C-Sonnar 1.5 or ...

A

AndySig

Established
Local time
4:22 AM
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
107
Sometime later this year I will be probably after a standard lens for my ZI and M6. I've narrowed it down to three possibilities:

a. The C-Sonnar f1.5 (I love the ZM lenses I've already got).

b. The 40 mm f2 Summicron (from the Leica CL. It is wonderfully small).

b. My Contax/Zeiss 45 mm f2 planar from my G2 and get it modified by those chaps in Japan so it can be used on M cameras.

What do you reckon?
 
I can only speak about the C-Sonnar 50/1.5 and the 40mm Summicron-C (or 40mm M-Rokkor CLE version) and already these lenses are completely different. I would chose the Sonnar as a portrait lens or for some scenes where the Sonnar-typical rendering is of advantage and the 40mm Summicron as the most universal, smallest and cheapest all-purpose lens ever made in M mount. :)
 
I have the C Sonnar now for two weeks. Hesitated a long time because everybody said it's not an all purpose lens. But so far I made some fine portraits wide open and some street photos at f5.6 or f8. I think this one is my all purpose lens now and replaces my Elmar-M 2.8/50 (so you see I don't have much experience with the other 50mm lenses).
 
If you go the Planar route just get the ZMf2/50mm.
The G45 lens re-barreled is great and fun to shoot but, a bit fragile for daily use.
There is no practical IQ difference between the zm and g planars IMHO.
 
Each of those lenses has some issues and you have to decide which ones are important to you.

1. The C-Sonnar shifts focus as you stop down to f:8. This is inherent to the design, not a defect. This is not an issue in practice for me, but it might be for you. Mine is optimized for f:2.8, but wider or more stopped down I have to lean in or lean out a little, depending.

2. The 40 C-Summicron is a gem of a lens, both it and the 40 M-Rokkor that I have front focus in exactly the same way on my M9. Don't know whether they are identically out of whack (seems unlikely) or whether there is a full-M compatibility issue (rumored, don't know whether it is true or not). However, brilliant little lens - performance equal to the 35 Summicron v. IV at a faction of the price.

3. Miyazaki converted 45-G. Fabulous performance, fiddly handling. Once again, I love mine but I don't know whether it is for everyone. Aperture is smooth; no click stops post-conversion, and there is a "focus notch" rather than a focus tap or knurled focusing ring. Image quality is what you'd expect from a 45-G lens.

Ben Marks
 
One more note on the 40. Not sure if there are compatibility issues with the M9. If you want to be 100% safe, get the latest CLE Rokkor version, that has a flat RF cam.

Roland.
 
There was some mention about focus shift with the M9, but it looked like you were just interested in film shooting, and if you get the newest "version" of the c-sonnar, it is optimized for f1.5 and you should not have any issues with focus shift on film. I have both the rokkor 40 and the c-sonnar, and they are quite different, both worth owning, and amazing lenses. The 40mm is still cheap enough, could you swing both??
I have heard that the M6's 35mm framelines are close to being 40mm.
If you could only get one, for an all around lens, I would find it hard to fault the 40mm. Fantastic lens.
I also have the 45 G, great lens but I wouldn't have it converted.
 
illuminati_02 said:
There was some mention about focus shift with the M9, but it looked like you were just interested in film shooting, and if you get the newest "version" of the c-sonnar, it is optimized for f1.5 and you should not have any issues with focus shift on film.
Click to expand...

Are you sure this is accurate? Hasn't Zeiss admitted that it is part of the design. I understand it might be less noticable on film, but shift will still be there no?
 
I just purchased mine brand new perhaps a month ago(?) and it was optimized for f1.5 from the factory. I have a link for popflash, stating the same for new production, but they say since 1997, which cannot be correct..

http://www.popflash.com/zeiss-lenses/zeiss-50mm-f/1.5-zm-c-sonnar-t-lens-black-usa-new/

With it optimized at f1.5 on film, the focus point is always going to be in focus, but the oof area will not be completely even from front to rear. The focus will not always be centered, but it will still be sharp.
 
My C Sonnar sits permanently on an M5 and the balance of that set up is great and I just use it the way I used to use the Summicron. I love it at all apertures, although seldom shooting at f16 or 11. Mine was apparently optimized for 1.5 but my formal tests of that gave conflicting results. In practice I just ignore consideration of focus shift and haven't noticed a problem.
 
Thanks for all the opions.

I'm now coming round to the idea of getting the 40mm in the short term and saving a bit for the c-sonnar.
 
Re the choice b/w the ZM 50/2 and the 50/1.5 -

I shoot two M bodies, one film and one digital. The film body carries the ZM 50/2 loaded with delta 100, a nice lens/film combination, I think. The digital body carries the 50/1.5, a nice lens/sensor pairing, produces lovely files.

If I shot primarily at f1.5 that's where I'd have the lens optimized. If not, then I'd go with f2.8.

Sorry I can't speak to the other lenses.
 
with the C Sonnar, you get nearly a stop more tahn the others, and it is a very compact lens for a 50mm f1.5 (shorter than the f2 plannar).
 
Hi, the c-sonnar is unique, nowadays it´s optimized at f1.5, this version shifts until f8. You can switch it to f2.8 far more usable just by taking away one shimm.
The summicron although its prestigious name is not very good, it flares and lacks contrast, far better 40mm is the nokton f1.4, but´s slightly larger.
The 45 planar is very good but not better at smaller apertures than the sonnar from 1.5 on!

Luck!
 
It boils down to this: you want sharp corners at f2 and 0.7m min. focus ? Get 40 Nokton or ZM Planar. You want a bokeh machine ? Get the ZM Sonnar.
 
Just a few questions (for FILM users) about the ZM C 50/1.5
1) is focus shift an issue ALWAYS found on the lens optimized at F/2.8, whatever is its influence on the final image, or just something that occur now and then on some samples and some not?
2) for your experience which is the most troublesome distance to shoot caring for such focus shifts? If I just take a picture of a person aiming at his/her eyes once I've already set the aperture am I going to experience this ? Is shift always "going" in the same direction? (i.e. you always have to focus a bit more and how much or a bit less?)
3) Ultimately, can you trust your eyes or not when focusing ? Having a fast lens is good but if it has issues when you should use at its largest apertures (when it counts more) is kind of strange, isn't it ?

EDIT: forget about it, I found the comparative test by MFOGIEL, I'm actually reading it thanks.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom