New Sonnar ZM vs my Opton?

[AshLee52]

I don't post often, so let me introduce myself. I have used Leica rangefinders since 1977. In recent years, as classic gear has gotten so affordable, I have added Contax, Nikon and Canon bodies and lenses to my film kit.

Digitally I have several newer Leicas and the Sony A7II, together with adapters to use Nikon, Contax, LTM and Leica M lenses.

My photography emphasizes subjects in context. As film, sensors, and my eye have improved I am able to contextualize my subject matter ever better... letting my compositions breathe.

Over the last few years I am increasingly drawn to Sonnar and sonnar-type lenses because of how they seem to add dimensionality to my photographs, and also to draw the context... with a bit of framing/vignetting/softening. I also love the open shadows I get, which remind me of classic "thick emulsion" silver film. Many of my best recent photographs are taken with either the Opton Sonnar or Nikkor S 1.4. Interestingly, I nearly never use these wide open. The shots I am liking are taken in the f 5.6-11 range mostly. If it helps, here's a link to my Flickr page https://www.flickr.com/photos/48228255@N05/

Which is a long intro to asking whether the newer Zeiss ZM Sonnar is likely to add anything to what I have? Has anyone been able to compare it to the classic T-coated Opton Sonnar? I know it will work well on the Leicas... are there any issues using it on the Sony?

 

[expwmbat]

I love my ZM Sonnar, but primarily because I like the rendering it offers at the wide open end (1.5-2.8). From what I see of your pictures and your described approach, I don't think it will offer you anything new. At f5.6-11 the ZM Sonnar sharpens up quite a lot, but I don't think you'll see a difference between it and what you are already using. Sharp photos, BTW. The Acros is coming out terrific!

DJK

 

[Dante_Stella]

My Carl Zeiss (post-Opton) looked slightly sharper in the center than my ZM, with the ZM being more even across the frame a little more humane to OOF highlights. They both have about the same focus shift. They both flare under the same circumstances. That, and the ZM takes 46mm filters and does not rotate when you focus it (because you need no adapter). But the real-world differences are quite small.

Dante

 

[ChrisLivsey]

The new Zeiss made for the Nikon Rangefinders is for me subtly "better" than the ZM version which I also have. I can't put my finger on why nor I suspect could I separate images if I didn't know which was used. Both are less prone to flare than the Nikkor S f1.4 (also in the cupboard) which I presume is the modern coatings at work. That does also increase contrast which in B/W is not always a good thing, indeed I prefer the older lenses to both new ones for B/W work but the newer for the extra "bite" in colour.
Should you add one, perhaps. If you buy S/H and try you can re-sell for little loss or, and you don't say where you are, in the USA you can rent for 7 days for $60 which would not seem excessive to satisfy your curiosity.
No connection commercially, but I love the blog.

https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/zeiss-zm-50mm-f1.5-sonnar-for-leica

 

[Highway 61]

The new Zeiss made for the Nikon Rangefinders is for me subtly "better" than the ZM version which I also have. I can't put my finger on why nor I suspect could I separate images if I didn't know which was used.

Sample variations factor, the same kind of which you would notice between two samples of the ZM lens or two samples of the S-mount lens, the optical formula being exactly the same and all those lenses having been made at the same factory with the same glass. It can also be that the tolerance margins of the focal point to film plane distance plays slightly in favor of the Nikon S-mount combo because it would "correct" the Sonnar focus shift. 😉

 

[Mr. Fizzlesticks]

If you like the look of old film, why not try a pre war Sonnar? You will lose contrast but the sharpness is about the same and the shadows will open some. If you get a good copy, the sharpness might even be better. Cheap lenses too.

The only reason to buy a ZM is to take advantage of the better coatings which give you a bit purer color. The old Sonnars were pretty spectacular....

 

[Pioneer]

I have both and use both. Real time differences in the photographs boil down to slight contrast differences. Higher with the new ZM, lower with the older Opton version.

Beyond that the only difference between them is ergonomic and based on your site you have that pretty well worked out.

Don't have a Sony so cannot comment on how it works there. As you said though, the ZM is a wonderful companion for the digital Leica cameras.

 

[willie_901]

I loved my Zeiss M 50mm C-Sonnar lens. It was as if I had two lenses. One with unique rendering at f 1.5-2.8 and another that was sharp and contrasty at 5.6 and above.

Wide open there is a bit of coma. Otherwise it is a wonderful lens.

 

[Daryl J.]

My 1.5/50 Zeiss Sonnar is my favorite lens.
The End.

 

[Crazy Fedya]

My 1.5/50 Zeiss Sonnar is my favorite lens.
The End.

Which one? 😁

 

[Dante_Stella]

If anyone wants both pre-war Sonnars (f/2 collapsible and f/1.5), I can make them appear in the classifieds here. They are nice examples, but they just don't get the use they deserve.

Dante

If you like the look of old film, why not try a pre war Sonnar? You will lose contrast but the sharpness is about the same and the shadows will open some. If you get a good copy, the sharpness might even be better. Cheap lenses too.

The only reason to buy a ZM is to take advantage of the better coatings which give you a bit purer color. The old Sonnars were pretty spectacular....

 

[iaeaix]

If anyone wants both pre-war Sonnars (f/2 collapsible and f/1.5), I can make them appear in the classifieds here. They are nice examples, but they just don't get the use they deserve.

Dante

I have one Sonnar f2 which has not been used much. What's the fair price for it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk