Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Jari, I already did that and it works fine on the IIa! Though I would like some pastry shots from you with it.
Sonnar2
Well-known
This is just what they telling NOW about this lens, I know it and I know how long it is published ...After beeing HIT on it by the public. Maybe they look a bit more careful what they bring out NOW. I hope so...
The rest of the statement is just marketing blah-blah. Nothing mystical on that lens. Of course, it can be usefull to have a Sonnar type lens with modern multicoating, since all manufacturers of the Classical 50/1.5 or -1.4 Sonnar ceased production 40 years ago, and the designs are even older. But, AFAIK, the ZM-Sonnar hasn't proved to be superior to the older designs, or as you prefer to say, "a class of it's own". Maybe it is at longer distances. But any lens with a focus shift as far as some pictures shown, is next to useless close focus and wide open. Except one has, like you, three of that kind.
I've had the ZM C-SONNAR for a while and made about five rolls with it, on the ZI, my Bessa-R3M and against the Classic-Heliar 50/2. To be honest, in terms of sharpness and contrast both lenses are great, there is no visible difference. Sorry I wasn't the man who detects the focus shift issue because I haven't made any close distance shots with it wide open. But in the meantime I know that the Classic-HELIAR has NO focus shift at all...
Focus shift is the worst thing to happen with any RF lens, and for an SLR lens (except the old timers with no automatic diaphragm), because 1) it can't be foreseen by the photograph, and 2) it can't be corrected. The idea to "recalibrate" is a crutch: If you do it, you get sharp pictures at f/1.5 close focus, but unsharp pictures at any other conditions. This is just the nature of this bad optical error; it can't be "corrected" if present.
Look at any cheapo SLR zoom lens. They are all free of focus shift, and they need to be free of it at ALL focal lengths. Not an easy task for an optical designer. If he fails, it would be impossible to auto focus the lens wide open, then automatically stop down to working aperture.
Amazing that someone accepts that on an expensive lens and still call it "hightech"...
Last edited:
photovdz
Well-known
the ghost of HCB would say... I used a sonnar for most of my 1945-1955 period...
(and adapting a original sonnar on a leica is not the easiest thing... the adaption has to compensate for the variation of focal length since an original sonnar is not a 50mm but more 53mm ... and for the focus shift...)
by the way what is the actual focal length of the various versions of the modern sonnar 50 ?
I personnaly use a 1935 sonnar 1,5 version on my bessa R2C... makes wonderfull black and white vintage pictures...
stephan
(and adapting a original sonnar on a leica is not the easiest thing... the adaption has to compensate for the variation of focal length since an original sonnar is not a 50mm but more 53mm ... and for the focus shift...)
by the way what is the actual focal length of the various versions of the modern sonnar 50 ?
I personnaly use a 1935 sonnar 1,5 version on my bessa R2C... makes wonderfull black and white vintage pictures...
stephan
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
My approach to something like this is _get the lens, shoot with it - find out what it does best- and use it for that!
I have both the Zm C Sonnar 50f1.5 and the SC mount 50f1.5 and I like them. yes, if I want absolute sharpness at f1.4/1.5 I go for the Summilux 50f1.4 Asph or the Nokton 50f1.5. If I want a smoother image - I go for the Sonnars! Neither the Summilux nor the Nokton are "smooth" - they have bit of a "harsh" signature to them.
I have shot 100's of rolls with the ZM C Sonnar and I cant say that I have had a picture that was not to my satisfaction due to focus shift in the lens - mostly it has been because, shooting at f1.5 it is mainly in low light and the act of inhaling/exhaling will shift focus as you move!
The SC Sonnar has not had as many rolls through it yet, maybe 30-40 rolls in total, but my experience is similar to that of the C-Sonnar.
Of course. I could put it on a tripod and shoot resolution charts or brick walls etc, but how boring is that!
I have both the Zm C Sonnar 50f1.5 and the SC mount 50f1.5 and I like them. yes, if I want absolute sharpness at f1.4/1.5 I go for the Summilux 50f1.4 Asph or the Nokton 50f1.5. If I want a smoother image - I go for the Sonnars! Neither the Summilux nor the Nokton are "smooth" - they have bit of a "harsh" signature to them.
I have shot 100's of rolls with the ZM C Sonnar and I cant say that I have had a picture that was not to my satisfaction due to focus shift in the lens - mostly it has been because, shooting at f1.5 it is mainly in low light and the act of inhaling/exhaling will shift focus as you move!
The SC Sonnar has not had as many rolls through it yet, maybe 30-40 rolls in total, but my experience is similar to that of the C-Sonnar.
Of course. I could put it on a tripod and shoot resolution charts or brick walls etc, but how boring is that!
TJV
Well-known
It seems it would suit me best to have a lens calibrated at f1.5, which I think is all the new ones coming out of the factory now. Also, I can only really go by what the factory has told me via the email and the tests contained somewhere on these pages.
I'm very tempted to get one from Tony Rose, but I'll hang on to my credit card a moment longer. One must not rush these things!
Out of interest, how much more or less does the Noctilux supposedly shift under the same conditions? I bet it's pretty similar.
I'm very tempted to get one from Tony Rose, but I'll hang on to my credit card a moment longer. One must not rush these things!
Out of interest, how much more or less does the Noctilux supposedly shift under the same conditions? I bet it's pretty similar.
Dan States
Established
This is just what they telling NOW about this lens, I know it and I know how long it is published ...After beeing HIT on it by the public. Maybe they look a bit more careful what they bring out NOW. I hope so...
The rest of the statement is just marketing blah-blah. Nothing mystical on that lens. Of course, it can be usefull to have a Sonnar type lens with modern multicoating, since all manufacturers of the Classical 50/1.5 or -1.4 Sonnar ceased production 40 years ago, and the designs are even older. But, AFAIK, the ZM-Sonnar hasn't proved to be superior to the older designs, or as you prefer to say, "a class of it's own". Maybe it is at longer distances. But any lens with a focus shift as far as some pictures shown, is next to useless close focus and wide open. Except one has, like you, three of that kind.
I've had the ZM C-SONNAR for a while and made about five rolls with it, on the ZI, my Bessa-R3M and against the Classic-Heliar 50/2. To be honest, in terms of sharpness and contrast both lenses are great, there is no visible difference. Sorry I wasn't the man who detects the focus shift issue because I haven't made any close distance shots with it wide open. But in the meantime I know that the Classic-HELIAR has NO focus shift at all...
Focus shift is the worst thing to happen with any RF lens, and for an SLR lens (except the old timers with no automatic diaphragm), because 1) it can't be foreseen by the photograph, and 2) it can't be corrected. The idea to "recalibrate" is a crutch: If you do it, you get sharp pictures at f/1.5 close focus, but unsharp pictures at any other conditions. This is just the nature of this bad optical error; it can't be "corrected" if present.
Look at any cheapo SLR zoom lens. They are all free of focus shift, and they need to be free of it at ALL focal lengths. Not an easy task for an optical designer. If he fails, it would be impossible to auto focus the lens wide open, then automatically stop down to working aperture.
Amazing that someone accepts that on an expensive lens and still call it "hightech"...
Actually many of Nikons AFS lenses have strong focus shift. Both my 17-35 F2.8 AND 17-55 F2.8 shift focus. It's not as certain on those lenses because they have such mild maximum apertures.
I'm one of the original complainers about the Sonnar shift and I took a beating on this forum every time I posted an image that illustrated the phenomenon. I was also soundly blasted when I posted images from old Sonnars indicating they had NO notable shift.
All this said, a properly adjusted Sonnar ZM is an amazing lens. It is quite flare free and handles much better than the old Sonnars. In direct comparison I'd say the new ZM shares many of the qualities of the old ones, but is generally one stop ahead in performance. That is, the ZM looks as good at 1.5 as the old Sonnar did at F2.
Get one optimized for 1.5 and don't look back.
Best wishes
Dan
ferider
Veteran
Here you go, an ugly self portrait:
And regarding HCB, he might have known how to use the DOF marks in his M3 viewfinder - they are there for a purpose
Roland.
awilder
Alan Wilder
Here are some sample test shot comparisons of a centrally cropped distance shot with the C-Sonnar at f/1.5 and f/2. I've also included a current 50 Summicron at f/2 for comparison. The effect of undercorrected spherical aberration (focus shift) will slightly soften details since overlapping rays from the lens periphery are not focused at the same point as more centrally located rays. While the difference in detail of the high contrast brickwork between the Sonnar and Summicron is only slight, the image difference in the low contrast shrubs reveals a bit more detail with the Summicron. I suspect a ZM Planar would behave the same as the Summicron.
Attachments
Last edited:
Ced777
Member
I've had the ZM C-SONNAR for a while and made about five rolls with it, on the ZI, my Bessa-R3M and against the Classic-Heliar 50/2. To be honest, in terms of sharpness and contrast both lenses are great, there is no visible difference. Sorry I wasn't the man who detects the focus shift issue because I haven't made any close distance shots with it wide open. But in the meantime I know that the Classic-HELIAR has NO focus shift at all...
(...)
Look at any cheapo SLR zoom lens. They are all free of focus shift, and they need to be free of it at ALL focal lengths. Not an easy task for an optical designer. If he fails, it would be impossible to auto focus the lens wide open, then automatically stop down to working aperture.
Amazing that someone accepts that on an expensive lens and still call it "hightech"...
From what I read, SLR zoom lenses have focus shift, it has been proved. Even pricey ones.
For the Heliar vs Sonnar, one is f2, the other f1.5. If you can live with f2 and collapsible design, sure the Heliar is a good one. Horses for course...
In its category (50/1.5, compactness, smooth but sharp, modern coatings), the Sonnar has no real pretender (and for me it's a plus it has 46mm filter thread). And I repeat myself (as Tom): I never had a photgraphs ruined by a shift focus issue! I will confirm this soon, but I'm pretty sure (99%) it's a 2.8 optimized! (nota: I did not say the problem does not exist... even Zeiss talk about it... but if you don't look for it, I think you don't see it much)
jsuominen
Well-known
Tom, I e-mailed the writer of http://www.zeisscamera.com/articles_zmsonnar.shtml and asked, if he has tested S-mount C-Sonnar 50/1.5 on Nikon rangefinder in close distances.
I know this is a bit OT in ZM forum, but he responded this:
---
"In normal photography I don't think anyone will notice and difference in the pictures if the lens is put onto a Nikon or a Contax. The lens is very forgiving. It is only under very high magnification and upon precise lens measurement machines that the difference can be seen. I've tested the lens on a Contax III and a Contax IIa. I haven't tested in on a Nikon because my business is the Contax."
---
Well, I might do some "testing" with it on Contax IIa at week-end if I have time. Last time, when I put a C-mount lens on S-mount camera, I got very clear focus error in close distance. Examples here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jsuominen/738653625/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jsuominen/740578691/
TJV
Well-known
Now that looks acceptable to me, not a crazy 30cm as above. If this is a f2.8 version shot at f1.5 at around 1m I would never see it probably.
Here you go, an ugly self portrait:
And regarding HCB, he might have known how to use the DOF marks in his M3 viewfinder - they are there for a purpose
Roland.
cam
the need for speed
TJV
Well-known
I'm a bit bummed. I sent an email to the New Zealand distributor of ZM Zeiss lenses to ask if they had a unit I could look at and try before buying. They replied to say they only import to fill pre sold orders and don't keep stock in the country. I'm 75% sure now that the f1.5 calibrated C Sonnar is the lens for me to use alongside my Summicron. I'll just have to save and take a calculated risk, I guess.
ferider
Veteran
cam
the need for speed
subscription only...
how much?
okay, if you go to the home page and slog through, you'll come to an index of the modules (or try my link)
the REVIEWS are free, including the one on the Sonnar.
thank you, Larry!
Last edited:
TJV
Well-known
That review makes it seem a REAL non-issue. Even though the focus test is set up it's enough like a real world situation to judge it to be "way sharp enough" for subjects that aren't rulers. As soon as I can afford the lens, I'll order it from Tony.
Thanks for the link.
Thanks for the link.