Archiver
Veteran
I have the C Sonnar and enjoy it very much, but two things bug me. The first is the need to either have this thing optimized for f1.5 or continue to lean forward an inch after focusing when wide open. The second is the minimum focus distance of 90cm, which I'd prefer to be 70cm like most other lenses.
Does anyone have both these lenses, and if so, can you see significant imaging differences between them? Does the Nokton M have its own character like the Sonnar? Do you consider it worth having both for different applications/looks? How do you see them comparing, in general?
Thank you!
Does anyone have both these lenses, and if so, can you see significant imaging differences between them? Does the Nokton M have its own character like the Sonnar? Do you consider it worth having both for different applications/looks? How do you see them comparing, in general?
Thank you!
Pioneer
Veteran
I have both but have really not made any comparisons with the Sonnar. I suppose I could change my mind at some point but I seriously doubt it will ever replace my Sonnar. That lens is just special, and though it takes extra effort to capture the beauty, it is worth it.
To be honest the Nokton reminds me more of my Summilux and though it is certainly very, very nice, I doubt it will replace that lens either.
To be honest the Nokton reminds me more of my Summilux and though it is certainly very, very nice, I doubt it will replace that lens either.
seakayaker1
Well-known
I have the C Sonnar 50/1.5 and the Nokton 50/1.5 LTM and enjoy them both. I find that they both have their own character.
I find that I use the Nokton more for B&W and Portraits and the Sonnar more with color in street and landscapes. Although I did photograph some city scapes from a 22nd story building and the detail that the Nokton captured was outstanding.
Bottom line I enjoy using both. The Nokton is a lot of bang for the buck. The same can be said for the Sonnar when comparing the price to the Summilux.
Good luck with your decision.
I find that I use the Nokton more for B&W and Portraits and the Sonnar more with color in street and landscapes. Although I did photograph some city scapes from a 22nd story building and the detail that the Nokton captured was outstanding.
Bottom line I enjoy using both. The Nokton is a lot of bang for the buck. The same can be said for the Sonnar when comparing the price to the Summilux.
Good luck with your decision.
noimmunity
scratch my niche
If you use it a lot at 1.5, it is totally worth it to get the Sonnar "optimized"
The MFD is a major limitation. There's no way around that.
My work around has been to carry the tiny Sonnar 40/2.8
The C-Sonnar is fantastic for black and white, too. It's just a remarkable lens.
Good luck with your choices!
asiafish
Established
NOTHING compares to the C Sonnar, except of course a vintage Sonnar or a Jupiter 3.
Both my Jupiter 3 and C Sonnar are optimized for f/1.5, although these are really like two-in-one lenses, amazing Sonnar bokeh wide-open (the reason to buy one) and very sharp from corner to corner at f/5.6 to f/8, though not quite equal to a Planar or Summicron stopped down.
Both my Jupiter 3 and C Sonnar are optimized for f/1.5, although these are really like two-in-one lenses, amazing Sonnar bokeh wide-open (the reason to buy one) and very sharp from corner to corner at f/5.6 to f/8, though not quite equal to a Planar or Summicron stopped down.
raid
Dad Photographer
I do not own a C Sonnar. I use old Zeiss Sonnar and also J3 lenses.
ferider
Veteran
I have used both, but not next to each other. The OOF rendering of the new Nokton is outstanding. In practice, it is near impossible to distinguish photos made with it from photos made with the C-Sonnar, IMO. Except for the C-Sonnar being a bit more rectilinear, and the Nokton having better corner performance than the C-Sonnar, at least until f2.8, or so.
Buy an M-Nokton, try it out, sell it if you don't like it. I sold my Summilux after testing my Nokton.
Roland.
Buy an M-Nokton, try it out, sell it if you don't like it. I sold my Summilux after testing my Nokton.
Roland.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
I've not used a Nokton, but will comment anyway about the C-Sonnar. It is one of my favourite lenses. Mine is optimised between 1.5 and 2, so there is a need to make a small focus adjustment shooting at f2.8 or 4. The look of the lens from 1.5 to 4 is remarkable - this is at 2.8
At f5.6 up is very sharp (the plane of focus is actually quite sharp at 1.5, but see below), but even at f8 it doesn't always apear sharp at the extreme corners - f8 below
There are two things to be aware of using the C-Sonnar
- there is focus shift, well known and dicussed at length (Roger and Frances' site has a good decsription - that is fairly easy to correct for once you're used to it, albeit you'll likely misplace the point of focus occasionally. This can be back eye rather than front type error.
- It has field curvature, particularly at large apertures and close focus. This can have some interesting effects on what appears to be in focus, but is not necessarily a big issue. See picture below wide open:
Overall it is a lovely lens that I have used as my main lens for a long time.
I also have a Planar, which is a perfect lens - accurate focus, flat field and very sharp corner to corner at pretty well all apertures. It also draws beautifully, but gives a different feel. It could be carried as an alternative when you wanted sharp everywhere or didn't want to deal with focus shift etc. FWIW, this is the Planar at f2 - the oof doesn't seem to fall off as quickly as the Sonnar at 2.8, though I'm not sure if that's a physical effect or just my imagination... I suspect the dof scales say the same for each lens!
Mike
At f5.6 up is very sharp (the plane of focus is actually quite sharp at 1.5, but see below), but even at f8 it doesn't always apear sharp at the extreme corners - f8 below
There are two things to be aware of using the C-Sonnar
- there is focus shift, well known and dicussed at length (Roger and Frances' site has a good decsription - that is fairly easy to correct for once you're used to it, albeit you'll likely misplace the point of focus occasionally. This can be back eye rather than front type error.
- It has field curvature, particularly at large apertures and close focus. This can have some interesting effects on what appears to be in focus, but is not necessarily a big issue. See picture below wide open:
Overall it is a lovely lens that I have used as my main lens for a long time.
I also have a Planar, which is a perfect lens - accurate focus, flat field and very sharp corner to corner at pretty well all apertures. It also draws beautifully, but gives a different feel. It could be carried as an alternative when you wanted sharp everywhere or didn't want to deal with focus shift etc. FWIW, this is the Planar at f2 - the oof doesn't seem to fall off as quickly as the Sonnar at 2.8, though I'm not sure if that's a physical effect or just my imagination... I suspect the dof scales say the same for each lens!
Mike
ferider
Veteran
Great samples, Mike. For OOF comparison, two M-Nokton shots that I have posted before:
And a "tricky" one on Ektar (foliage in background):
What's not to like ?
Roland.
And a "tricky" one on Ektar (foliage in background):
What's not to like ?
Roland.
Brian Legge
Veteran
Roland, are those with the 1.5 or 1.1?
filmtwit
Desperate but not serious
Have you thought about moving to the Nikkor-sc 50mm f1.4?
It's a good, sharp Sonnar design.
With a light mod if focus's down to .7 meters
It's a good, sharp Sonnar design.
With a light mod if focus's down to .7 meters
thompsonks
Well-known
The Nokton has more CA than the Zeiss and its bokeh is less attractive. IMO it's a solid modern workhorse lens; the Sonnar, at wide apertures, is a beautiful one. Stopped down, the Sonnar-C is sharp and contrasty; it looks more contemporary than 'classic.'
ferider
Veteran
All the 50/1.5 M-Nokton, Brian.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Had both. Sold the Nokton (f/1.5). Yes,they're different. But as content and composition trump "technical quality" once you're above a (very low) quality threshold, at least in the sort of real-world pics I take (very few test charts and brick walls, almost no pixel peeping) I decided I'd prefer to waste my time on taking pictures rather than on piddling around swapping (and worse still, buying and selling) lenses. See also http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps firstlook sonnar 50.html
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
ferider
Veteran
Are me and Pioneer really the only ones in this thread that have actually used the two lenses that the OP asked about ?
furcafe
Veteran
No, but I haven't felt compelled to weigh in.
I have the Nikon S mount version of the C Sonnar, which seems to be optimized for f/2, though I have shot it on my Leica M-mount & LTM bodies using various adapters. I've only had the new Nokton for about a month & haven't shot w/it enough to really compare it w/the Sonnar side-by-side & aperture-to-aperture. So far, the rendition of the new Nokton does remind me of the original LTM version, which I sold years ago (to Chriscrawfordphoto, IIRC).
I have the Nikon S mount version of the C Sonnar, which seems to be optimized for f/2, though I have shot it on my Leica M-mount & LTM bodies using various adapters. I've only had the new Nokton for about a month & haven't shot w/it enough to really compare it w/the Sonnar side-by-side & aperture-to-aperture. So far, the rendition of the new Nokton does remind me of the original LTM version, which I sold years ago (to Chriscrawfordphoto, IIRC).
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Archiver
Veteran
Thank you to everyone for your input! I'm of two minds about getting the new Nokton. On one hand, I love the idea of being able to shoot at f1.5 without leaning in for compensation, and at up to 70cm away as opposed to 90cm. On the other hand, I've already got the Sonnar and I'm questioning whether I really want to spend that much money to scratch the GAS itch.
Prediction: for the next few weeks or months, maybe even a year or so, I'll keep looking at photos taken with the Nokton. In the meantime, I'll also be stockpiling the "slush fund". I'll walk into one of my dealers and see it on the shelf, play with it for a while, and buy it anyway.
Thanks again for all the input, it's what I love about this forum. That, and my imagined vision of dozens of people all over the world, faces illuminated by a screen, and rangefinders and lenses strewn around our desks!
Prediction: for the next few weeks or months, maybe even a year or so, I'll keep looking at photos taken with the Nokton. In the meantime, I'll also be stockpiling the "slush fund". I'll walk into one of my dealers and see it on the shelf, play with it for a while, and buy it anyway.
Thanks again for all the input, it's what I love about this forum. That, and my imagined vision of dozens of people all over the world, faces illuminated by a screen, and rangefinders and lenses strewn around our desks!
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Not for me. I love the 3D look of the Nokton. Incredible!
Leica M2, Nokton-M 50mm f/1.5, Tmax400.
Erik.
pepeguitarra
Well-known
I have both, I had the Nokton first and loved it, then I got the c-Sonnar and I love it even more. I have never had any issue focussing at f1.5, f2, f2.8, or f4. Is it possible that my copy does not have any focus shift at all? I honestly do not see anything to fix with it.