CV Nokton 1.5/50 vs Zeiss ZM Sonnar 1.5/50

CV Nokton 1.5/50 vs Zeiss ZM Sonnar 1.5/50

  • CV Nokton 1.5/50

    Votes: 151 41.1%

  • Zeiss ZM Sonnar 1.5/50

    Votes: 216 58.9%
  • Total voters
    367
leicashot said:
Initially they were all made to be optimized at 2.8. For the last year or so, they've all been optimized for 1.5 ON FILM and Zeiss doesn't guarantee that it will work 100% on digital but they will send it to Germany to be optimized if it is off for any reason, free of charge.
Click to expand...

Thanks but optimized for what? Does sharpness decrease at 1.5 when it's not optimized for 1.5? When it's optimized for 1.5, what happens when used at other apertures? Questions over questions.
 
tom.w.bn said:
Thanks but optimized for what? Does sharpness decrease at 1.5 when it's not optimized for 1.5? When it's optimized for 1.5, what happens when used at other apertures? Questions over questions.
Click to expand...

They are talking about focus, which is optimized for f/1.5 because that's where users of this lens use it the most, where the lens's signature is most obvious. As you stop down the lens, it may shift focus somewhat.

If you're buying used there may be variances as some were initially optimized for f/2.8. While many lenses suffer from focus shift, not many/amy manufacturers admit to it and offer to correct it free of charge. While it may sound like a tricky lens, it is, and isn't your all round lens like the Planar, which I suggest buying if you want to shoot at all apertures without compromising.

The Sonnar with it's obvious signature is worth the quirks IMHO and a lens worth having just to shoot wide open. I have the Planar and Noctilux for stopping down if I need to. I also feel the Sonnar is the best built Zeiss (Japanese) lens and has a lovely feel, shape, size and weight to it.
 
leicashot said:
They are talking about focus, which is optimized for f/1.5 because that's where users of this lens use it the most, where the lens's signature is most obvious. As you stop down the lens, it may shift focus somewhat.

If you're buying used there may be variances as some were initially optimized for f/2.8. While many lenses suffer from focus shift, not many/amy manufacturers admit to it and offer to correct it free of charge. While it may sound like a tricky lens, it is, and isn't your all round lens like the Planar, which I suggest buying if you want to shoot at all apertures without compromising.

The Sonnar with it's obvious signature is worth the quirks IMHO and a lens worth having just to shoot wide open. I have the Planar and Noctilux for stopping down if I need to. I also feel the Sonnar is the best built Zeiss (Japanese) lens and has a lovely feel, shape, size and weight to it.
Click to expand...

Well, the focus shift was no mistake, or production problem... Zeiss explains very plainly that THIS lens was "Designed" with a bit of front focus shift to simulate the Zeiss 1934 50mm f/1.5 signature at f/1.5 and f/2... BUT it only shows at 2m and under, and very barely at that (on film). On most digital it is moot, since Live View focusing compensates (not sure on an M8/9 though).

(see my sample a few post up, under 2m and at f/1.5 on Plus-X, 1st set at f/1.5-#2 is under 2m, 2nd post: the 1st image is at f/2, under 2m)

Like others has said. If you want sharp at all f/stops....f/2 Planar Or f/1.5 Nokton
 
Leicashot, how does your Sonnar focus (accuracy) at f1.5 on the M9? Did it neeed to be sent back to germany for tweaking or was it essentually dead on? Thanks.

Dave (D&A)
 
D&A said:
Leicashot, how does your Sonnar focus (accuracy) at f1.5 on the M9? Did it neeed to be sent back to germany for tweaking or was it essentually dead on? Thanks.

Dave (D&A)
Click to expand...

My Sonnar is perfect at 1.5 on my M9, so I'm very relieved and happy. Comparing to my Nokton 1.5 today and prefer the Sonnar. Both are sharp wide open with a slight edge to the Nokton, but shallower depth of field form the Nokton which has gorgeous character. Not sure what my Planar and Noctilux will think of this new relationship but i'm in lust with the Sonnar now.
 
lecia shot wrote >>>"Both are sharp wide open with a slight edge to the Nokton, but shallower depth of field form the Nokton which has gorgeous character. Not sure what my Planar and Noctilux will think of this new relationship but i'm in lust with the Sonnar now."<<<


Hopefully your Noctilux will feel like a "jilted lover" and find its way over to my place...and oh yea, his friend "Planar" tagging along! They're both very much welcome over here :)

I agree, the Nokton can often display great character under the right kinds of circumstances (I shot one for many years)...but how does it compare and contrast with the Sonnar that has you prefering it, when both are shot wide open?

Dave (D&A)
 
D&A said:
lecia shot wrote >>>"Both are sharp wide open with a slight edge to the Nokton, but shallower depth of field form the Nokton which has gorgeous character. Not sure what my Planar and Noctilux will think of this new relationship but i'm in lust with the Sonnar now."<<<


Hopefully your Noctilux will feel like a "jilted lover" and find its way over to my place...and oh yea, his friend "Planar" tagging along! They're both very much welcome over here :)

I agree, the Nokton can often display great character under the right kinds of circumstances (I shot one for many years)...but how does it compare and contrast with the Sonnar that has you prefering it, when both are shot wide open?

Dave (D&A)
Click to expand...

You are a frisky devil Dave :eek:

The Sonnar and Nokton are actually quite similar in color and contrast wide open. I only bought these lenses to use wide open as I already have a Planar and Noct for stopping down, in fact the Noct is the sharpest at f/2 and f/2.8. The colors on the Sonnar are brighter and more vibrant, but the Nokton slightly edges it in contrast. Indoors the output wide open would be hard to pick. Outdoors is where the Sonnar shines, especially with backgrounds that includes, foliage. It's rendering creates many more bokeh circles compared to the smoother Nokton, which reminds me of the Lux ASPH, only just a tad harsher, but I wouldn't call it even close to being harsh. I guess some woould describe the Sonnar as harsh at times, especially if you have a complicated and bright background, and this is where the Nokton would be better. Sharpness is a tad better on the Nokton and the slightly higher contrast helps as well, but the Sonnar isn't soft wide open, it's sharp enough, especially considering the fast focus fall off.

This is my end thought between the two.

Documentary purposes: Nokton

Portrait purposes: Sonnar

Any purpose (except low light): Planar

If I had to pick one, the Sonnar would stay due to it's slightly better build, unique signature, fast depth of field fall off and size.
 
leicashot wrote>>>"compared to the smoother Nokton, which reminds me of the Lux ASPH, only just a tad harsher, but I wouldn't call it even close to being harsh."<<<

leicashot, thats exactly how I would describe the Nokton (50mm f1.5) compared to the 50mm Lux asph. Thats what gives the Nokton it's character in many shooting situations compared to the Lux's often "too smooth" neutral rendition....which at times take the edge off the subject in terms of portraying its grittiness or displaying atmosphere.

The rest of your comparitive description really gives me a feel for the lenses you mentioned and their application, especially when used wide open. I guess the decision to pair a lux apsh with either a Nokton or Sonnar will greatly be subject dependent. Thats also why some use the f1 Noct with the Lux asph...to have both additional speed and a extremely different signature. All interesting.

Double Negative, thanks for posting your excellent examples that illustrate the character of the Sonnar. I haven't had much experience with one and am trying to grapple with its signature wide open. The closest that comes to mind is when comparing the Sonnar optomized for f2.8, with the recently discontinued 35mm Lux asph (Ver I) when its adjusted for slight front focus wide open. That's done so that upon stopping down the lens to f2, f2.8 f4 etc., the subject always remains within the rearward shifting depth of field. Hence, one needs to lean forward with close focusing subjects when shooting wide open, much like you do with the f2.8 optomized Sonnar. I suppose with the f1.4 optomized Sonnar, its dead on at f1.4, but then like some other 35mm Lux asph (Ver I) that are also optomized for f1.4...subejcts at close range will quickly fall out of the zone of focus as focus shift takes place. So with both the Sonnar and 35mm Lux asph (Ver I), having it optomized for f1.4 vs. f2.8 depends how one is going to mostly use the lens, camera to subject distance and also a number of other related factors. Thanks.

Dave (D&A)
 
Call me BAD....
still LOVE the nokton 1.5.....Got another :eek:...:D

My Signature should be : TOO Many 50's !!!!
 
I recently had to sell my Sonnar and Nokton 1.5 to raise funds for my new project, but will acquire them again. Just stop teasing Helen and it'll be an easier wait
 
Couldn't stretch to a ZM Sonnar... just got my first roll back from the Nokton 1.5, ISO 1600.
I like it! Sharp and soft, and no seasick bokeh. (Do I prefer it to my Nikkor HC? Time will tell.)
5368070521_c05b025629_z.jpg
 
Not entirely sure about my Nokton results... seems a bit wibbly wobbly... very different from my old sonnar. I need to practise, and look at Helen's flickr again...
5409123392_9482d9e1af_b.jpg

5409356550_f425b03e3f_b.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom