x-ray
Veteran
I gather from reading a few comments that the 50 sonnar has been changed to correct the focus shift. Is this a change on all new sonnars coming from the factory or is it something that you have to send back to Zeiss for? I'm talking about lenses purchsed today and not 6 months ago. If the focus is sharp at f1.5 how is it at f4, f5.6 or f8?
I have the Planar and really love it better than any 50 I've owned. I also have a asph summilux 50 that I like but it's in the shop for what appears to be a common problem in these lenses. It won't focus to infinity and I've checked it on 3 bodies. Apparently it's a design problem that can be addressed and is even found in new ones but often come back after use. I often work in dim light where 1.4 is stretching whether I get the shot or not while shooting 1600 fuji B&W. I don't want to push my film since I'm making 8x12 and 12x18 prints. I considered the Noctilux but understand it's known for it's focus shift too. I have a cv 35 1.2 and a 75 1.4 summilux and use the heck out of them but do need the 1.4/1.5 speed in the 50. A focus shift is unacceptable in my work.
Your thoughts are appreciated.
I have the Planar and really love it better than any 50 I've owned. I also have a asph summilux 50 that I like but it's in the shop for what appears to be a common problem in these lenses. It won't focus to infinity and I've checked it on 3 bodies. Apparently it's a design problem that can be addressed and is even found in new ones but often come back after use. I often work in dim light where 1.4 is stretching whether I get the shot or not while shooting 1600 fuji B&W. I don't want to push my film since I'm making 8x12 and 12x18 prints. I considered the Noctilux but understand it's known for it's focus shift too. I have a cv 35 1.2 and a 75 1.4 summilux and use the heck out of them but do need the 1.4/1.5 speed in the 50. A focus shift is unacceptable in my work.
Your thoughts are appreciated.
Mazurka
Well-known
x-ray said:
With the Sonnar, you can't avoid focus shift at large apertures.
Get the Voigtlander LTM Nokton instead.
Last edited:
foto_fool
Well-known
ErikFive was selling a nice 50mm Summilux for a good price, but I know for a fact it is no longer available. You might check out a 50/1.5 Summarit. It will probably need a CLA, but between the purchase price and the cleaning you will only spend about $350 if you do OK on the lens buy. It is smaller than the Nokton. Ned Bojic (NB23) has posted some great shots with the Summarit. And I believe you can push-process Fuji 1600 if you need more speed.
- John
- John
drjoke
Well-known
Although the focus shift cannot be avoid, I read some posts here saying that the point of focus is usually covered by the DOF. I believe my Sonar is new from factory after the focus shift fix. I have been taking most of my pictures at very large apertures: larger than 2.8, and my points of focused are always covered by the DOF -- making the focus shift not noticable in my pictures. I am very happy with the lens.
http://flickr.com/search/?q=sonnar&w=70652943@N00
http://flickr.com/search/?q=sonnar&w=70652943@N00
x-ray
Veteran
Prior to owning the Summilux asph I had a Nokton 50 and liked it very much. The Nokton 50 is a very good performer that's very sharp and contrasty with great flare controll and comes very close even at wide apertures to the asph summilux. I think it might be the only realistic choice in a modern fast lens. Looking back on it and re examining the negs it's a fine lens and probably will be a part of my system once again.
I've never owned a summarit but have a summitar that really surprised me as to how good it is. I purchased it from one of the RFF members and cleaned the haze myself. I'm carrying it on my m6 and have been knocked out as to how good it is even at f2. It's sharper than I expected and less flare than expected with a beautiful roundness of tones. It actually reminds me of the tonal rendering of the Planar but the planar is tack sharp even at f2 and about as flare free as a lens can get. If the summarit is as good then it's a real winner too.
I've never owned a summarit but have a summitar that really surprised me as to how good it is. I purchased it from one of the RFF members and cleaned the haze myself. I'm carrying it on my m6 and have been knocked out as to how good it is even at f2. It's sharper than I expected and less flare than expected with a beautiful roundness of tones. It actually reminds me of the tonal rendering of the Planar but the planar is tack sharp even at f2 and about as flare free as a lens can get. If the summarit is as good then it's a real winner too.
x-ray
Veteran
DRJOKE: Nice shots! If this is how the Sonnar looks I might have to give it a try. Love the Zeiss glass. I guess I could buy a new sonnar and try it when the summilux gets back and if I don't like it I can return it within a few days with no loss. If I like it I'll sell the summilux.
jbf
||||||
I must be dumb but what is this "focus shift" exactly?
Avotius
Some guy
its funny, when I was looking into this fast 50 business too I found a lot of people complaining about focus shift, then after zeiss came out with the fix everyone was saying that they preferred the results with the shift there rather then the new solution. My advice....try a pre asph summilux or the nokton again maybe. Its a pity that these new fast lenses are so hard to get right.
FanMan
Established
a) I am not sure whether Zeiss has changed the Sonnar producution, i.e. whether new ones come with the focus shift issue fixed @ 1.5.
b) If buying a new one, who can one know whether this is a lens optimized for 1.5 or for 2.8? you would have to know the series no. from which on the production was changed or the production date and how long the lens bought has been in the store's inventory before the purchase.
c) Fixing the front focus @ 1.5 means a back focus for apertures 2.0-16.
b) If buying a new one, who can one know whether this is a lens optimized for 1.5 or for 2.8? you would have to know the series no. from which on the production was changed or the production date and how long the lens bought has been in the store's inventory before the purchase.
c) Fixing the front focus @ 1.5 means a back focus for apertures 2.0-16.
mfogiel
Veteran
X-ray
I am not a professional, but I can tell something extrordinary from the rest when I see it. I have the "old" C Sonnar, and I basically only use it at f2.8. If in your work you want to use rf's for portraiture (weddings, etc) this lens, even if you only shoot it at f 2.8 is worth more than all portrait lenses put together. Just try it. FWIW, here's a small test:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44506
and here is an example of how it looks in practice:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1019034753&context=set-72157601234693316&size=l
this has been shot at f2.8
and this has been shot at f4.0:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1019892254&context=set-72157601234693316&size=l
unfortunatelly I have underexposed the first shot a bit, so it could have been technically better...
This is not a lens for normal photography, but is a special purpose gem. It might even make sense to buy an RDs-1 or an M8 as a lens cap for it...
I am not a professional, but I can tell something extrordinary from the rest when I see it. I have the "old" C Sonnar, and I basically only use it at f2.8. If in your work you want to use rf's for portraiture (weddings, etc) this lens, even if you only shoot it at f 2.8 is worth more than all portrait lenses put together. Just try it. FWIW, here's a small test:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44506
and here is an example of how it looks in practice:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1019034753&context=set-72157601234693316&size=l
this has been shot at f2.8
and this has been shot at f4.0:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1019892254&context=set-72157601234693316&size=l
unfortunatelly I have underexposed the first shot a bit, so it could have been technically better...
This is not a lens for normal photography, but is a special purpose gem. It might even make sense to buy an RDs-1 or an M8 as a lens cap for it...
Last edited:
Krosya
Konicaze
I have the same question as X-Ray, yet funny enough only ONE post seems to answer it to a degree. I don't think OP was asking for other options, but rather was the new Sonnar fixed/recalibrated to focus at 1.5 correctly - at the factory before it goes for sale, or is it still a matter of having to send it back to do this?
Accoring to Drjoke - his work fine right out of the box. But....Do we have any confirmation from Zeiss/dealers that if one purchases a new Sonnar 50/1.5 from the store today - it will work correct at 1.5 without having to be sent back to Zeiss for re-calibration?
This has not been answered and I'm interested to hear more on that matter. Did anyone email or call Zeiss to see what they have to say on this? Maybe Tony at Popflash has some info? Anybody else?
I too would like to get this lens, but there is not enough info on it as of now.
Accoring to Drjoke - his work fine right out of the box. But....Do we have any confirmation from Zeiss/dealers that if one purchases a new Sonnar 50/1.5 from the store today - it will work correct at 1.5 without having to be sent back to Zeiss for re-calibration?
This has not been answered and I'm interested to hear more on that matter. Did anyone email or call Zeiss to see what they have to say on this? Maybe Tony at Popflash has some info? Anybody else?
I too would like to get this lens, but there is not enough info on it as of now.
mfogiel
Veteran
Krosya,
The point is, if you get the "1.5" version, then most likely this lens will ONLY be usable at f1.5 and f2.0, the rest of the apertures will be all shifted, OTOH with the "2.8" version, this lens is outstanding from f2.8 on, and if you need to shoot wide open, then you have to adjust the focus experimentally, which is difficult but not impossible.
As far as I am concerned, this is an f 2.8 lens, full stop.
The point is, if you get the "1.5" version, then most likely this lens will ONLY be usable at f1.5 and f2.0, the rest of the apertures will be all shifted, OTOH with the "2.8" version, this lens is outstanding from f2.8 on, and if you need to shoot wide open, then you have to adjust the focus experimentally, which is difficult but not impossible.
As far as I am concerned, this is an f 2.8 lens, full stop.
Krosya
Konicaze
Sonnar is for 1.5 not for 2.8
Sonnar is for 1.5 not for 2.8
I was under impression that if lens was adjusted to f1.5, and will focus corrctly at that setting, while it will/may develop shift at other app.settings, they should be covered by DOF, as it increases towards 2.8 -->4-->5.6 and so on. and will not be an issue at those apertures.
While the way it is now - why would I get a lens that is f1.5, but only usable at 2.8 or slower? I'd just get an Elmar 50/2.8 than. Or my Planar and Summicron should do just fine.
I think the whole point to get this lens is to be able to use it at 1.5.
Sonnar is for 1.5 not for 2.8
mfogiel said:
I was under impression that if lens was adjusted to f1.5, and will focus corrctly at that setting, while it will/may develop shift at other app.settings, they should be covered by DOF, as it increases towards 2.8 -->4-->5.6 and so on. and will not be an issue at those apertures.
While the way it is now - why would I get a lens that is f1.5, but only usable at 2.8 or slower? I'd just get an Elmar 50/2.8 than. Or my Planar and Summicron should do just fine.
I think the whole point to get this lens is to be able to use it at 1.5.
mfogiel
Veteran
Krosya, are you not reading what I responded to x-ray ?
I know this is only my personal opinion, but if someone told me I had to buy an f0.75 lens that would only be usable from f2.8 on, but with an extremely particular drawing, then if it didn't cost a fortune I would surely buy it.
I can state with all the frankness, that I would be prepared to buy the C Sonnar all over again, even if it had a FIXED f2.8 aperture, it is simply so outstanding at what it does there.
The problem is with Zeiss, who did not supply the correct information. Instead of selling it as the best portrait lens in the world, they decided to sell it as a cheaper Summilux. That's where the confusion comes from.
I know this is only my personal opinion, but if someone told me I had to buy an f0.75 lens that would only be usable from f2.8 on, but with an extremely particular drawing, then if it didn't cost a fortune I would surely buy it.
I can state with all the frankness, that I would be prepared to buy the C Sonnar all over again, even if it had a FIXED f2.8 aperture, it is simply so outstanding at what it does there.
The problem is with Zeiss, who did not supply the correct information. Instead of selling it as the best portrait lens in the world, they decided to sell it as a cheaper Summilux. That's where the confusion comes from.
Krosya
Konicaze
mfogiel said:
I understand what you are saying, and while it's enough reason for you to own this lens - it's not for me. I want to have a lens I can use fully - i.e. at all settings.
And also, you didn't comment about the other thing - wouldn't DOF cover the focus shift of the fixed lens anyway, so ther would be nothing to worry about? Or would shift be so huge if it's calibrated to f1.5, that at 2.8 and 4 it would make it unusable? I believe (and I have no evidence to support this, just a gut feeling) that once Sonnar is calibrated to focus right at 1.5, DOF will take care of all other settings.
I keep hoping to see some post from someone who had this lens recalibrated and find out what their results are.
Didier
"Deed"
The focus shift is dued to the lens design and has not been changed by Zeiss as far as I know. They justified the shift to maintain the classic look and OOF rendering (aka bokeh) of the traditional Sonnar design. More informations at Luminous Landscape here (scroll down to the bottom). You may make the focus correction manually when shooting close up and wide open. Question of experience, focus, move your head slightly, shoot. I do that with my 50 Summicron which isn't perfectly collimated for the Epson RD-1 I have. Users of Jupiter-3's on Leicas know that trick, too...
Didier
Didier
Last edited:
Didier
"Deed"
mfogiel said:
I understand your deception, but no one is forced to buy that lens. It offers great value for those who can handle it. I know other expensive lenses from Germany which are not 100% accurate at close focus wide open, but we did not notice it until we got digital bodies to make fast and detailed test shootings. Every lens design, but the Sonnar particularly, has slightly varying non linear focusing curves at closeup (more) and infinity (less). But the body RF mechanism stays the same. This is a small und usually not noticed limitation of rangefinders. Even so, its still more accurate than every manual SLR microprism/split image focusing, and also autofocus has it's well known limitations. Live with it an shoot...
Didier
kshapero
South Florida Man
I have the C Sonnar.
1. I get great photos
2. Turns a little soft ( not out of focus) at around f4.
3. When mated with the ZI and its superior rangefinder, where is the problem?
Am I missing something? This is a classic but quirky lens and I could not be happier.
1. I get great photos
2. Turns a little soft ( not out of focus) at around f4.
3. When mated with the ZI and its superior rangefinder, where is the problem?
Am I missing something? This is a classic but quirky lens and I could not be happier.
mfogiel
Veteran
Krosya, rightly, as you say it would be interesting to know what happens to your plane of sharpness with the f1.5 optimized sample.
My perception is, that it wouldn't be sharp in the f2.8-f5.6 range, which really is the most usable for shooting, also for reasons of the resolution and dof.
What may not be clear to people who haven't used the C Sonnar, is that at f2.8 the in and out of focus passage is similar to what ypu get with an f1.4 or 1.2 lens, but the dof is still deep enough to hold a woman's head in focus perfectly. The in focus-out of focus passage is something absolutely spectacular here, and I am telling this with some experience of how several nice bokeh lenses draw.
So to sum uo, if someone wants the f1.5 to be usable because of low light shooting, then I totally agree the C Sonnar is not a good solution at all, but if a spectacular subject separation is the scope, then you already get it at f2.8, and with the benefit of not just having to keep one eye sharp...
My perception is, that it wouldn't be sharp in the f2.8-f5.6 range, which really is the most usable for shooting, also for reasons of the resolution and dof.
What may not be clear to people who haven't used the C Sonnar, is that at f2.8 the in and out of focus passage is similar to what ypu get with an f1.4 or 1.2 lens, but the dof is still deep enough to hold a woman's head in focus perfectly. The in focus-out of focus passage is something absolutely spectacular here, and I am telling this with some experience of how several nice bokeh lenses draw.
So to sum uo, if someone wants the f1.5 to be usable because of low light shooting, then I totally agree the C Sonnar is not a good solution at all, but if a spectacular subject separation is the scope, then you already get it at f2.8, and with the benefit of not just having to keep one eye sharp...
jsuominen
Well-known
mfogiel said:
Hmmm, maybe a reasonable priced Nokton 50/1.5 is a good alternative for wide open low light shots and C Sonnar 50/1.5 should be for portraits... I don't have C Sonnar, but I'm using occasionally a vintage Nikkor-S 5cm/1.4 from 1950's for portraits.
Here are some examples:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jsuominen/318719170/ (at f/1.4)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jsuominen/339689555/ (at f/1.4)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jsuominen/379440639/ (at f/2.8)