andtky
Newbie
I agree,
this tests were done with my M8. I would say, that the original 2.8 version was in fact "optimised" (spot on) at apertures 4 or even 5.6, while the 1.5 version still front-focuses at 1.5 a little and is really in focus only between f 2 and 2.8. This is a very good compromise for me. In real life I have much less to care about when shooting the 1.5 version - before with the old lens I tried to "lean in" after focusing at f 1.5, but was only successful half of the time
My 1.5 is an original version sent to me from factory as a replacement lens, so I believe this should be a good example of what is considered "factory optimised".
Andrej
MikeL
Go Fish
Hi Raid,
Every lens I've put on my GF-1 and changed the aperture In live view has shown focus shift- 75s, 50s, and 35s. I was curious about whether it happens on film, and had similar results. For f2 lenses and above, the lens is probably optimized so that it isnt as noticeable due to dof. It's easier to check on digital and a computer, and people are just into it now (aka it ruins a photo). My photos are crap, so I don't care as much.
MCTuomey
Veteran
daniel, in the first photo the subject's left eye and nose are well focused while his right eye is less so. could it be that your f1.5 optimized lens is still biased slightly to front focus or is it simply the shooting angle?
Mister E
Well-known
If you got the lens for f/2.8 or smaller why not get the Planar? You just like the look of the Sonar better?
leicashot
Well-known
I honestly only see the 1.5 aperture an advantage of this lens. At 2.8 it's not too indifferent too other 50mm lenses, so i'd rather a Summicron or Plannar. If I had a Sonnar it would be to shoot it at 1.5 where it's character is most obvious.
thrice
Established
My camera had drifted out of alignment, it is the more recent shot of the four. I have since readjusted the rangefinder.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I didn't consider the Planar because I have a current Summicron 50 and the Planar is supposed to be very similar to the Summicron. I wanted the Sonnar for the out of focus rendering. Some people here seem to think that only matters at f1.5, but I shoot 50mm lenses A LOT at f2.8, 4, and 5.6 and you still get very much out of focus backgrounds at those apertures and the Sonnar's rendering is nicer than the Summicron from what I can see in my work with the lenses so far.
mfogiel
Veteran
Originally posted by leicashot:
low resolution, very shallow DOF, BUT they have a nice blur. With the C Sonnar at f 2.8, you get normal contrast, good resolution, a DOF sufficient to make a good portrait, BUT you get the nice blur typical of an f 1.5 lens. When you shoot C Sonnar wide open, the blur is like in a f 0.75 lens - totally unreal:
Unless you use this lens, you will not understand why it is diffrent from all other lenses in circulation. There are many fast "fuzzy" 50mm lenses. Wide open, they have low contrast,
low resolution, very shallow DOF, BUT they have a nice blur. With the C Sonnar at f 2.8, you get normal contrast, good resolution, a DOF sufficient to make a good portrait, BUT you get the nice blur typical of an f 1.5 lens. When you shoot C Sonnar wide open, the blur is like in a f 0.75 lens - totally unreal:
leicashot
Well-known
Originally posted by leicashot:
Unless you use this lens, you will not understand why it is diffrent from all other lenses in circulation. There are many fast "fuzzy" 50mm lenses. Wide open, they have low contrast,
low resolution, very shallow DOF, BUT they have a nice blur. With the C Sonnar at f 2.8, you get normal contrast, good resolution, a DOF sufficient to make a good portrait, BUT you get the nice blur typical of an f 1.5 lens. When you shoot C Sonnar wide open, the blur is like in a f 0.75 lens - totally unreal:
Not that I'm doubting you, but I'd love to see comparative examples of this. I am aware that at 1.5 the bokeh is fuzzy, so to speak, but equivalent to 0.75 I would love to see. So far I have only seen such difference between the Konica 50/1.2 and Lux 50 1.4 Asph, where the Konica's bokeh made it look 1-2 stops faster than the Lux.
thomasw_
Well-known
Marek, lots of creaminess behind that coffee! O I love that lens at f/1,5....
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Originally posted by leicashot:
Unless you use this lens, you will not understand why it is diffrent from all other lenses in circulation. There are many fast "fuzzy" 50mm lenses. Wide open, they have low contrast,
low resolution, very shallow DOF, BUT they have a nice blur. With the C Sonnar at f 2.8, you get normal contrast, good resolution, a DOF sufficient to make a good portrait, BUT you get the nice blur typical of an f 1.5 lens. When you shoot C Sonnar wide open, the blur is like in a f 0.75 lens - totally unreal:
That's what I was think too.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
If its sharp wide open, yours is optimized for f1.5. It may well be usable at other apertures but it will not be as sharp at those settings as it would be if it were optimized for f2.8. That's a simple fact of its design that cannot be overcome.
goo0h
Well-known
I really want to love this lens. I love my ZM 50mm F2 and ZM 35mm F2, and at times would like something a bit faster, but so anxious about messing up the focus, something I'm already known for.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
If you want a fast lens thats easy and predictable to use, no nasty surprises, just good photos at any aperture, get the Voigtlander 50mm f1,5 Nokton. Its cheap and good. I regret selling mine.
J. Borger
Well-known
There are no nasty surprises in day to day shooting if you have a Sonnar that is callibrated to the latest specifications.
I use my new Sonnar faithfull at all apertures, just like i did with my other fast lenses.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
That's a physical impossibility. The Sonnar design has focus shift as you stop down, no calibration can change that. What they're doing is setting it in between the proper calibration for f1.5 and f2.8 which means at both apertures you're a little off but depending on how close you focus and how quality sensitive you are, you may not notice it. Also, in small prints the slight incorrect focus will not be noticeable, but it will be in an 11x14. The Nokton is PERFECT at all apertures as far as focus accuracy. There's a tradeoff, of course. The Nokton is huge and hasn't got the unique bokeh of a Sonnar, but it is a better general purpose lens.
MikeL
Go Fish
Assuming my copy was at spec, the Nokton shows focus shift as well. It may be slightly less than the sonnars, but it was there when I looked for it (live view on GF1). I never notice it in use (film).
DubilUC
Member
I personally agree with Chris Crawford and mfogiel on this. I have the 2.8 optimised version and i would NEVER consider getting it set for 1.5.
I think too many people buy into the 'wide open' is best mantra, but is it really always the case? Personally, i would say the ultimate depth of field for any given situation depends primarily upon the distance relationship between focus distance, subject, and background. YMMV, but when it comes to pleasing bokeh, sometimes less actually can be more..
For 80%+ of cases that a rangefinder will be used for, f2.8-4.0 is where the magic happens on this lens (and almost all 'classic' lenses) imo. This is where the fg is tack sharp, usually good fg separation, a lovely DELICATE and SMOOTH transition to OOF areas, and the abberations are well controlled (no purple fringing on digital, no raggedy artifacts in the bokeh).
Opening up further works nicely where the background isnt too far behind the focus point that you want to draw forward, and/or where the lighting is soft and forgiving but these situations are more of an exception than a rule. And of course its handy to be able to open right up in low light when you need to!
Try the Sonnar out in this range - i think it will reward you.. If you want top quality wide open and no focus shift issues, then perhaps you should be saving up and getting in line for the incredible 50mm apsh from leica..
I think too many people buy into the 'wide open' is best mantra, but is it really always the case? Personally, i would say the ultimate depth of field for any given situation depends primarily upon the distance relationship between focus distance, subject, and background. YMMV, but when it comes to pleasing bokeh, sometimes less actually can be more..
For 80%+ of cases that a rangefinder will be used for, f2.8-4.0 is where the magic happens on this lens (and almost all 'classic' lenses) imo. This is where the fg is tack sharp, usually good fg separation, a lovely DELICATE and SMOOTH transition to OOF areas, and the abberations are well controlled (no purple fringing on digital, no raggedy artifacts in the bokeh).
Opening up further works nicely where the background isnt too far behind the focus point that you want to draw forward, and/or where the lighting is soft and forgiving but these situations are more of an exception than a rule. And of course its handy to be able to open right up in low light when you need to!
Try the Sonnar out in this range - i think it will reward you.. If you want top quality wide open and no focus shift issues, then perhaps you should be saving up and getting in line for the incredible 50mm apsh from leica..
Last edited:
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I've never shot a digital rangefinder, but I know that the Nokton had no focus shift at all on film, and the Sonnar has it severe on film.
MCTuomey
Veteran
+1 what DubilUC posted
shooting fast normal or tele lenses wide open at/near minimum focus distance will result in at least a fair % of misfocused images. some with one eye OOF, both eyes OOF, nose/ears in focus unintentionally, and so on. it's just a function of very thin dof at full aperture and mfd. the nice thing about the c-sonnar is that it preserves nearly wide open image quality around f2.8. for me, that's focus error cushion. that's why i like to shoot f2.8-f4 with it and why f2.8 optimization does make some sense in my case.
when i use the c-sonnar wide open i like to be 5-6 feet or more from my subject. gives me room for error.
shooting fast normal or tele lenses wide open at/near minimum focus distance will result in at least a fair % of misfocused images. some with one eye OOF, both eyes OOF, nose/ears in focus unintentionally, and so on. it's just a function of very thin dof at full aperture and mfd. the nice thing about the c-sonnar is that it preserves nearly wide open image quality around f2.8. for me, that's focus error cushion. that's why i like to shoot f2.8-f4 with it and why f2.8 optimization does make some sense in my case.
when i use the c-sonnar wide open i like to be 5-6 feet or more from my subject. gives me room for error.
Last edited: