Huck Finn
Well-known
Joe, I don't get it either.
The authors of the article say that they were told that "the lens tested would be checked." There was nothing in the comments quoted from Zeiss that describes any check of the lens in question. I would think that the authors would have insisted that their sample be validated or that an explanation be offered & problems corrected so it could be properly tested.
In re-reading the article, I realize that I have no idea what the authors mean by "mushy." When I think of "mushy", I think out-of-focus, but I don't know if that's what they think. It would have been helpful if they had posted a "mushy" picture so the reader would know what they meant. The crisp, lear barn photo did nothing to illustrate the main point of their article.
It's true that the Sonnar design from whatever manufacturer was highly valued as a portrait lens right up through the '50s. Part of the appeal was the softness with which it rendered people's faces. But the Zeiss explanation did nothing to shed any light on why the lens would offer results that were "mushy". This is certainly not the classic Sonnar look & from the various pix provided on this forum & elsewhere it does not characterize other samples of this modern C-Sonnar either.
The Luminous-Landscape results remain a mystery to me.
Huck
The authors of the article say that they were told that "the lens tested would be checked." There was nothing in the comments quoted from Zeiss that describes any check of the lens in question. I would think that the authors would have insisted that their sample be validated or that an explanation be offered & problems corrected so it could be properly tested.
In re-reading the article, I realize that I have no idea what the authors mean by "mushy." When I think of "mushy", I think out-of-focus, but I don't know if that's what they think. It would have been helpful if they had posted a "mushy" picture so the reader would know what they meant. The crisp, lear barn photo did nothing to illustrate the main point of their article.
It's true that the Sonnar design from whatever manufacturer was highly valued as a portrait lens right up through the '50s. Part of the appeal was the softness with which it rendered people's faces. But the Zeiss explanation did nothing to shed any light on why the lens would offer results that were "mushy". This is certainly not the classic Sonnar look & from the various pix provided on this forum & elsewhere it does not characterize other samples of this modern C-Sonnar either.
The Luminous-Landscape results remain a mystery to me.
Huck
Huck Finn
Well-known
BTW, I noticed that Zeiss is now indicating that the "C" in C-Sonnar stands for "Classic." Silly me. I thought it stood for "compact."
From the Zeiss website:
"It is fast, resistant to flaring, and unusually compact - therefore the "C" in the lens name."
From the Zeiss website:
"It is fast, resistant to flaring, and unusually compact - therefore the "C" in the lens name."
Last edited:
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
To the contrary, I think you did a good service. From the ancient days of learning the technical end of things, I remember reading about focus shift at different apertures. It is often masked by DOF, of course.sebastel said:
But if the default is to adjust the lens for f2.8, then I'm a bit puzzled. I'd buy an f1.5 lens for its speed and performance wide open. Not necessarily sharpness, but I'd want it to focus properly wide open.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
LL noted the response to its review. (Note, the "worst" digs on the Sonnar were by Nick Devlin, not Michael Reichman. Reichman was actually much more favourable to the Sonnar, even though he compared it to an ASPH design.) In response to LL's queries to Zeiss about the results, the review page has been updated with the following from Zeiss, to which joe and others alluded:
Information about special features for dealers and users
The C-SONNAR T* 1.5/50 ZM is a very special lens; based on a classical lens design concept from the 1930´s. The additional letter “C” in the name of the lens expresses this designation.
This lens design helps to achieve pictures with a special artistic touch. This lens ‘draws’ your subject in a fine, flattering manner and is therefore ideally suited for portraiture. It renders a sharpness that is slightly rounded, being less aggressive than in contemporary lens designs, but at the same time not soft in its rendition.
Many famous portraits of glamorous and prominent people during the 1930´s used this technique to great effect. These images are characterized by portraying the person in a shining, nearly celestial way. This effect is very well balanced and not exaggerated; therefore many viewers see it in a subconscious way. The trained observer, however, understands the underlining technique and enjoys the results.
This lens design exhibits some additional effects, which should be understood to achieve the maximum benefit from the C-Sonnar T* 1.5/50 ZM:
Because of the above mentioned classical characteristic of the lens the best focus position in the object space can not be kept exactly constant for all f-stop settings.
The passionate photographer might notice a slightly closer best focus in his pictures than expected. When stopping down the lens to f/2.8 or smaller this effect is minimized, so the focus position will be as expected.
In order to balance the performance at full speed and other f-stop settings the lens is adjusted with above described characteristic.
The special features of the C-SONNAR T* 1.5/50 ZM are best used in emotional, artistic, narrative images, portraits or atmospheric landscapes. For documentation or technical subjects CARL ZEISS recommends to stop down the lens at least to f/5.6 or to use the PLANAR T* 2/50 ZM lens.
I'm not sure this is the entire response sent to LL. But I do "get it" ... it's simply a different design for a different look.
Information about special features for dealers and users
The C-SONNAR T* 1.5/50 ZM is a very special lens; based on a classical lens design concept from the 1930´s. The additional letter “C” in the name of the lens expresses this designation.
This lens design helps to achieve pictures with a special artistic touch. This lens ‘draws’ your subject in a fine, flattering manner and is therefore ideally suited for portraiture. It renders a sharpness that is slightly rounded, being less aggressive than in contemporary lens designs, but at the same time not soft in its rendition.
Many famous portraits of glamorous and prominent people during the 1930´s used this technique to great effect. These images are characterized by portraying the person in a shining, nearly celestial way. This effect is very well balanced and not exaggerated; therefore many viewers see it in a subconscious way. The trained observer, however, understands the underlining technique and enjoys the results.
This lens design exhibits some additional effects, which should be understood to achieve the maximum benefit from the C-Sonnar T* 1.5/50 ZM:
Because of the above mentioned classical characteristic of the lens the best focus position in the object space can not be kept exactly constant for all f-stop settings.
The passionate photographer might notice a slightly closer best focus in his pictures than expected. When stopping down the lens to f/2.8 or smaller this effect is minimized, so the focus position will be as expected.
In order to balance the performance at full speed and other f-stop settings the lens is adjusted with above described characteristic.
The special features of the C-SONNAR T* 1.5/50 ZM are best used in emotional, artistic, narrative images, portraits or atmospheric landscapes. For documentation or technical subjects CARL ZEISS recommends to stop down the lens at least to f/5.6 or to use the PLANAR T* 2/50 ZM lens.
I'm not sure this is the entire response sent to LL. But I do "get it" ... it's simply a different design for a different look.
Last edited:
back alley
IMAGES
huck, have you talked to your people at zeiss about this?
willie_901
Veteran
rover said:
I would be more than happy if our thread encouraged LL to check into this further. If LL doesn't think thorough reporting is worth the effort, that's not our problem.
"Official" reviews on commercial sites appear to be lacking in traditional journalistic feedback.
In my view, an experienced editor/peer would have encouraged the LL reviewer to initiate a discussion with Zeiss before publication. If this thread served the same purpose post-publication, that's all to the better.
The C Sonnar focusing story is not nearly as important a M8 review. However the LL C Sonnar review may be the second case of incomplete journalism by LL in 3 months. Shame on them.
willie
ps At least their reviews are free. Instead of being amused by LL's recent performance, I'd be requesting a refund. I got what i paid for.
back alley
IMAGES
willie,
a bit o.t., but, do use another 50 along with the zm 50/1.5?
if not, has it been a good general purpose 50 for you?
joe
a bit o.t., but, do use another 50 along with the zm 50/1.5?
if not, has it been a good general purpose 50 for you?
joe
This is a very interesting discussion. And oddly enough the Voigtlander Skopar 50mm f/2.5 may share some characteristics with the C-Sonnar, as the following paragraph seems a very apt description of the Skopar as well. Maybe why the Skopar is so popular in Japan, and perhaps why Zeiss chose to make the C-Sonnar...
"This lens design helps to achieve pictures with a special artistic touch. ... It renders a sharpness that is slightly rounded, being less aggressive than in contemporary lens designs, but at the same time not soft in its rendition."
"This lens design helps to achieve pictures with a special artistic touch. ... It renders a sharpness that is slightly rounded, being less aggressive than in contemporary lens designs, but at the same time not soft in its rendition."
willie_901
Veteran
joe,
The C-Sonnar is my only 50. I used to own a Canon 50/1.2 LTM. I bought the C-Sonnar because I wanted to have one fast lens for available light photos.
I'm not really sure I like the 50mm focal length. My Canon 50/1.2 needed some work, and I never liked it ergonomically, so I sold it. I felt the C-Sonnar was a good way to see if 50 mm is for me.
I haven't owned the lens long enough to know if I can recommend it as general purpose lens. I will say that I am optimistic.
It's size/weight and speed make it an attractive package. I can carry it all day and still have f 1.5 if I need it. That certainly is not the case for the Canon 50/1.2. I assume a new Summilux is sufficiently compact/light. I have not seen a Nokton, so I don't know if I'd find that lens to be too big and heavy.
When you are close to the subject (6 feet or less) I think the C-Sonnar may be more difficult to use than other fast lenses at f-stops < 2.8 . But at 1.5, it is difficult to achieve useful DOF wiith any lens close in. At 10 ft any 50mm lens at f 1.5 will have a DOF of ~ 1 foot. So for three people at a bar/pub, only one face is likely to be sharp. However at 18 feet away DOF will be ~ 3.3 feet so now all three faces are likely to be in focus enough to get a useful shot at f 1.5. At 18 feet the front focus (on my example anyway) is not an issue.
Interestingly, the only soft shots I have with the C-Sonnar are of a Mariachi in a restaurant with horribly dim light. They were 5-8 feet away and I had to shoot 1.5 @ 1/60. So, DOF was thin, and they were moving, and I was using Fuj S-800. Still, my success rate was about the same as when I used the Canon and S-800 at the same restaurant.
Here is one of the restaurant photos from the C-Sonnar. Some may judge this photo to be unacceptably soft. Others may think it is average considering the circumstances. I think it is ok. What softness there is is more likely caused by subject motion, camera shake and the ISO 800 film more than the C-Sonnar front focus. I don't think the Planar would be any better because the shutter speed would have to be 1/30 or less to get the same exposure at f 2.0.
willie
The C-Sonnar is my only 50. I used to own a Canon 50/1.2 LTM. I bought the C-Sonnar because I wanted to have one fast lens for available light photos.
I'm not really sure I like the 50mm focal length. My Canon 50/1.2 needed some work, and I never liked it ergonomically, so I sold it. I felt the C-Sonnar was a good way to see if 50 mm is for me.
I haven't owned the lens long enough to know if I can recommend it as general purpose lens. I will say that I am optimistic.
It's size/weight and speed make it an attractive package. I can carry it all day and still have f 1.5 if I need it. That certainly is not the case for the Canon 50/1.2. I assume a new Summilux is sufficiently compact/light. I have not seen a Nokton, so I don't know if I'd find that lens to be too big and heavy.
When you are close to the subject (6 feet or less) I think the C-Sonnar may be more difficult to use than other fast lenses at f-stops < 2.8 . But at 1.5, it is difficult to achieve useful DOF wiith any lens close in. At 10 ft any 50mm lens at f 1.5 will have a DOF of ~ 1 foot. So for three people at a bar/pub, only one face is likely to be sharp. However at 18 feet away DOF will be ~ 3.3 feet so now all three faces are likely to be in focus enough to get a useful shot at f 1.5. At 18 feet the front focus (on my example anyway) is not an issue.
Interestingly, the only soft shots I have with the C-Sonnar are of a Mariachi in a restaurant with horribly dim light. They were 5-8 feet away and I had to shoot 1.5 @ 1/60. So, DOF was thin, and they were moving, and I was using Fuj S-800. Still, my success rate was about the same as when I used the Canon and S-800 at the same restaurant.
Here is one of the restaurant photos from the C-Sonnar. Some may judge this photo to be unacceptably soft. Others may think it is average considering the circumstances. I think it is ok. What softness there is is more likely caused by subject motion, camera shake and the ISO 800 film more than the C-Sonnar front focus. I don't think the Planar would be any better because the shutter speed would have to be 1/30 or less to get the same exposure at f 2.0.
willie
Attachments
Last edited:
Huck Finn
Well-known
I like the shot, Willie. Not unacceptably soft for my taste.
Joe, I haven't talked with anyone at Zeiss about the C-Sonnar.
Joe, I haven't talked with anyone at Zeiss about the C-Sonnar.
rvaubel
Well-known
Now I really want the Zeiss Sonnar. Perfect for those "Leica glow" portriats at F1.5
It will complement my Canon 50mm f1.2 LTM when I don't want to lug around its adittional weight and extra 1/2 stop.
And of course I have to have the 50mm summicron when only the ana;ytical look will do.
Not to mention the VC 50mm F3.5 when the ultimate quality is needed in a compact, colllapsable form.
Whats the problem? Of course everyone needs at LEAST four 50mm lenses.
Rex
It will complement my Canon 50mm f1.2 LTM when I don't want to lug around its adittional weight and extra 1/2 stop.
And of course I have to have the 50mm summicron when only the ana;ytical look will do.
Not to mention the VC 50mm F3.5 when the ultimate quality is needed in a compact, colllapsable form.
Whats the problem? Of course everyone needs at LEAST four 50mm lenses.
Rex
back alley
IMAGES
thanks willie.
as you may have read, i'm thinking of using the 1.5 as my only 50 and selling the planar. i would then buy a cv 35/1.2 so i could have a fast 50 and a fast 35. the zm 35 would be the daytime weapon of choice and the cv 1.2 would come out at night and in the bar etc.
i prefer the 35mm focal length and having 2 of them seems to make more sense to me than having 2 50's.
plus i have a 50 on the contax if needed.
and huck, thanks!
joe
as you may have read, i'm thinking of using the 1.5 as my only 50 and selling the planar. i would then buy a cv 35/1.2 so i could have a fast 50 and a fast 35. the zm 35 would be the daytime weapon of choice and the cv 1.2 would come out at night and in the bar etc.
i prefer the 35mm focal length and having 2 of them seems to make more sense to me than having 2 50's.
plus i have a 50 on the contax if needed.
and huck, thanks!
joe
willie_901
Veteran
Joe,
I like your plan. Assuming the C Sonnar does have a front focus bias, you would only be "losing" f 2.0 for close-in shots. I think 35mm is a better choice for indoor, low-light work. I too would rather have two 35s than two 50s.
My next lens will be the Ultron 28/1.9 (in about 11 months). A fellow RFF member let me shoot a couple of frames with one and I was pleased by it's size finish. The speed and DOF compliment each other nicely.
Huck,
Thanks for the comment.
willie
I like your plan. Assuming the C Sonnar does have a front focus bias, you would only be "losing" f 2.0 for close-in shots. I think 35mm is a better choice for indoor, low-light work. I too would rather have two 35s than two 50s.
My next lens will be the Ultron 28/1.9 (in about 11 months). A fellow RFF member let me shoot a couple of frames with one and I was pleased by it's size finish. The speed and DOF compliment each other nicely.
Huck,
Thanks for the comment.
willie
Rico
Well-known
The Zeiss explanation smacks of revisionism, but c'est la vie. They should amend the C-Sonnar web write-up to include this important focus-shift feature. I wonder what "C" stands for in the C-Biogon 21 ZM?
dazedgonebye
Veteran
Ummm...I know all the fire is about the 50mm lenses....but, I just checked the review and it no longer refers to the 21mm color-skopar as not being rangefinder coupled.
I don't see a mention of this change.
I don't see a mention of this change.
back alley
IMAGES
i need to scan another frame, tomorrow, and it shows that my lens does not front focus, wide open and close up.
Sonnar2
Well-known
Information about special features for dealers and users (ZEISS)
...
The passionate photographer might notice a slightly closer best focus in his pictures than expected. When stopping down the lens to f/2.8 or smaller this effect is minimized, so the focus position will be as expected.
In order to balance the performance at full speed and other f-stop settings the lens is adjusted with above described characteristic.
The special features of the C-SONNAR T* 1.5/50 ZM are best used in emotional, artistic, narrative images, portraits or atmospheric landscapes. For documentation or technical subjects CARL ZEISS recommends to stop down the lens at least to f/5.6 or to use the PLANAR T* 2/50 ZM lens.
What they described here is a focus shift like vintage large format lenses used to have, which the photog. has to control on the focussing screen. Unfortunatly RF camera don't incorporate this kind of device.
So portraiting a person from front wide open, focussing the eyes, you can the tip of the nose expect beeing sharp? (And solely the nose, DOF at f/1.5 is about one inch at 0.9m) and that's Zeiss call "artistic expression" ???
Maybe Zeiss should have buid an SLR lens seeing that ?
Is this true (I never heard about Bertele's Sonnar suffered from focus shift) or is this explanation the modern way how to avoid adjustment work??
...
The passionate photographer might notice a slightly closer best focus in his pictures than expected. When stopping down the lens to f/2.8 or smaller this effect is minimized, so the focus position will be as expected.
In order to balance the performance at full speed and other f-stop settings the lens is adjusted with above described characteristic.
The special features of the C-SONNAR T* 1.5/50 ZM are best used in emotional, artistic, narrative images, portraits or atmospheric landscapes. For documentation or technical subjects CARL ZEISS recommends to stop down the lens at least to f/5.6 or to use the PLANAR T* 2/50 ZM lens.
What they described here is a focus shift like vintage large format lenses used to have, which the photog. has to control on the focussing screen. Unfortunatly RF camera don't incorporate this kind of device.
So portraiting a person from front wide open, focussing the eyes, you can the tip of the nose expect beeing sharp? (And solely the nose, DOF at f/1.5 is about one inch at 0.9m) and that's Zeiss call "artistic expression" ???
Maybe Zeiss should have buid an SLR lens seeing that ?
Is this true (I never heard about Bertele's Sonnar suffered from focus shift) or is this explanation the modern way how to avoid adjustment work??
Last edited:
nasmformyzombie
Registered
I just re-read the review, and noticed another faux paux (previously I skimmed some of the early part of the review, where the reviewer makes some general comments about Cosina and Zeiss). About the Zeiss Ikon camera, the reviewer states, "the ZM camera is based on the Voigtlander Bessa body." Does anybody at LL know anything about rangefinder cameras and lenses? This is outrageous!
Last edited:
Nachkebia
Well-known
Rico said:
C stands for Compact?
Sonnar2
Well-known
Nachkebia said:
yes, according to the Zeiss website:
"It is fast, very resistant to flaring and unusually compact – therefore the “C” in the lens name." (about the 1.5/50).
Comparing the C-Sonnar with the Contax RF Sonnar of the 50's it is anything but compact, so probably Zeiss shifted the meaning to "Classic"...
As for the affinity with the Bessa-R; the ZM was maybe developed out of the Bessa R2A/R3A but don't have much in common except the shutter (which comes from Seiko AFAIK). So to some extend it's "based" on the Bessa, pretty much the same way a Leica M3 is based on a 3f.
Last edited: