it. I do have others but they're all for novelty value (mostly old lenses with interesting characteristics). I have owned the asph-Summilux and modern Summicron but have stayed with the Sonnar. It's eminently suitable as a general purpose 50mm lens and is my "best" lens - ie the one I use if it's an important occasion, such as attending a wedding or for taking on holiday.
Incidentally it's a lovely fit with my M3 - the look of the chrome Sonnar and the old camera works beautifully.
Incidentally it's a lovely fit with my M3 - the look of the chrome Sonnar and the old camera works beautifully.
monochromejrnl
Well-known
the Canon 50/1.5 LTM and Nikkor 50/1.4 LTM (focus shift has not been a known issue for either of these lenses) are sonnar designs and produce the classic sonnar look but cost less than half of a ZM 50 sonnar new. Leaves plenty of room in a budget to get a used ZM 50 planar as well.
Last edited:
MCTuomey
Veteran
OP question whether the ZM 50 Sonnar is multipurpose:
imho, it can be used at any aperture very successfully, but you must learn to accommodate its qualities when you are shooting f1.5 - f2.8 at or near minimum focus distance. the type of accommodation depends on the lens' optimization. if optimized for f2.8, you can learn the "nod forward" technique, or other simple methods, at f1.5-f2. if optimized for f1.5, you can learn the "focus near" method on roger's site at f2-f2.8. all at or near MFD.
is it worth the trouble of accommodation (which i believe is modest but you may think otherwise)? i think so. much more importantly, fine photogs like marek, roger, dante stella, and others think so too. i think it's at least a lens worth trying, given your interest in its drawing style.
if all this is just too complicated, then pick up a pre-asph 50 lux (if you have the funds) or a canon 50/1.5 (if you have less funds). you'll get that interesting drawing style from either one without as noticeable a focus shift problem.
imho, it can be used at any aperture very successfully, but you must learn to accommodate its qualities when you are shooting f1.5 - f2.8 at or near minimum focus distance. the type of accommodation depends on the lens' optimization. if optimized for f2.8, you can learn the "nod forward" technique, or other simple methods, at f1.5-f2. if optimized for f1.5, you can learn the "focus near" method on roger's site at f2-f2.8. all at or near MFD.
is it worth the trouble of accommodation (which i believe is modest but you may think otherwise)? i think so. much more importantly, fine photogs like marek, roger, dante stella, and others think so too. i think it's at least a lens worth trying, given your interest in its drawing style.
if all this is just too complicated, then pick up a pre-asph 50 lux (if you have the funds) or a canon 50/1.5 (if you have less funds). you'll get that interesting drawing style from either one without as noticeable a focus shift problem.
morback
Martin N. Hinze
The Sonnar is my only lens and I lust for no other. I have the original 2.8 version and use at such. I have never felt limited in my photography. I just love it. Should I happen to be shooting below 2.8 (quite rare), then I bracket my focusing.
It is truly an excellent lens and in no way clinical.
It is truly an excellent lens and in no way clinical.
ferider
Veteran
Let's forget about the focus shift for a moment.
As any Sonnar, the 50/1.5 has noticeably less resolution in the corners at f2 when compared to Planar, any Summicron, M-Hexanon 50/2 (an outstanding lens) or 50/1.4 Summilux (v2 and up).
For portraits that can be a desired effect. On the M8, due to crop factor, it doesn't matter that much. For film "street", landscapes, etc., this can be a draw-back when printing 8x10 and up. Only you can decide what you want to do with the lens.
Roland.
As any Sonnar, the 50/1.5 has noticeably less resolution in the corners at f2 when compared to Planar, any Summicron, M-Hexanon 50/2 (an outstanding lens) or 50/1.4 Summilux (v2 and up).
For portraits that can be a desired effect. On the M8, due to crop factor, it doesn't matter that much. For film "street", landscapes, etc., this can be a draw-back when printing 8x10 and up. Only you can decide what you want to do with the lens.
Roland.
Last edited:
MCTuomey
Veteran
roland, how often does one shoot landscapes or even "street" scenes at f2? i don't believe the corners of the c-sonnar are that far behind the planar at typical landscape apertures ...
jjovin
Established
I have a sonnar optimized at 2.8 and I use it for most of my photography (portraits, landscape... you name it). I am with
Mike on landscape, f5.6 and up where it is quite sharp. Most will probably disagree, but for me it is probably the best all purpose lens (a portrait and a landscape lens all in one). The focus shift is overrated, I have no issues with it (focus and lean just a bit closer).
Mike on landscape, f5.6 and up where it is quite sharp. Most will probably disagree, but for me it is probably the best all purpose lens (a portrait and a landscape lens all in one). The focus shift is overrated, I have no issues with it (focus and lean just a bit closer).
sojournerphoto
Veteran
It's a lovely lens and the last time I considered adding a Planar a friend who I trust in these matters said that if I like the Sonnar then I would not want the Planar. It's much more clinical.
Mike
Mike
ferider
Veteran
Agree, Mike. Just saying - focus shift is not all when comparing Planar and Sonnar.
I was looking at the OP's website and there are portraits that I liked but also more general stuff, for which a double Gauss design might be better suited.
Also, Planar, Summicron and M-Hexanon all go down to 0.7m min. focus, the C-Sonnar only to 1m.
In the end it has to be a personal subjective decision. Then again, one can try and re-sell without too much loss.
Cheers,
Roland.
Last edited:
willie_901
Veteran
Here's my experience. The C Sonnar is a general purpose lens when used at f 2.8 or greater. Wide-open it vignettes more than most lenses, but it draws a lovely image and the out-of-focus rendition is special. Between f 2.8 and f 4 it is very nice. By f 5.6 is is simply sharp everywhere. Its flair resistance is above average for a 1.5 lens.
You don't have to worry about the focus shift, but you have to be aware of it. If you like to shoot subjects that are less than 6 ft away at apertures below f 2.8, the focus shift will have an effect. Focus bracketing will help here. Also, the DOF is unusually asymmetrical so the 1/3 rule-of-thumb will not apply. The C-Sonnar excels wide open in low light when you are shooting a wide scene... like a street corner or even 10-12 feet of a bar indoors. The lens is great at evening and early morning landscapes.
Roger Hick is vastly more experienced than I, yet I feel his post summed up the situation very accurately.
Your mention of shooting portraits wide open puzzles me. The DOF will be very shallow wide open so I don't see much application for any fast 50 mm lens wide open. At 8 ft the DOF is about 8 inches and this drops to about 5 inches at 6 ft.
After using SLRs, DSLRs with AF and MF lenses and the LUMIX G1 with AF and MF lenses, a RF camera with a fast lenses would be my last choice for close up photography with fast lenses.
f 1.5 using a Zeiss Ikon ZM body.
F 2 or f 2.8 (I don't remember) through a window with a bright light streaming through a door camera right.
f 8
Bavaricus
Established
Real-Old-World-Performance:
M8 - C-Sonnar 50 @ f2
M8 - C-Sonnar 50 @ f2