SaveKodak
Well-known
I think we need a C Sonnar Support Group AKA How-To Guide.
My reasons for this are:
1. 2 commonly optimized versions of the C Sonnar (1.5/2.8) require 2 different shooting techniques.
2. Getting around the shift requires a lot of experience and it's helpful to have a starting point.
3. C Sonnars are often traded because people have a tough time figuring them out. But when well handled they give any 50mm a run for it's money.
So here are my observations from 3-4 months of use of a 1.5 optimized version Now keep in mind I bought mine new, this year at B&H Photo (during the rebates) and it is 1.5 optimized from the factory. This tells me that either Zeiss has started shipping them this way, or there is some kind of sample variation. ANYWAY.
To focus at ƒ2, at close distances, I must set the focus in the RF about 1mm past "even", and about 2mm past "even" for ƒ2.8.
Focusing at f4 is more of a challenge at almost any distance. If anyone can advise me here I'd love to know. If something is 20-30 feet away, I completely blow the focus, the shift is that bad. It seems like I have to stop down to ƒ8 to trust the RF at long distances. This makes me think that I should buy a Nokton ƒ1.5 or Planar ƒ2 if I want to use a 50mm lens for general use. However, that's expensive and obviously I don't want to do that. Any advice anyone can give would be welcome! I plan to use my C Sonnar on my M4 a lot, where I don't have the benefit of my 240's live view. it seems like it was made to be used at close distances, from wide open to 2.8. Would you agree?
Please do, share your own experiences and tips and tricks. I don't want this thread to be like the other surveys or reviews, I just want practical knowledge from people who want to make the C Sonnar sing.
My name is Mark and I love the C Sonnar.
My reasons for this are:
1. 2 commonly optimized versions of the C Sonnar (1.5/2.8) require 2 different shooting techniques.
2. Getting around the shift requires a lot of experience and it's helpful to have a starting point.
3. C Sonnars are often traded because people have a tough time figuring them out. But when well handled they give any 50mm a run for it's money.
So here are my observations from 3-4 months of use of a 1.5 optimized version Now keep in mind I bought mine new, this year at B&H Photo (during the rebates) and it is 1.5 optimized from the factory. This tells me that either Zeiss has started shipping them this way, or there is some kind of sample variation. ANYWAY.
To focus at ƒ2, at close distances, I must set the focus in the RF about 1mm past "even", and about 2mm past "even" for ƒ2.8.
Focusing at f4 is more of a challenge at almost any distance. If anyone can advise me here I'd love to know. If something is 20-30 feet away, I completely blow the focus, the shift is that bad. It seems like I have to stop down to ƒ8 to trust the RF at long distances. This makes me think that I should buy a Nokton ƒ1.5 or Planar ƒ2 if I want to use a 50mm lens for general use. However, that's expensive and obviously I don't want to do that. Any advice anyone can give would be welcome! I plan to use my C Sonnar on my M4 a lot, where I don't have the benefit of my 240's live view. it seems like it was made to be used at close distances, from wide open to 2.8. Would you agree?
Please do, share your own experiences and tips and tricks. I don't want this thread to be like the other surveys or reviews, I just want practical knowledge from people who want to make the C Sonnar sing.
My name is Mark and I love the C Sonnar.
fad gadget
Established
Hi Mark,
I had a c-sonnar for just over a year, mine was optimized for f2.8
I found I had to lean in about an inch to obtain focus wide open, f2 slightly less.
At f4 and above, the lens had no focus issues at all, or any that I noticed.
I only found this a problem on my M240/246, when shooting film there was no issues at all.
I would shoot a roll and have a look.
cheers/ken.
I had a c-sonnar for just over a year, mine was optimized for f2.8
I found I had to lean in about an inch to obtain focus wide open, f2 slightly less.
At f4 and above, the lens had no focus issues at all, or any that I noticed.
I only found this a problem on my M240/246, when shooting film there was no issues at all.
I would shoot a roll and have a look.
cheers/ken.
Daryl J.
Well-known
I bought my C Sonnar used from KEH about 3 months ago. It's attached to a Leica M4 that Youxin Ye CLA'ed for me early in 2016.
I love the results!
Rolls of film: 6 36exp
Number of photos with focus problems: 1 and that could be me moving.
Optimized at: Unknown
Lighting used: low light building interior to full sun and everything in between.
Presuming my lens is optimized at F2.8 and my subject is 5 feet away, do I correctly presume I have to lean in about a centimeter at F1.5? And lean back about the same at F4?
I love the results!
Rolls of film: 6 36exp
Number of photos with focus problems: 1 and that could be me moving.
Optimized at: Unknown
Lighting used: low light building interior to full sun and everything in between.
Presuming my lens is optimized at F2.8 and my subject is 5 feet away, do I correctly presume I have to lean in about a centimeter at F1.5? And lean back about the same at F4?
Last edited:
MCTuomey
Veteran
Same as Ken here, slight bow to subject shooting my f/2.8 optimized version wide open produced high ratio of in-focus shots. No issues focussing at f/4. No experience with f/1.5 optimized version.
Daryl, my experience is that I only had to lean in when shooting wide open with an f/2.8 optimized version. No lean back needed at f/4.
Daryl, my experience is that I only had to lean in when shooting wide open with an f/2.8 optimized version. No lean back needed at f/4.
Pioneer
Veteran
This one was taken at f2. It was taken at a birthday dinner inside the restaurant. Lighting wasn't terrible but it was around EV7 or 6.
I had it optimized for 1.5 quite awhile back and love it. I use it at 1.5 or 2, and if I am going to close it down I move past 2.8 and 4 right to 5.6 or 8 and it works perfectly. I have lots of 50mm lenses I like but this is certainly my go to in low light scenarios but it is also a very sharp lens when closed down.
In fact, once I learned how best to use the ZM Sonnar I sold my CV Nokton 50/1.1. Really had no use for it any longer.
I had it optimized for 1.5 quite awhile back and love it. I use it at 1.5 or 2, and if I am going to close it down I move past 2.8 and 4 right to 5.6 or 8 and it works perfectly. I have lots of 50mm lenses I like but this is certainly my go to in low light scenarios but it is also a very sharp lens when closed down.
In fact, once I learned how best to use the ZM Sonnar I sold my CV Nokton 50/1.1. Really had no use for it any longer.
Richard G
Veteran
What do you mean by "even"?
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
LOVE that Photo Pioneer , just Grand !
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
My favourite lens by some margin. I shoot wide open a lot so mine was optomised for f1.5 by Cosina in Japan when I bought it. I'm fortunate that when it's really critical to get accurate focus I can use my EVF and rely on focus peaking for accuracy. With portraits at minimum distance it's one tricky optic but when you get it right the results are breath taking.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
A simple test with a receding plane tells you all you need to know about your own lens: how far to lean forwards/backwards at the minimum focusing distance and a given aperture. It soon becomes second nature. Sod re-setting the focus against an index! See http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps firstlook sonnar 50.html about 1/23 of the way through.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
ferider
Veteran
On M2 and M3 you can use the DOF markers in the viewfinder to predict the shift.
Then again, I used it for a while, and dealing with the strong shift in combination with the cosine effect didn't become second nature for me. Then CV released 50/1.1 and 50/1.5 VM Noktons, and I didn't feel the need for the Sonnar anymore. I use Leicas to have fun, so I got rid of the C-Sonnar. Both CV lenses are way easier to use, and the aspherical 1.5 is smooth as butter, and has closer min. focus.
YMMV, of course, and choice is a good thing.
Then again, I used it for a while, and dealing with the strong shift in combination with the cosine effect didn't become second nature for me. Then CV released 50/1.1 and 50/1.5 VM Noktons, and I didn't feel the need for the Sonnar anymore. I use Leicas to have fun, so I got rid of the C-Sonnar. Both CV lenses are way easier to use, and the aspherical 1.5 is smooth as butter, and has closer min. focus.
YMMV, of course, and choice is a good thing.
raid
Dad Photographer
I never got to try out the C Sonnar, but I eventually bought CV 50/1.5 ltm and then CV 50/1.1. I prefer the 50/1.5 over the 50/1.1 for its weight. Both lenses are superb optically, and both lenses are very reasonably priced.
SaveKodak
Well-known
I find that it just makes me 2nd guess a lot. But I think like another commenter mentioned I might just used this lens from 1.5-2.8 & then 5.6 and down.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
It's not a guess. It's a simple technique, easily learned from a single test. Focus shift doesn't arbitrarily reverse direction. Did you read what I wrote?
The significant shift is between f/1.5 and f/2.8. After that, DoF pretty much takes up the slack, and leaning forwards or backwards a little removes it in any case.
I learned this trick (and borrowed the explanation) from Dr. Nasse of Zeiss. It works!
Cheers,
R.
Pioneer
Veteran
If you are shooting digital, and want technically perfect focus each time, then conduct the tests suggested by Roger. They do work and they are not that tough to do.
If you look very closely at some of the photos I post that were taken wide open with just about any lens, including the C Sonnar, you will realize that I am a "close enough" kind of guy. If I have focused close enough that I can clearly see the glint in someone's eye than that is close enough. I am not going to get to worried if the eyelash is a bit sharper.
Next, I use film most of the time. While a digital sensor is far more unforgiving with exact focus, film does allow for a bit of a fudge factor. Not much, but enough that the C Sonnar is a better lens (for me) on film than digital.
When I am shooting close and wide open, I am quite often looking for a very nice bokeh to wash out the background. Those same abberations in the Sonnar design that result in some focus shift also strongly influence that beautiful bokeh and, under the right lighting, a very slight glow.
The C Sonnar is a extremely good lens when it is stopped down to around f5.6 or more.
I really enjoy this lens, but I have also learned to accept a small amount of imperfection for a large amount of atmosphere. Besides, I shake enough that any lens has the potential to experience some focus shift in my hands. My "lean" forward or backwards happens pretty much without my control unless I am well braced.
My advice is to test the lens as suggested by Roger and then go practice, a lot. Enjoy that C Sonnar for what it is. A slightly imperfect lens. And then be amazed that a modern lens company was willing to take a chance and produce it for you and I.
EDIT - Besides, when I'm shooting low light portraits I shoot a lot of frames. Frequently an entire roll. Not only do I move uncontrollably but my subjects do as well.
If you look very closely at some of the photos I post that were taken wide open with just about any lens, including the C Sonnar, you will realize that I am a "close enough" kind of guy. If I have focused close enough that I can clearly see the glint in someone's eye than that is close enough. I am not going to get to worried if the eyelash is a bit sharper.
Next, I use film most of the time. While a digital sensor is far more unforgiving with exact focus, film does allow for a bit of a fudge factor. Not much, but enough that the C Sonnar is a better lens (for me) on film than digital.
When I am shooting close and wide open, I am quite often looking for a very nice bokeh to wash out the background. Those same abberations in the Sonnar design that result in some focus shift also strongly influence that beautiful bokeh and, under the right lighting, a very slight glow.
The C Sonnar is a extremely good lens when it is stopped down to around f5.6 or more.
I really enjoy this lens, but I have also learned to accept a small amount of imperfection for a large amount of atmosphere. Besides, I shake enough that any lens has the potential to experience some focus shift in my hands. My "lean" forward or backwards happens pretty much without my control unless I am well braced.
My advice is to test the lens as suggested by Roger and then go practice, a lot. Enjoy that C Sonnar for what it is. A slightly imperfect lens. And then be amazed that a modern lens company was willing to take a chance and produce it for you and I.
EDIT - Besides, when I'm shooting low light portraits I shoot a lot of frames. Frequently an entire roll. Not only do I move uncontrollably but my subjects do as well.
mfogiel
Veteran
@Save Kodak
Just look through this:http://www.rangefinderforum.com/for...ighlight=comparative+two+versions+of+c+sonnar
Just look through this:http://www.rangefinderforum.com/for...ighlight=comparative+two+versions+of+c+sonnar
anerjee
Well-known
Zeiss also told me that any optimisation on the focusing characteristics of this lens is best done with a specific camera.
I had to send in my Zeiss Ikon + C-Sonnar to get it optimised wide open. Now it works brilliantly on the Zeiss Ikon, but not so good on the Leica M240 I recently bought. For the M240, I have to lean in a bit to compensate.
It is still worth, because as someone said, the results can be astonishing when you do nail the focus (or even do so approximately well).
I had to send in my Zeiss Ikon + C-Sonnar to get it optimised wide open. Now it works brilliantly on the Zeiss Ikon, but not so good on the Leica M240 I recently bought. For the M240, I have to lean in a bit to compensate.
It is still worth, because as someone said, the results can be astonishing when you do nail the focus (or even do so approximately well).
Mine was originally an f/2.8 optimized one, and I used the 'lean in' technique close-in and wide open... which is actually quite a rare usage for me, so no inconvenience. Worked great in general, and it was only in that one kind of circumstance that the technique was called for.
Then I sent the lens off to DAG for 6-bit coding and also asked him to see what he could do to improve the focusing. It came back optimized for about f/2.2 according to my testing, and since then I just don't bother with any leaning in or out, just shoot without regard to focus shift... No problem, no fuss, no muss! Like with Dan, close enough.
Then I sent the lens off to DAG for 6-bit coding and also asked him to see what he could do to improve the focusing. It came back optimized for about f/2.2 according to my testing, and since then I just don't bother with any leaning in or out, just shoot without regard to focus shift... No problem, no fuss, no muss! Like with Dan, close enough.
Daryl J.
Well-known
Atmosphere.
If there were a one-word description of this lens, that's the one.
And it has atmosphere by the buckets full.
Today I received another couple rolls processed and printed using this lens. Zero focus issues and I go straight off the rangefinder patch on my M4.
If there were a one-word description of this lens, that's the one.
And it has atmosphere by the buckets full.
Today I received another couple rolls processed and printed using this lens. Zero focus issues and I go straight off the rangefinder patch on my M4.
