i Love C-Sonnar 50/1.5

I want to be impressed but i'm not and it looks like I'm in a very small minority here.
Some lenses really 'jump off the screen' for me. Summar 50, Collapsible 50, Summaron 2.8, SA 3.4 for example.
Is it the Zeiss 'look' that I just don't connect with?
 
mfogiel said:
Maybe the problem was in the photos, let's see...

201211618 by marek fogiel, on Flickr

Any better now?
Click to expand...

Of course I appreciate its qualities. I didn't say it's a 'bad' lens as such and it's not down to individual images.
It's more about rendition.
I believe I'm correct in saying the the Sonnar look has a slightly soft rendering and although I'm not at all obsessed with sharpness maybe that's where my problem lies....
 
17450784400_c34d357029_c.jpg
 
"I believe i'm correct in saying the the Sonnar look has a slightly soft rendering and although i'm not at all obsessed with sharpness maybe that's where my problem lies...."

It depends on the f stop. At f 5.6 you get a nice balance between razor sharp and creamy, by f 8.0 it is only razor sharp:

f 3.2

2008080312 by marek fogiel, on Flickr

f 4.0
DOG FOR SALE, SARLAT by marek fogiel, on Flickr

f 5.6
F 5,6 by marek fogiel, on Flickr

f 8.0
FALLING by marek fogiel, on Flickr

and finally wide open

201212824 by marek fogiel, on Flickr
 
I've always got along with both Tessar and Planar designs but not with the Sonnar of any vintage. Guess I'm the odd man out.
Enjoy your Sonnars!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom