85 sonnar tested!!!

The only shots I found really useful was the Sonnar/Cron comparison showing bokeh. Not only were differences in OOF areas clearly shown, but tonal gradation differences were pretty interesting.

You guys seem to have read some a lot of words, too. There was writing? ;)
 
The only shots I found really useful was the Sonnar/Cron comparison showing bokeh.
Click to expand...

In the Sonnar/Cron comparison, it looked to me like the shots were at much different apertures -- like f/2 for one and f/4 for the other. When the out-of-focus highlights in one picture are three times as big as in the other, there's more going on than just differences in bokeh.
 
Someone please help me understand something about the imagery with the Canon EF 85/1.2 II in Puts' test. The brick wall detail shots with all four lenses using Velvia film showed a significant drop in color saturation and vibrancy with the Canon compared to the others. Using the Canon 5D in other shots, it was even worse, almost monochromatic in color saturation compared to the other lenses with Velvia. Is film still king in delivering color saturation??? Help!
 
jtm said:
In the Sonnar/Cron comparison, it looked to me like the shots were at much different apertures -- like f/2 for one and f/4 for the other. When the out-of-focus highlights in one picture are three times as big as in the other, there's more going on than just differences in bokeh.
Click to expand...

I was startled too, but I couldn't imagine Puts making that mistake. But if he did, then it calls other comparison shots into question.
 
ghost said:
"the new ZI camera: a derivative of the Bessa series of cameras...I leave it to the aficionados to discuss the true heritage of that body."
Click to expand...

...the same way the M3 was a "derivative" of the IIIf. He just keeps getting funnier. :rolleyes:

Come this Photokina, he'll certainly say the M8 outperforms the 5D, despite the crop factor. It can't possibly be otherwise with the M8's German engineering, lineage, know-how, tradition, manufacturing, blah blah blah. The new "digital coding" on the lenses will also be a must-have in order for the M8 to "perform as intended." ;)
 
Mt Puts sure can pull a decent chick for the test, but he certainly has no idea about white balance, only bringing down his credibillity and IMHO, the credibility of the test, even though the test was not directly white balance related. It was about image quality from lenses, and his white balance options did not do the Canon lens any justice. Poorly done....I guess thats why he usually doesn't provide images.
 
You're right, LeicaLux, except that Putsie pays for his models' services the way Leica pays him, I suspect. :D
 
Last edited:
I am amazed by how different the bokeh of the Sonnar looks in comparison to the Leica. If these were really shot at the same apertures, it is surely a matter of taste while I absolutely would prefer the Sonnar. It seems, the Sonnar is a must-have.

Otherwise, I simply can't stop laughing when reading Puts' articles, though I really try to take it seriously. The "Puts' effect" is something you can often see in the German Leica forum: Lots of folks who probably would never buy something different than Leica just because Leica-stuff is "amazingly built" or "legendary" or it "holds value". These people know how to find (amusing) arguments to support their opinion and often are very rude to anyone stating something different. Don't get me wrong: Leica-stuff is amazing, I will always dream of a MP (and perhaps one day... ;) ) and there are a lot of Leica-photographers who are outstandingly brilliant, BUT there are also a lot of Leica-photographers who just shoot Leica 'cause they think it's the best without competition and later have to legitimate their high costs while shooting pretty average photos.

Just my two cents.
 
Overall, I thought that Erwin's report was fair & balanced, making it quite useful. In his summary, he states that the Summicron was better at medium distances to infinity and that the Sonnar, while very close to that level of performance at infinity, had more color finging. On the other hand, he says that the Sonnar excels at the close distance range and "has better flare suppression and lower astigmatism giving the outer zones a more contrasty look when looking for fine structural details."

So far, so good. If I were making a decision between these two wlenses based on his report, I would choose the Sonnar if my intended use were portraiture. If my intended use were street shooting, I would evaluate my needs & decide if the Summicron's crisper images & lack of color fringing were more important than the Sonnar's flare suppression & lower astigmatism for improvement in the outer zones. Very helpful so far.

But then, he makes this odd remark: "But the Sonnar has more bulk and does not feel as rock solid as the Leica lens." What the heck is he talking about? The Sonnar (75 mm) is slightly shorter than the Summicron (78 mm) & is lighter (450 mg vs 500 mg). Although they take the same size filter, it appears that the Sonnar has a greater diameter at the widest point. Zeiss doesn't report the diameter, so I don't really know. However, this greater width is down toward the bottom of the lens, close to the camera body where it wouldn't seem to make any different in terms of handling characteristics or bulk just in carrying it around.

Despite the fact that he spends some time in review to extoll the merits of German engineering vs Japanes/Cosina manufacturing, he then mnakes his comment about the Sonnar not being as "rock solid" as the Summicron. If the Summicron is better built, I wish he would just say so & tell us how he determined this. That would be very useful. But claiming that one is more "rock solid" based on feel . . . My, oh my. :rolleyes: Oh, well, I guess we've got to take the good with the bad.

Despite my petty gripe, I like the report overall.
 
Last edited:
ferider said:
It is impossible that they were shot at the same aperture. Even the
close DOF is different (shoulders of the model). I have seen DOF circle
size difference (Canon 50/1.2 vs Nokton at the same aperture,
or J-9 vs Tele Elmarit, were the Tele Elmarit has slightly larger circles)
but never more than 50% or so. I am convinced we are seeing
f2 for the Sonnar and f4 for the Summicron.

snip..

Roland.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it's impossible. I saw similar extreme differences comparing my 300mm/4.5 AIS Nikkor and 300mm/4 AFS Nikkor at close distance. The AF lens had huge blur in front of and behind the plane of focus at aperture from wide open to f/11, much stronger than the old AIS at every aperture. These effects were not entirely due to DOF and circles of confusion, something about the newer Nikon 300mm lens design at close focus causes much greater OOF blur than one would expect. At a distance the 300mm AFS is much better in every respect, especially lower in chromatic aberration. It's possible the 85mm Sonnar does this too, but it's also possible that the man made a mistake.

I do agree Herr Puts' 90mm Apo-Summicron ASPH looks more like that lens' 2M distance signature at f/4, but I have not shot that lens much at f/2. I do agree with Puts' assessment that the 75mm Apo-Summicron ASPH is better than the 90mm at mid to close focus distances. It's certainly a lighter, more convenient and closer focusing lens too. The 75mm/2 is my favorite short tele now.
 
ferider said:
It is impossible that they were shot at the same aperture. Even the
close DOF is different (shoulders of the model). I have seen DOF circle
size difference (Canon 50/1.2 vs Nokton at the same aperture,
or J-9 vs Tele Elmarit, were the Tele Elmarit has slightly larger circles)
but never more than 50% or so. I am convinced we are seeing
f2 for the Sonnar and f4 for the Summicron.

For direct comparison I am attaching Puts shots here and some comparison
shots in my next post, taken with the Nikkor 85/2 LTM at f2 and f4 when
I did an 85/90 test once of different lenses (albeit in different
price-leagues than the lenses that Puts tested).

Roland.
Click to expand...

I don't believe these were shot at the same aperture. This test has many flaws.
 
Thanks for the link. Reading Erwin's report, and taking prices into account, makes me want to go out and buy an 85/1.2L in FD mount.
 
For me, this test shows one thing clearly:
Horses for courses.
If taking architecture or backlight-critical applications, maybe these new lenses are the best choice money can buy.
And every model's skin older than 16 will looking ugly when photographed with the new generation of lenses (possibly with the exception of the ZM Sonnar). Some have strange bokeh as well. I see no reason why to upgrade my oldtime 2/85 Nikkor, 1.4 Zeiss Planar (C/Y) and stuff like that.

cheers Frank
 
For me, this test shows one thing clearly:
Horses for courses.
If taking architecture or backlight-critical applications, maybe these new lenses are the best choice money can buy.
And every model's skin older than 16 will looking ugly when photographed with the new generation of lenses (possibly with the exception of the ZM Sonnar). Some have strange bokeh as well. I see no reason why to upgrade my oldtime 2/85 Nikkor, 1.4 Zeiss Planar (C/Y) and stuff like that.

cheers Frank
 
My favorite shot is the "street scene." At first I thought his model had a spare tire - too many pastries, perhaps. But then I realized that she was carrying a bag over her shoulder. Most unflattering shot of a pretty model - she should demand that he remove it from his site.
 
Last edited:
I don't see substantial improvements over the established vintage lenses in that range, such as the Nikkor (85mm/2 or 105mm/2.5) or Summicron 90mm/2. If I saw differences justifying buying a newer lens I would. Even less "exotic" lenses such as Canon 85mm/1.8 or 85mm/1.9 are great lenses. In such a focal length there are quite a few options for excellent performers and at different market values.

Raid


http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=349726#post349726
 
Last edited:
2006-08-03: Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 2.8/15 ZM - Series production continues
From now on the Carl Zeiss lens Distagon T* 2.8/15 ZM is available again. Series production of this super wide angle lens now continues after the bottleneck in supply due to parts which didn't fulfil all specifications was solved.
http://www.zeissikon.com/news.htm
 
raid amin said:
I don't see substantial improvements over the established vintage lenses in that range, such as the Nikkor (85mm/2 or 105mm/2.5) or Summicron 90mm/2. If I saw differences justifying buying a newer lens I would. Even less "exotic" lenses such as Canon 85mm/1.8 or 85mm/1.9 are great lenses. In such a focal length there are quite a few options for excellent performers and at different market values.
Click to expand...

Raid,

good Canon 85/1.8 and 100/2 lenses are even harder to find than 85 and 105 black Nikkors. I know because I tried for the 85.

I don't think the new Zeiss lens is - strictly speaking - a Sonnar, I remember a thread where one of the experts said it is an Ernostar (more similar to the Hasselblad 150mm, for example - my favorite short tele).

Gruss,

Roland.
 
Last edited:
Roland,

KEH has today two examples of the Canon 100/2 lens.
Nothing is truely rare anymore if you pay for it.

Raid
 
Sorry wrong word, I meant more the price which is similar to the Summicron, which is kind of my pricing benchmark.

Roland.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom