cam
the need for speed
thank you, Tom. i've done a lot of looking and even tried out the lens briefly and did note the focus shift (before i or the salesperson knew it was there). i loved the way it rendered and handled but was baffled by the focus... i ended up walking out with a v.2 pre-asph Lux and love it to death. but i was haunted by the Noctilux i got to play with it and there's something similar i see in the Sonnar. there's a chalk and charcoal type rendering in b/w that thrills me!
Tim -- my Lux isn't leaving me, trust me! it focuses brilliantly. i just want a different look sometimes and the special draw of the Zeiss has lured me. i will learn this lens!
Tim -- my Lux isn't leaving me, trust me! it focuses brilliantly. i just want a different look sometimes and the special draw of the Zeiss has lured me. i will learn this lens!
Last edited:
jsuominen
Well-known
I agree with Tom. I have a S-mount version of modern C-Sonnar 50/1.5. I got tired of speculating about potential focus-shift and optimized issues. I haven't noticed it in real-life situations, only in some test-chart shots, but even then it might have been my own focus error.
My real-life sample shots are here, if you're interested:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jsuominen/sets/72157605702114555/show/
lewis44
Well-known
I have the M Mount C-Sonnar, optimized for 2.8. I just picked up an M8 and found that it was the only lens I have that did not need adjustment to focus properly on that camera. (just sent my other lenses to DAG)
The images are wonderful from 2.8 on and even better from 5.6. Very sharp and right on, focus wise. Lot's of sample images out there to look at that are outstanding. Quite flare resistant as well.
As for 1.5 to 2, not a big deal if you learn your focus points in that range.
All I can say is "I Love It"
People make to much of the focus shift issue. It's well worth the little extra thinking you have to do to shoot wide open, at least in my humble opinion.
The images are wonderful from 2.8 on and even better from 5.6. Very sharp and right on, focus wise. Lot's of sample images out there to look at that are outstanding. Quite flare resistant as well.
As for 1.5 to 2, not a big deal if you learn your focus points in that range.
All I can say is "I Love It"
People make to much of the focus shift issue. It's well worth the little extra thinking you have to do to shoot wide open, at least in my humble opinion.
Ced777
Member
I have a Sonnar since a few months... I had one optimized for f/2.8 (I think).
I used it only on films, not digital...
No problem with focus shift, on any photograph... even @1.5 and pretty close focus range! Don't know if films are less picky than digital...
Here is an example @1.5
Another one @2.8
Another, I think it was f1.5 or f2
I used it only on films, not digital...
No problem with focus shift, on any photograph... even @1.5 and pretty close focus range! Don't know if films are less picky than digital...
Here is an example @1.5
Another one @2.8
Another, I think it was f1.5 or f2
Last edited:
cam
the need for speed
thank you all -- for your excellent examples and thoughts. i bit the bullet and bought the lens but now have to wait, impatiently, to receive it :bang: i really appreciate you pushing me over the edge.
and apologies to TJV for hijacking his thread.
and apologies to TJV for hijacking his thread.
willie_901
Veteran
Keep in mind that the DOF at f 1.5 may be very very thin compared to other lenses at 1.4/1.5. If you believe this guy – http://www.zeisscamera.com/articles_zmsonnar.shtml – the Sonnar design has a non-existant DOF at f 1.5 (ignore the stuff about the Contax vs. Nikon S mount and read what he has to say about the C-Sonar's characteristics in general).
After reading all the threads here on the focus shift (which is really a DOF shift), I infer that some rangefinder focus cams are just don't work well with this lens. With my Zeiss Ikon body I really haven't observed a significant focus shift. But that is just a theory.
Anyway, the reason to buy this lens is for how it draws and its lovely out-of-focus rendering. It's color rendition wider than f 4 is also unique.
The one on the right was at 1.5 and the one on the left is a close up (for me with a RF anyway) at 5.6 (or perhaps f 8). I think these examples show the two different personalities of the C-Sonnar.
Enjoy your new lens.
After reading all the threads here on the focus shift (which is really a DOF shift), I infer that some rangefinder focus cams are just don't work well with this lens. With my Zeiss Ikon body I really haven't observed a significant focus shift. But that is just a theory.
Anyway, the reason to buy this lens is for how it draws and its lovely out-of-focus rendering. It's color rendition wider than f 4 is also unique.
The one on the right was at 1.5 and the one on the left is a close up (for me with a RF anyway) at 5.6 (or perhaps f 8). I think these examples show the two different personalities of the C-Sonnar.
Enjoy your new lens.
Attachments
Last edited:
TJV
Well-known
No worries, Cam. It's all relevant info for me too.
As for what I want or need, I'm digging around for a fast 50mm to use as an all around option. I've got the latest Summicron 50mm but I would really appreciate the extra stop. I love the Summicron, can't fault it at all, I just shoot in low light often and am living in the dark ages of film still so can't really change ISO's on the fly.
I am very impressed with the Flickr user SalmonPink's images taken with the C Sonnar. They look beautiful, although the subjects, compositions and vision would have been well served with any 50mm lens. For the most part, they are very good photos.
I tried a Pre ASPH lux V2 the other day and didn't get the results from it I expected. Perhaps it comes down to sample variation but it was very muddy and the long focus throw wasn't to my taste. All in all it was a very good lens but seeing as I was going to trade my Summicron for it, and wide open the Summilux wasn't as I'd expected, I thought it best to stick to what I know. The Sonnar is a different kettle of fish, of course, but I like the look of most I see. I just wish I could test one out before buying.
As for what I want or need, I'm digging around for a fast 50mm to use as an all around option. I've got the latest Summicron 50mm but I would really appreciate the extra stop. I love the Summicron, can't fault it at all, I just shoot in low light often and am living in the dark ages of film still so can't really change ISO's on the fly.
I am very impressed with the Flickr user SalmonPink's images taken with the C Sonnar. They look beautiful, although the subjects, compositions and vision would have been well served with any 50mm lens. For the most part, they are very good photos.
I tried a Pre ASPH lux V2 the other day and didn't get the results from it I expected. Perhaps it comes down to sample variation but it was very muddy and the long focus throw wasn't to my taste. All in all it was a very good lens but seeing as I was going to trade my Summicron for it, and wide open the Summilux wasn't as I'd expected, I thought it best to stick to what I know. The Sonnar is a different kettle of fish, of course, but I like the look of most I see. I just wish I could test one out before buying.
TJV
Well-known
I sent an email to Zeiss asking if the focus shift forward still when increasing camera to subject distance. This is the reply I got. I know it's all been said before but it's great they took the time to even reply, and within 12 hours!
"Thanks for your request and your interest in our products.
If the C Sonnar T* 1,5/50 ZM is calibrated to minimize focus shift at f/1.5, there is no visible focus shift at f/1.5. Stopped down, the resulting focus shift will be covered by the increase of the depth-of-field.
Because of the unavoidable tolerances of camera and lens (roll position, differences in flange focal distances of camera and lens, rangefinder alignment) and the limited abilities of the human eye, it is not possible to define a certain amount of focus shift without knowing all parameters of camera and lens.
If the C-Sonnar T* 1,5/50 ZM should be mainly used for flat objects at full aperture, we would recommend to adjust it to minimize focus shift at f/1.5.
Best Regards"
"Thanks for your request and your interest in our products.
If the C Sonnar T* 1,5/50 ZM is calibrated to minimize focus shift at f/1.5, there is no visible focus shift at f/1.5. Stopped down, the resulting focus shift will be covered by the increase of the depth-of-field.
Because of the unavoidable tolerances of camera and lens (roll position, differences in flange focal distances of camera and lens, rangefinder alignment) and the limited abilities of the human eye, it is not possible to define a certain amount of focus shift without knowing all parameters of camera and lens.
If the C-Sonnar T* 1,5/50 ZM should be mainly used for flat objects at full aperture, we would recommend to adjust it to minimize focus shift at f/1.5.
Best Regards"
cam
the need for speed
TJV -- huge differences (unfortunately) in the pre-asph v.2 -- which is why i snapped mine up. i think the v.3 is much more consistent. although i much prefer the beautiful look of film (sigh), the one good thing about digital is that i can tweak things like contrast and have tended to go towards lenses that offer more headroom in tones (which may equate to s muddy look on film).
the little i played with the Sonnar showed much more contrast and perceived sharpness. i found nothing muddy about it! SalmonPinks work is astonishing and you're right -- any lens would do. but would it be the same??? no. he's working on the strength (and weaknesses) of the lens (and, it seems, the focus shift issues are much less on film, btw, so you're very lucky).
i was initially recommended the Sonnar by a gentleman with a huge amount of experience who owned several lens. he got it in a swap -- did not really want it -- and fell in love with it. he was ready to give up his Cron after he realised this was the one he was using all the time, his all around option. i am planning (hoping) that this will be mine.
i wish i could give you proper advice on other fast lenses, but i am a relative newbee... and, i agree with you, it's frustrating not to be able to try. (worse, though, is being able to try and not be able to afford
sigh. i still dream of the Nocti! )
the little i played with the Sonnar showed much more contrast and perceived sharpness. i found nothing muddy about it! SalmonPinks work is astonishing and you're right -- any lens would do. but would it be the same??? no. he's working on the strength (and weaknesses) of the lens (and, it seems, the focus shift issues are much less on film, btw, so you're very lucky).
i was initially recommended the Sonnar by a gentleman with a huge amount of experience who owned several lens. he got it in a swap -- did not really want it -- and fell in love with it. he was ready to give up his Cron after he realised this was the one he was using all the time, his all around option. i am planning (hoping) that this will be mine.
i wish i could give you proper advice on other fast lenses, but i am a relative newbee... and, i agree with you, it's frustrating not to be able to try. (worse, though, is being able to try and not be able to afford
sigh. i still dream of the Nocti! )TJV
Well-known
Yeah, I'd love a Nocti too. Funny thing is that's another lens with an over hyped focus shifting problem! Makes me think it's just a pixel peeping craze, like some kind of virus on the lens world that makes people obsess over "the ultimate sharpness."
I'm heartened by what Zeiss replied to me and give them great credit for even bothering to answer my question - I'm not a dealer and would only ever buy one unit, after all. I've only ever had bad service from Leica, which is my main point of comparison.
However, I'm with you. I'm probably in the "can't really afford it now" camp.
I'm heartened by what Zeiss replied to me and give them great credit for even bothering to answer my question - I'm not a dealer and would only ever buy one unit, after all. I've only ever had bad service from Leica, which is my main point of comparison.
However, I'm with you. I'm probably in the "can't really afford it now" camp.
TJV -- huge differences (unfortunately) in the pre-asph v.2 -- which is why i snapped mine up. i think the v.3 is much more consistent. although i much prefer the beautiful look of film (sigh), the one good thing about digital is that i can tweak things like contrast and have tended to go towards lenses that offer more headroom in tones (which may equate to s muddy look on film).
the little i played with the Sonnar showed much more contrast and perceived sharpness. i found nothing muddy about it! SalmonPinks work is astonishing and you're right -- any lens would do. but would it be the same??? no. he's working on the strength (and weaknesses) of the lens (and, it seems, the focus shift issues are much less on film, btw, so you're very lucky).
i was initially recommended the Sonnar by a gentleman with a huge amount of experience who owned several lens. he got it in a swap -- did not really want it -- and fell in love with it. he was ready to give up his Cron after he realised this was the one he was using all the time, his all around option. i am planning (hoping) that this will be mine.
i wish i could give you proper advice on other fast lenses, but i am a relative newbee... and, i agree with you, it's frustrating not to be able to try. (worse, though, is being able to try and not be able to afford
Sonnar2
Well-known
I just have one Nikkor-S 50/1.4. It's more than 50 years old and delivers correctly focussed pictures close focus at f/16, f/2.8, f/2.0 and even at f/1.4
For a new lens labeled CARL ZEISS I would expect the same behavior.
Would you say this is too much expectation? Do I need to buy three lenses of this kind to achieve this?
To me the answer what to do with such a lens is very simple: return it to Zeiss.
Last edited:
mfogiel
Veteran
Nobody who has used the C Sonnar extensively will ever argue that it is a lens without focusing problems, however, as I have already written in another thread, the only real problem of this lens has been incorrect marketing on the part of C. ZEISS. If Leica ever made a lens like this, they would have marketed it as the 7th wonder of optics, called it Extralux, would have sold it à la carte optimized for whichever stop you would pay for, and charged USD 5000 for it, to the popular acclaim of the Leica connoisseurs... It would become an instant legend and status symbol and we would see interviews with the ghost of HCB who would praise this lens for the ultimate capacity of showing the human soul on film...
kshapero
South Florida Man
I have owned the lens for about 16 months. I just shoot and I and others love the results. I ditto the above comments or I am just too stupid to know the difference.
cam
the need for speed
i was just going through a group of photos i took at night with the Lux (i really need to get out more) and realised i preferred many of the less than perfectly focused shots. something about them expressed the night, the mood, better. i think i'm really going to love this lens!
Sonnar2
Well-known
No, they just brought the lens to the market without having noticed the problem. THAT was the fault.
They told the world how superb the lens is and compared it even with the best 50mm lenses around like the ASPH.-SUMMILUX 50/1.4. They also told sceptical people that a cemented triple prior to the diaphragm is no more needed due to modern technology (and cut costs too, because obviously, a cemented triplet is more expensive than two isolated elements). The old Sonnar designed by
Ludwig Bertele, with two cemented triplets, isn't known for focus shift. Ironically, again a privat person, not Zeiss, founds out than even Bertele had done experiments without the front triplet, and canceled them.
Bells ringing??
nzeeman
Well-known
No, they just brought the lens to the market without having noticed the problem. THAT was the fault.
They told the world how superb the lens is and compared it even with the best 50mm lenses around like the ASPH.-SUMMILUX 50/1.4. They also told sceptical people that a cemented triple prior to the diaphragm is no more needed due to modern technology (and cut costs too, because obviously, a cemented triplet is more expensive than two isolated elements). The old Sonnar designed by
Ludwig Bertele, with two cemented triplets, isn't known for focus shift. Ironically, again a privat person, not Zeiss, founds out than even Bertele had done experiments without the front triplet, and canceled them.
Bells ringing??
that can be right. russian also thought about jupiter 17 with air element, but it never saw light of day in ltm...
awilder
Alan Wilder
My take on the f/2.8 optimzed C-Sonnar is slighty different. Yes, without a doubt there is a built in front focus shift due to it's undercorrected spherical aberration. However, this is not a very significant issue IF AND ONLY IF the rf calibration of the body-lens combination is spot on. When I owned one, I made sure the rf coupling accuracy gave very accurate focus by insuring the lens did not cause the rf patch focus past infinity with a long distant target (>3/4 mile). For those very concerned about focus shift, rf error that causes the rf patch to just fall short of exact coincidence at infinity is also acceptable as this causes a slight back focus of the image, thus mitigating the lens' tendency to front focus. Conversly, focus past infinity only aggravates front focus shift.
Last edited:
mfogiel
Veteran
Sonnar2,
Haha, do you REALLY think Zeiss does not know how their lens performs? I saw some correspondence between Zeiss and Lloyd Chambers (www.diglloyd.com) about their latest Distagon 18mm ZF, you can be sure they knew what they produced. If you will find satisfaction from the following statement: "The C Sonnar has serious focus shift problems, and therefore is not a universal reporter type of lens" then be it. In my opinion this lens has been PRECISELY made this way, because the way it renders is making it unique, even among the old Sonnars. I have the 150,180 and 250 Hasselblad Sonnars, and they are certainly not prone to focus shift or else... but they do not render the reality anywhere near the C Sonnar 50 ZM. The whole misunderstanding is at the level of what YOU think the C Sonnar ought to be... The C Sonnar is simply a lens in a class of its own, and it can be a wonderful tool for certain applications. When I need a different look, I use the Planar or DR Summicron, but I do not pretend the Planar to have the bokeh or the roundness of the C Sonnar, or the DR Summicron to be as sharp or flare resistant as the Planar - horses for courses...
Haha, do you REALLY think Zeiss does not know how their lens performs? I saw some correspondence between Zeiss and Lloyd Chambers (www.diglloyd.com) about their latest Distagon 18mm ZF, you can be sure they knew what they produced. If you will find satisfaction from the following statement: "The C Sonnar has serious focus shift problems, and therefore is not a universal reporter type of lens" then be it. In my opinion this lens has been PRECISELY made this way, because the way it renders is making it unique, even among the old Sonnars. I have the 150,180 and 250 Hasselblad Sonnars, and they are certainly not prone to focus shift or else... but they do not render the reality anywhere near the C Sonnar 50 ZM. The whole misunderstanding is at the level of what YOU think the C Sonnar ought to be... The C Sonnar is simply a lens in a class of its own, and it can be a wonderful tool for certain applications. When I need a different look, I use the Planar or DR Summicron, but I do not pretend the Planar to have the bokeh or the roundness of the C Sonnar, or the DR Summicron to be as sharp or flare resistant as the Planar - horses for courses...
awilder
Alan Wilder
Mfogiel is spot on the point. I'm sure it's tolerances are fairly tight. As was mention by Zeiss in an earlier post, there are other contributory factors like rf calibration and film curl that if going in the "wrong" direction, will make the focus shift appear worse.
jsuominen
Well-known
But it was an interesting claim on that article, that the limited edition lens is actually made for C-mount and not S-mount. I can't believe it's true, but maybe I'll put it on my Contax IIa and compare the results with same lens on my Nikon S2...