50mm ZM C-Sonnar & Summilux ASPH

[Tim Gray]

I've been reading about the C-Sonnar a bit recently and it sounds like an interesting lens. I'll keep this short: Anyone using both a Summilux ASPH and the C-Sonnar? I've read lots about pairing a Summicron/Planar type lens with the Sonnar, but not much about an ASPH + Sonnar pairing.

 

[Tim Gray]

Seems like an odd pairing spec-wise - but totally different character.

The character thing is the thing I'm getting at. The ASPH is a great lens for almost all situations. And while there are many people who seem to like the Sonnar as an all around lens too, I've read about many who seem to love it for portraits. I'm wondering if there is anything substantial to be gained by using the Sonnar for portraits over the ASPH.

I'd love to try one out, but I don't know anyone around where I live who has one and I'd rather not spend $1k just to play with it for a bit.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

Tim: I have both and the ASPH is easier to use as an all-around lens. The Sonnar does have some focus shift, which you may have to learn to deal with depending on how you plan on using the lens. If you PM me with an e-mail address and the kind of image you are interested in seeing (e.g. close up performance, busy background etc.), I can produce two images one with each lens and you can see for yourself.

 

[Tim Gray]

I own and use both extensively. Why? They do draw differently, though let me refer you to some photos for verification and clarification. There are some samples of images using these lenses on my flickr stream if you'd care to see my take on these wonderful hunks of glass. Fwiw, the summilux asph is a planar lens design.

I'll check out your stream. FWIW, when I said Planar I was referring directly to the ZM 50 Planar.

 

[Tim Gray]

I think y'all know where to find it.

Already looked at it 🙂

 

[Austerby]

I had both for a while but sold the ASPH as I much preferred the Sonnar: the clinical look of the Summilux wasn't quite to my taste and when stopped down the Sonnar behaves very well.

Oh, and portraits with the Sonnar are quite gorgeous.

 

[Tom A]

BMW 327 - perfectly restored. M2 and Summilux 50mm f1.4 Asph. Probably at f2.8.
Kodak XX and Adox MQ developer.
High contrast, partly due to the light sources (halogen spots) and partly due to the lens. It is very contrasty - but sharp, sooo sharp!.

 

[Tom A]

Zeiss C Sonnar at closest focus. 1/8s @ f1.5.
This is Ettore Bugatti's personal car, the Bugatti Royale Coupe Napoleon. Focus is on the small "coach line" at the side of the hood.
The Musee De La Automobile in Mulhouse. France is the best collection of cars around. You can take pictures to your hrarts content, but no tripod and no flash.
The Sonnar has a smoother look to it compared to the Summilux. Less "brash" contrast, most likely slightly lower resolution. Of the two, I use my Sonnar more than the Summilux - I just like how it renders in black/white.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

I have posted some ZM and Asph images to flicker. Same cameras, same position etc. There are real differences. The Sonnar is lower contrast wide open, more aberrations in the highlights. This is one of the things, I think, that makes it work for portraits. Completely agree with the comment above that it is pretty cool that Zeiss is producing lenses with different "looks," as opposed to charging hard for one super-corrected clinical look.

Sonnar wide open:

Leica 50 Asph wide open:

The differences at the exact plane of focus are academic, in my view. Resolution goes to the ASPH. But what makes the comparison interesting is what happens in the highlights and in the transition between the highlights and the plane of best focus.

I took the two pix above with the Olympus EP-2, At this URL, you can see a couple of additional images these images and the M9.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/14501597@N06/

When you stop down to f:2.8, the "softness" of the Sonnar (if you want to call it that) disappears. This is one of the features I like most about the lens:

50 Sonnar at 2.8:

50 Asph at 2.8:

(As you can see the ASPH is sharp enough to cut steel ingots)

BONUS TRACK:

Older 50 Sonnar in Contax mount recently CLA'd by DAG and used on the Oly with an Amadeo and Photodiox adapter:

(gorgeous)

Check out the highlight "glow" on that puppy. Zow.

 

[gotium]

EDIT: This is not what I posted - it was defaced by a mod.

You know, I completely stopped posting on the forum after this happened to me. Really bothered me for some reason.

For the OP, I have both lenses. The Sonnar has a fantastic character open, and behaves very differently, clinically, stopped down. The in-focus areas are sharp even wide open, on a unique bokeh, but for me the focus shift is a real issue. A lot of the softness in portraits is from missing the focus.

The lux I find simply perfect. Something subtle about the colors and the light.

 

[MCTuomey]

my c-sonnar starts to sharpen up at f2.8, hitting stride at f4. as others have said, it's like having two distinct renderings. what i like most, though, is that the c-sonnar has that zeiss contour effect at all apertures. i do find its bokeh also improves upon stopping down, like its resolving power.

tom's bmw pic using the 50 asph at f2.8 just sparkles, as does ben's still life at f2.8. whatta lens!

 

[Bruin]

Part of the C-Sonnar's "look" is from the significant field curvature wide open. The plane of focus is a lot closer to you in the corners than in the center, where you focused. If you take a portrait with your subject in the center, the outer zones will seem more out-of-focus than a 50/1.5 with a flat field. You get an extra topping of bokeh with this lens 😀