sparrow6224
Well-known
I just read an exchange from a few weeks ago about the Sonnar, it's availability in a wide angle, the Biogon, etc. One commentator in that thread mentioned how the Rollei 35 struck him as having the characteristics more of a Planar lens than the Sonnar it putatively is. Now, I have been searching around in a desultory way to discover -- since I was considering sinking good money in a Canon 50mm f/15 instead of a more reasonable 50/1.4 Planar -- which is supposed to be slightly, just slightly, sharper, I've gathered -- to discover what the much desired "characteristics" of the Sonnar lens actually are. From the pictures people post and discussions with them, I feel a sense of kinship to the sensibility of the Sonnar freaks -- the pictures often have a look that I like, strong contrast that still achieves subtlety of values from top to bottom and a particularly rich set of values in the shadow areas -- suggestive dark grays and blacks. But what would you all say are these "characteristics" of the sonnar lens -- particularly at 50mm FL -- that people refer to but rarely define? And what are the differing characteristics of the planar?
gavinlg
Veteran
Planar 50mms are generally more sterile. They act the same at wide open as they do at f2, albeit with the expected sharpness difference.
Sonnars on the other hand act quite differently wide open. I can't explain the quality but I know it when I see it. The modern zeiss 50mm sonnar especially strikes me as having this this quality, as if zeiss specifically built it with these characteristics in mind.
I don't think I could explain what 'it' is if I tried. Perhaps someone here that has more actual experience with them than me will give it a shot!
Sonnars on the other hand act quite differently wide open. I can't explain the quality but I know it when I see it. The modern zeiss 50mm sonnar especially strikes me as having this this quality, as if zeiss specifically built it with these characteristics in mind.
I don't think I could explain what 'it' is if I tried. Perhaps someone here that has more actual experience with them than me will give it a shot!
jpberger
Established
If you think you might be a sonnar person you probably are.
Sonnar lenses give nice contrast, a strong 3d look and smooth out of focus rendering.
The downside is they are not razor sharp like planars especially in the corners, (however the subjective sharpness can be greater because of the excellent contrast) and the fast ones have significant focus shift when stopped down between f2-4
Sonnar lenses give nice contrast, a strong 3d look and smooth out of focus rendering.
The downside is they are not razor sharp like planars especially in the corners, (however the subjective sharpness can be greater because of the excellent contrast) and the fast ones have significant focus shift when stopped down between f2-4
sparrow6224
Well-known
I just went through a looooonggg "king of 50mm bokeh" thread and the most stunning pic in it I thought was by Joe, some wild flowers or wheat or something, and the lens id'd was "z m 50mm 1.5" -- is that the new zeiss 50mm for the zeiss ikon in the m mount? if so, it's a killah. or -- whatever it is, it's a killah.
that thread was very informative. I see what the sonnar thing is, i think. there's the contrast I've noticed, but too there is a kind of unity, a coherence as one moves from the focused to out of focus depth of the picture, nothing is sudden or showy, it's kind of intelligent, to use a weird word for it.
I have a canon 50/1.8 planar and for street photography, for instance, it's superb; it is not sterile at all, it's like an alpha male in fact, it misses nothing.
but i do love that other look too. I may go for the Nikon version 50/1.4 attached to an S2. Then I'd have an M2 with a Summicron rigid (alas a slightly dull version because of some cleaning damage I think...); and a Canon P with the aforementioned 50/1.8; and the Nikon set. I don't feel extravagant now that I've read Raid has more than 20 50mm lenses.
that thread was very informative. I see what the sonnar thing is, i think. there's the contrast I've noticed, but too there is a kind of unity, a coherence as one moves from the focused to out of focus depth of the picture, nothing is sudden or showy, it's kind of intelligent, to use a weird word for it.
I have a canon 50/1.8 planar and for street photography, for instance, it's superb; it is not sterile at all, it's like an alpha male in fact, it misses nothing.
but i do love that other look too. I may go for the Nikon version 50/1.4 attached to an S2. Then I'd have an M2 with a Summicron rigid (alas a slightly dull version because of some cleaning damage I think...); and a Canon P with the aforementioned 50/1.8; and the Nikon set. I don't feel extravagant now that I've read Raid has more than 20 50mm lenses.
pb908
Well-known
Butterly smooth bokeh (more than a planar), great center sharpness & contrast, looks more natural for people picture.
Never have a planar (whatever brand/type), almost all of my lenses are sonnar. i just once compare it with my friend planars. i bought it because I like how it looks, it give me warmer feeling as well, for a reason I can't tell.
for a reason, i can sometimes see "Swirly" bokeh from planar picture. All the bokeh shape make like a tunnel and point to the center of the frame. Never seen this swirly character from sonnars.
Never have a planar (whatever brand/type), almost all of my lenses are sonnar. i just once compare it with my friend planars. i bought it because I like how it looks, it give me warmer feeling as well, for a reason I can't tell.
for a reason, i can sometimes see "Swirly" bokeh from planar picture. All the bokeh shape make like a tunnel and point to the center of the frame. Never seen this swirly character from sonnars.
The Nikkor 5cm f1.4 has harsh Bokeh compared with the Zeiss and Canon Sonnars.
Sonnars: higher contrast, more transmission, and high curvature of field.
