Roger Hicks
Veteran
Roger Hicks
Veteran
...and f/11
Most who have this lens, love it. That's not just because they spent a lot of money on it, either: they just like the look it gives. I got 'mine' for a road test from Zeiss and liked it so much I asked them how much they want for me to keep it.
It is optimized for f/1.5 and I was reasonably sure that I understood from Dr. Nasse at Oberkochen, where I collected it, that all new lenses go out this way -- until I read the post about the e-mail from Zeiss. I'll try to re-check but they don't always answer.
I also have the current Nokton, and much prefer the Sonnar -- and I'd rather have either than the f/1.2 Canon which I also own. ALL ultra-speed lenses have some focus shift: it's just a question of how much. That includes the Noctilux which I currently have on loan from a kind friend. My own feeling is that beyond f/1.5/1.4, the reduced d-o-f is a significant discouragement to spending the money.
The pic comes from a forthcoming free piece on the website. There'll be another on the new Summarits.
Cheers,
Roger
Most who have this lens, love it. That's not just because they spent a lot of money on it, either: they just like the look it gives. I got 'mine' for a road test from Zeiss and liked it so much I asked them how much they want for me to keep it.
It is optimized for f/1.5 and I was reasonably sure that I understood from Dr. Nasse at Oberkochen, where I collected it, that all new lenses go out this way -- until I read the post about the e-mail from Zeiss. I'll try to re-check but they don't always answer.
I also have the current Nokton, and much prefer the Sonnar -- and I'd rather have either than the f/1.2 Canon which I also own. ALL ultra-speed lenses have some focus shift: it's just a question of how much. That includes the Noctilux which I currently have on loan from a kind friend. My own feeling is that beyond f/1.5/1.4, the reduced d-o-f is a significant discouragement to spending the money.
The pic comes from a forthcoming free piece on the website. There'll be another on the new Summarits.
Cheers,
Roger
Attachments
Last edited:
gertf
Established
Brilliant Roger.. I can see what you mean about the dof extending further backwards when reducing the aperture.
Looks like dof of f2.8 well and truly covers the focussed area to me. Should really be a non-issue then I take it.
Thanks
Looks like dof of f2.8 well and truly covers the focussed area to me. Should really be a non-issue then I take it.
Thanks
john_s
Well-known
Well, all I can say, Roger, is that you got a good one! Zeiss have looked after you well.
mfogiel
Veteran
In real life situations, I have found that when you shoot portraits with the C Sonnar, the f2.8 calibrated version actually has a certain logic to it. The "f 2.8" calibrated version, is in fact calibrated not on f2.8, but on f5.6, where it is perfectly neutral. At lower apertures, there is a progressive front focus, and at f1.5 at 90 cm (shortest distance) the front focus is about 5-6 cm.
What it means in practice, is that if you focus on the eye and shoot at f2.8 from 1.2-1.5 meters, which is the thing to do unless you want a distorted face, your effective dof is about 10-12 cm, out of which probably 3-4 cm are behind the sharp eye, and 6-7 cm in front. This gives you a portrait with the nose in focus as well, the front OOF is very abrupt anyway, as it is towards the camera, and the back OOF begins at the ears and then just dissolves the background. If the eye is not in the center, but you focus on it and recompose, most likely you are looking at a perfectly focused photo.
The wide open shooting is a bit tricky, because if you focus centrally and recompose from 1.2 meters, most likely your focus is spot on the eye, while it will be about 7-8 cm in front if you shoot centrally - in this case you should focus on the ear...
From Roger's shots, it looks actually as though the "f1.5 optimized" version has been optimized for f 2.8, and it front focuses slightly wide open. It looks then as if Zeiss know what they are doing insisting on a slight front focus for a portait lens.
Personally, I believe that the sweet spot of this lens is between f2.0 and f4.0, as the wide open images are really quite soft and the bokeh is surreal. As I have stated before on this forum, this lens is mistakenly marketed as a reporter's lens by Zeiss - If they sold it only with the apertures between f1.5 and f 5.6 and optimized effectively for f2.0, and appropriate marketing, they could have most likely demanded double the price. This lens simply has no competition for how it renders reality - I wouldn't like to own only this 50mm, but for sure this is one of the most incredible photographic tools I have come across in my life.
BTW, in my experience it renders at its best with chromogenic film, and likely on digital, as the smoothnes of the medium enhances the bokeh.
What it means in practice, is that if you focus on the eye and shoot at f2.8 from 1.2-1.5 meters, which is the thing to do unless you want a distorted face, your effective dof is about 10-12 cm, out of which probably 3-4 cm are behind the sharp eye, and 6-7 cm in front. This gives you a portrait with the nose in focus as well, the front OOF is very abrupt anyway, as it is towards the camera, and the back OOF begins at the ears and then just dissolves the background. If the eye is not in the center, but you focus on it and recompose, most likely you are looking at a perfectly focused photo.
The wide open shooting is a bit tricky, because if you focus centrally and recompose from 1.2 meters, most likely your focus is spot on the eye, while it will be about 7-8 cm in front if you shoot centrally - in this case you should focus on the ear...
From Roger's shots, it looks actually as though the "f1.5 optimized" version has been optimized for f 2.8, and it front focuses slightly wide open. It looks then as if Zeiss know what they are doing insisting on a slight front focus for a portait lens.
Personally, I believe that the sweet spot of this lens is between f2.0 and f4.0, as the wide open images are really quite soft and the bokeh is surreal. As I have stated before on this forum, this lens is mistakenly marketed as a reporter's lens by Zeiss - If they sold it only with the apertures between f1.5 and f 5.6 and optimized effectively for f2.0, and appropriate marketing, they could have most likely demanded double the price. This lens simply has no competition for how it renders reality - I wouldn't like to own only this 50mm, but for sure this is one of the most incredible photographic tools I have come across in my life.
BTW, in my experience it renders at its best with chromogenic film, and likely on digital, as the smoothnes of the medium enhances the bokeh.
Last edited:
mfogiel
Veteran
I've just bought a second copy of the C Sonnar, this one "optimized" for f1.5, and when it arrives I will make a comparative test for the type of shooting I like to do with it, which most of the time is portraiture in the 1-2 meters range, but also an occasional landscape shot at infinity. I hope this will help you make up your mind about this lens and it's potential. If all goes well I will post that before christmas.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
This is a really good thread. I look forward to any additional findings from you, Marek.