DwF
Well-known
Examples I have seen from the 35 f 2.8 Biogon were very sharp, and notably better wide open than the f2 Biogon stopped to f 2.8 I've considered getting one but find them harder to come by used than the Biogon f2 lens.
Got a nice deal on the C-Sonnar 50mm, but having second thoughts
- Thread starter der Koekje
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 70
- Views 5K
Examples I have seen from the 35 f 2.8 Biogon were very sharp, and notably better wide open than the f2 Biogon stopped to f 2.8 I've considered getting one but find them harder to come by used than the Biogon f2 lens.
jawarden
Well-known
jawarden
Well-known
That's a good way to check. In my case the Sonnar is optimized for ƒ/2.8 focusing, so from that aperture to ƒ/16 it focuses like other lenses. If I need to use F/1.5 at close distance I'll focus on the subject and lean in slightly and I'm usually pleased with the results. (I occasionally miss focus no matter what the aperture, btw, but if I ever miss focus while using ƒ/1.5 I'm quick to blame the lens. 🙄)
Doing the above test will also confirm for you whether you have a lens optimized for ƒ/2.8 or ƒ/1.5.
Ccoppola82
Well-known
Like I said, I’ve never used it but according to everything I’ve read it’s the sharpest 35mm on the block. I’m sure with Zeiss pedigree it has far more to offer than sharpness, I’ve just never used it before and was offering some options that I’ve either used or explored.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
The C-Biogon is INCREDIBLY sharp. It also has very nice bokeh, and less light falloff at the edges than many other 35mm rangefinder lenses (the Voigtlander 35mm f2.5 and f1.7 lenses both have a lot of vignetting, even stopped down).
I never saw any distortion with the one I had. The only thing I did not like was that it gave VERY high contrast images compared to every other lens I owned. This was true of the 28mm f2.8 ZM lens I had as well, but my 50mm lens was a version 4 Summicron that had more normal tonal rendering and it made it hard to use the lenses together.
Archiver
Veteran
Another vote for the C Biogon if you want a very sharp lens. Another excellent lens is the Biogon 25mm f2.8. In fact, all the Zeiss Biogons and Distagons are very sharp. The 50mm Planar is great too, from what I can see of the images online.
der Koekje
Member
Yeah. It’s just very hard to find deals on those so I kinda have to get lucky. It’s also hard since there’s so many versions over the years, each with different optical characteristics.
That replica seems amazing, but the first batch is sold and they said the next batch will increase the price. I posted in that thread. I’d love to get in on that but if the V2 is going to be significantly more expensive I might have to pass.
Funny story: that’s actually the first lens I’ve ever bought. Two years ago I bought the e-mount version to go with my A7S. I brought it with me to Japan and had some great shots with it. I also had a lot of bad shots with it too. Field curvature due to the filter stack on Sony sensors is just hilarious with this lens. It also vignettes and flares like crazy so it was also the first lens I’ve sold. I know using the proper mount the field curvature will be gone and corners will be better, but just thinking about how any errand stray of sunlight destroyed my photo is not something I’m keen to relive.
Here’s an example: there are many more: https://flic.kr/p/2ijGSVg
Just look at that orange blob in the middle there.
maigo
Well-known
I have the Ultron 35/1.7 M-Mount and I’ve never seen any significant vignetting. It is also very sharp.
Here are three stopped down examples with plenty of sky.
https://flic.kr/p/2cosq9C
https://flic.kr/p/2cosmtm
https://flic.kr/p/2aw6Bfp
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
der Koekje
Member
It’s good to hear that the Biogons are held in such nice regard. Silver ZM lenses don’t pop up here in the used market quite often so I think I might have to jump on the first Biogon I see, whether that is the F2 or F2.8. I don’t mind size as much, I own a 105mm Sigma Art and that’s about as crazy big as it gets for a prime, but I do see the appeal of a small lens to ensure you always have the camera with you.
By the way, what do you guys think about this project? I’m not sure how much the Contax Planar optical formula differs from the ZM Biogon, but...
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/m-eqOcgqYy9ihvf-JhAWwA
https://www.chiphell.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=2025304&extra=page=1&filter=typeid&typeid=730
Hopefully Google Translate helps out a bit.
By the way, what do you guys think about this project? I’m not sure how much the Contax Planar optical formula differs from the ZM Biogon, but...
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/m-eqOcgqYy9ihvf-JhAWwA
https://www.chiphell.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=2025304&extra=page=1&filter=typeid&typeid=730
Hopefully Google Translate helps out a bit.
LCSmith
Well-known
I'm glad you asked this. There are varying opinions. I only shoot bw film (it's all I do, besides my phone). I keep UV filters on my lenses when I am outside. Inside, I "go commando" as the poet said.
willie_901
Veteran
The C-Sonnar Is A Wonderful Lens
The C-Sonnar Is A Wonderful Lens
There is no focus drift, there is a shift.
The C-Sonnar 50/1.5 is effectively two lenses in one.
My experience was with a Zeiss Ikon ZM body. I owned an early version.
Below about f 5.6 the C-Sonnar 50/1.5's perceived sharpness is relatively low. Yet the rendering is aesthetically appealing. For some subjects a low-level of micro-contrast is desirable. It's hard to put into words, but I use the term reportage lens to describe this lens at apertures wider than f 5.6. That is, the center renders sharper which draws viewers' attention to the subject of interest. For reportage it is common to center the intended subject of interest. I personally enjoyed the out-of-focus rendering at wider apertures. However at f 1.5 there is some coma. The coma level decreases as the aperture narrows.
At f 5.6 and above the lens' rendering changes. The perceived sharpness is excellent. Now the lens rendering aesthetic can be described as clear and crisp. The contrast is excellent. My copy performed best at f 8. Very few lenses I've used rendered as well as the C-Sonnar. Interestingly, a lens I owned that performed similarly was the Nikkor 105/2.5 AI F mount lens - also a Sonnar design.
In my opinion the C-Sonnar lens coating technology is an important factor in the perceived sharpness at narrower apertures.
I never had any luck with others focusing my rangefinder cameras with any lens. So I never worried about that.
I avoided using mechanical rangefinder cameras for close up work. So I was never frustrated by the f 2.8 C-Sonnar focus shift. I think it is fair to say that at wide apertures with subjects relatively close, focus and recompose is challenging with the C-Sonnar. In my view this is it's greatest weakness.
In the unlikely event I ever acquire another M mount camera, the first lens I would buy is the C-Sonnar 50/1.5.
The C-Sonnar Is A Wonderful Lens
There is no focus drift, there is a shift.
The C-Sonnar 50/1.5 is effectively two lenses in one.
My experience was with a Zeiss Ikon ZM body. I owned an early version.
Below about f 5.6 the C-Sonnar 50/1.5's perceived sharpness is relatively low. Yet the rendering is aesthetically appealing. For some subjects a low-level of micro-contrast is desirable. It's hard to put into words, but I use the term reportage lens to describe this lens at apertures wider than f 5.6. That is, the center renders sharper which draws viewers' attention to the subject of interest. For reportage it is common to center the intended subject of interest. I personally enjoyed the out-of-focus rendering at wider apertures. However at f 1.5 there is some coma. The coma level decreases as the aperture narrows.
At f 5.6 and above the lens' rendering changes. The perceived sharpness is excellent. Now the lens rendering aesthetic can be described as clear and crisp. The contrast is excellent. My copy performed best at f 8. Very few lenses I've used rendered as well as the C-Sonnar. Interestingly, a lens I owned that performed similarly was the Nikkor 105/2.5 AI F mount lens - also a Sonnar design.
In my opinion the C-Sonnar lens coating technology is an important factor in the perceived sharpness at narrower apertures.
I never had any luck with others focusing my rangefinder cameras with any lens. So I never worried about that.
I avoided using mechanical rangefinder cameras for close up work. So I was never frustrated by the f 2.8 C-Sonnar focus shift. I think it is fair to say that at wide apertures with subjects relatively close, focus and recompose is challenging with the C-Sonnar. In my view this is it's greatest weakness.
In the unlikely event I ever acquire another M mount camera, the first lens I would buy is the C-Sonnar 50/1.5.
Out to Lunch
Ventor
Buy the lens already.
jawarden
Well-known
I assume you're referencing my comparison between the two ZM 35s that I owned - I wasn't suggesting there was a distortion problem with the f/2.8 design (there is not) but I had both lenses on hand and a decision to make so I nerded-out testing them. The images I made with these lenses were so close to each other that I chose more speed and less distortion, the 2.0.
Zeiss describes the f2.0 Biogon as virtually distortion free and that's true. But at any rate Zeiss makes three outstanding 35mm lenses and I'd be hard pressed to find the flaws in any of them with my normal shooting. They're great lenses priced fairly imo.
der Koekje
Member
jawarden
Well-known
Sorry about the 35 talk. Here are a few Sonnar pics to bring it back on track. Enjoy your new camera and lens!
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
I owned and used a C-Sonnar 50mm F1.5 ZM for a time years ago [on film], but I never warmed up to it. It wasn't particularly sharp wide open and it never gave me any "pop" at any speed. It reminded me of a 35mm pre-asph Summilux-M (another lens I never liked for pretty much the same reason).
If I were shopping for a fast 50 for my M today I'd pick just about anything else.
If I were shopping for a fast 50 for my M today I'd pick just about anything else.
Fred R.
Established
Just started reading this thread and see the puns have stopped, but, man there are some really good punsters on this thread, with their bold back and forth quipping. A welcome relief from the *ick measuring arguments that appear so often.
dourbalistar
Buy more film
To the OP, enjoy your new camera and lens! You've gotten a lot of good advice on this thread, but like you said, the only way to know is to try it for yourself. Report back with some results and thoughts. 😀
I tried not to take the thread too far off the rails, since there are some grumpy and humorless people on the forum. Nobody on this thread, though. 😉 That said, if you enjoy puns, check out this thread:
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=167868
pyeh
Member of good standing
Dourbalistar, would that be film rails?
der Koekje
Member
Why? I already have the Sonnar, let's talk 35's now haha. Nice shots!
Excited to start shooting with this setup:
(Does anyone know of a blue hotshoe cover?)
Similar threads