Sonnars: higher contrast, more transmission, and high curvature of field.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Hope these help
The ZM50 is a great lens.
sparrow6224
Well-known
Is, as I thought, the "ZM" the new Zeiss lens in M mount for the Zeiss Ikon?
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Yes, although it's been around for a few years now.
Those are all with the ZM 1.5/50 C-Sonnar (there is also a 2/50 Planar ZM available).
Mike
Those are all with the ZM 1.5/50 C-Sonnar (there is also a 2/50 Planar ZM available).
Mike
Richard G
Veteran
That third one has the Sonnar magic happening.
Termik
Member
The Zeiss Sonnar wide open shows it's beatiful "voice"
Stopped down it becomes as sharp as any other high-quality 50
Some Sonnar goodness wide open:
Stopped down it becomes as sharp as any other high-quality 50
Some Sonnar goodness wide open:
Last edited:
MCTuomey
Veteran
Sonnars are indefinable by definition.
I have several shots in my gallery taken wide-open with my zm c-sonnar, but can't remember how to insert them without the dread x-box result.
I have several shots in my gallery taken wide-open with my zm c-sonnar, but can't remember how to insert them without the dread x-box result.
Last edited:
furcafe
Veteran
Ditto. The Planar's name tells you that it was designed to reduce curvature of field & be sharper in the corners than older, less corrected, designs like the Sonnar/Ernostar. As others have noted, the Sonnar/Ernostar has a sharp-in-the-center/less-sharp-around-the-edges look wide open that works so well for portraits (or any other photo where your subject is centered).
I'm guessing the 5cm/1.4 Nikkor-S has harsher boke than other Sonnars because it was sort of an "extreme" Sonnar, the furthest the design could be pushed in the '50s to get it to f/1.4.
I'm guessing the 5cm/1.4 Nikkor-S has harsher boke than other Sonnars because it was sort of an "extreme" Sonnar, the furthest the design could be pushed in the '50s to get it to f/1.4.
Tim Gray
Well-known
I saw a big forum comparison somewhere of a whole bunch of 50 Sonnars. Many of them had harsher bokeh. The new ZM was definitely one of the smoother ones.
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
A few sonnar shots I like. These were done with a Russian Jupiter 3 50/1.5.
sparrow6224
Well-known
Tim --
I love those shots. The contrast is both dramatic and subtle. Are they film? If so which? Or digital?
Vince P
I love those shots. The contrast is both dramatic and subtle. Are they film? If so which? Or digital?
Vince P
DNG
Film Friendly
Here are 2 with the ZM 50mm f/1.5 C-Sonnar on a Panasonic G1
f/11
f/5.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are 2 with the ZM 50mm f/1.5 C-Sonnar on a M5 with Plus-X (1st), TMax (2nd)
f/1.5.....
f/2.8
Just to let you know that the ZM Sonnar can do well in both worlds......
f/11
f/5.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are 2 with the ZM 50mm f/1.5 C-Sonnar on a M5 with Plus-X (1st), TMax (2nd)
f/1.5.....
f/2.8
Just to let you know that the ZM Sonnar can do well in both worlds......
ferider
Veteran
That's because the "Sonnar look" doesn't exist. The original design was made for compactness and flare resistance, period. Back then the word bokeh didn't exist. Some are harsh (late Nikkor 50/1.4) some very smooth (very early Nikkor 50/1.4, ZM 50/1.5). Some shift a lot, others much less. Some "Sonnars" are actually Ernostars (Contax 90/2.8, Hasselblad 150/4). Other "Sonnars" are double Gauss designs (ZM 85/2). Some double Gauss lenses render like Sonnars (Summilux pre-asph). Etc.
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
I've always assumed that the "Sonnar look" was the sum of uncorrected aberrations when a lens of that design was used wide open, but that the effect
diminished as the lens stopped down.
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ZeissSonnar-text.svg
In my simple mind, the Planar, as a symmetrical design derived from a double-gauss, corrected its aberrations (that is the second group introduces opposite aberrations from the first, canceling them out).
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DoubleGauss1text.svg
Ben
[Edit: I see others have pointed out that as a trade-name "Sonnar" is probably less descriptive of a lens' actual design than it might be]
[Further edit: Fascinating place that wikipedia is, look at these modern (and, in many cases, manifestly non-symmetrical) Planar designs. Included are block diagrams for the Zeiss 45mm G-Planar, C/V 50/1.5, the Noctilux and others. . . many of my favorite lenses are included in this group of block diagrams . . .
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/92/DoubleGauss4text.svg]
diminished as the lens stopped down.
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ZeissSonnar-text.svg
In my simple mind, the Planar, as a symmetrical design derived from a double-gauss, corrected its aberrations (that is the second group introduces opposite aberrations from the first, canceling them out).
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DoubleGauss1text.svg
Ben
[Edit: I see others have pointed out that as a trade-name "Sonnar" is probably less descriptive of a lens' actual design than it might be]
[Further edit: Fascinating place that wikipedia is, look at these modern (and, in many cases, manifestly non-symmetrical) Planar designs. Included are block diagrams for the Zeiss 45mm G-Planar, C/V 50/1.5, the Noctilux and others. . . many of my favorite lenses are included in this group of block diagrams . . .
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/92/DoubleGauss4text.svg]
Last edited: