Owning both ZM Sonnar and Planar 50mm?

[drjoke]

I own ZM Sonnar 50mm, and I really like it. Yet after browsing Planar on Flickr, I have been wishing to have it too. 50mm is my most favorite focal length. I haven't been able to make 35mm work for me. So I am considering getting a Planar.

Is there anyone who owns both Sonnar and Planar? What do you think and on what occasions do you use them differently? I understand about the DOF and Bokeh that I can expect to be different, but what about other characteristics like saturation, contrast, and etc?

I have 35mm Biogon. Can I expect the Planar to be similar in character?

 

[mfogiel]

The Planar is sharper than the Biogon 35 - at least at f2.0-2.8, and it is a great lens for general purpose photography. I do have both the C Sonnar and the Planar, and when I want maximum sharpness, or a more gritty image, or I want to make sure there's no flare, I use the Planar. The Sonnar enters the picture when there are people close up involved, or when I want a "sweet" rendering of an image. Keep it in mind, that the film plays a role too, on the one hand you will have the C Sonnar with chromogenic films, on the other the Planar with slow speed B&W or chromes. You will also find, that the bokeh of the Planar is completely different - it contains lots more detail, while the 3d rendering is equally strong, maybe even the Planar is more "plastic" than the Sonnar. If you like 50mm lenses, the Planar is an outstanding bargain and a reference lens in the f2.0 class, for me it is a must have....

A shot from the Planar wide open:

A shot from the C Sonnar at f 2.8

both were taken on Neopan 400

C Sonnar at f 2.8 on XP2:

Planar at f2.0 and XP2

 

[drjoke]

I know this has been raised may times before, but has it been generally agreed on the quality of Planar G 45mm vs. Planar ZM 50mm?

I briefly had the Planar G one and was so happy with it.

 

[kxl]

I also have both the Planar and Sonnar. The Planar is definitely sharper and a better all around lens, but the Sonnar has "character," especially when shooting wide open, and with people in the frame.

 

[sepiareverb]

I quite liked the G 45 and shot a lot with it, but had the ZM Planar 50 only a very short time, disliked it. It seemed 'chalkier' than the G, though I'm not seeing that from examples posted here. I've been toying with the idea of getting another 45 for the AF now that I have a G2 body again- but the Planar is gone for good.

Funny how civilized discussions of Zeiss signatures are compared to Leica, where some can;t even accept there is a difference!

 

[luketrash]

I've seen mfogiel's images on flickr and they are sort of what drew me to the Planar, but his images with the Sonnar are just as good 😉

I'm jonsing for the Planar to have as a sharp/contrasty lens for every day use and I'm keeping my CV Heliar Classic as a purposely soft people lens. At least that's the plan. This only makes sense if you're OK having an expensive lens sitting around being not used most of the time. But I think that goes with the territory in rangefinder world 😉

Sometimes I think someone like Mfogiel could make a hazed over Russian 50 look just as good though. Someone else recently posted photos from China made with their M6 and the Planar and could also be getting kickbacks from Zeiss since they are just flat out a good photographer, haha.

 

[kxl]

BTW, here's a comparison: a Sonnar image v. a Planar image (pretty easy to tell which is which). They both have a 3D quality to them, but the rendering is obviously different.

 

[drjoke]

mfogiel,

How do you practically decide what lens you want to go with for a particular scene? How many lenses do you carry with all the time? Or, is it like "today is a Sonnar day" type of things. Do you get to the point where you are at a scene and decide to swap a Sonnar/Planar in for a shot?

What you get from Sonnar reflects my experience as well. That wonderful glow is what glued me on to Sonnar and made me ended up buying it. I have been pushing very hard to make that glow work on other types of scenes rather than portraits but keep running out of idas.

 

[drjoke]

mfogiel,

Also knowing how funny C Sonnar is with DOF, if mine is optimized f 2.8, should I focus on the eyes or the nose to get the wonderful effect like yours?

My subject is often my wife, who cannot keep her head still for more than 5 seconds. It is often easiest to focus on her ears/ear rings or even the outline or her face. I have to squint very hard to focus on her eyes or eyebrows. Oh well.

 

[drjoke]

kxl,

Your Sonnar pic does not exhibits the Sonnar glow (i.e., marble eyes, 3d glow).

Your Planar is wonderful though. What F-Stop do you use? Is it candid? He looks like he would walk straight at you afterward. Also what film?

 

[kxl]

kxl,

Your Sonnar pic does not exhibits the Sonnar glow (i.e., marble eyes, 3d glow).

Your Planar is wonderful though. What F-Stop do you use? Is it candid? He looks like he would walk straight at you afterward. Also what film?

Note that "glow" is a function of lighting -- side lighting helps; indoor overhead lighting, used in my example, doesn't show that glow quite as much. In fact, if you look at the Sonnar shots that you like from mfogiel, you'll notice the use of sid-lighting.

The Planr is totally candid. IIRC, it was f5.6, using Hp5+ @ 400 EI, developed in HC-110, Dil B.

 

[mfogiel]

Dr Joke,
I normally go out with just one 50mm lens, and if I know I will want to take closer portraits, I choose the C Sonnar. If I want to use it for outdoor shots, I try to use it at f8.0 - I have found that Tri-X in Diafine will give you an acceptable portrait if exposed between ISO 200 and ISO 1600, so if I have to use one lens and compromise, I develop my Tri-X in Diafine afterwards, so I may overexpose when shooting at f2.8 and 1/2000, but on the other hand even at f8.0 I get enough light outside to make a sharp shot most of the time. Here's a recent example of a Tri-X/Diafine shot made around f3.2-4 and certainly "overexposed" around ISO 800:

As for the focusing: if you stand 1.5 meters away from your subject, the useable DOF of the C Sonnar at f2.8 will be around 12-15 centimeters - more than enough to keep in focus the entire face, if you are closer, you have to stop down to f4.0 at least. However I recommend you to take a test shot of a ruler at f2.8 and see how accurate you are, From my experience, this lens is exactly in line at f3.2, and it is also the sweet spot between the sharpness and bokeh. Remember to use ferider's rule if you want to de-center the image: don't twist the lens after you have focused, shift your body up or down, this way you avoid misfocusing. BTW, I am grateful for your kind comments, but I feel a good deal of my "success" is just a good scanner (NIKON CS 9000).

 

[Roger Hicks]

For most focal lengths, I use a single focal length. Its shortcomings in the areas where it is not optimum are usually compensated for by the fact that its use becomes almost instinctive.

Thus I use a 21/2.8 Kobalux; a 35/1.4 pre-aspheric Summilux; a 50/1.5 Sonnar; a 75/2 Summicron; a 90/2.2 Thambar; a 135/2.8 Elmarit. The Summicron is the only acknowledged 'technical best' lens in that group. My wife, for contrast, uses an 18/4 Distagon; 50/1.5 Summarit; and either 90/2 or 90/3.5 Apo Lanthar.

Yes, there are lengths where it's nice to have two (or more) lenses, hence our 3x 90mm lenses and 2x 50mm. But when we're travelling (which is when we take most of our pictures) we almost never double up on focal lengths.

In other words, we regard f.l. as more important than 'signature'. We tend to choose the lens that gives the best mixture of features (sharpness, contrast, 'look') and stick with that.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

mfogiel,

Also knowing how funny C Sonnar is with DOF, if mine is optimized f 2.8, should I focus on the eyes or the nose to get the wonderful effect like yours?

My subject is often my wife, who cannot keep her head still for more than 5 seconds. It is often easiest to focus on her ears/ear rings or even the outline or her face. I have to squint very hard to focus on her eyes or eyebrows. Oh well.

A good trick here is to rock backwards (or forwards) a few inches after focusing: typically 2-6 inches, 5-15cm.

If you really USE your favourite lenses, you soon learn what's optimum. Of course, if you keep switching bottles, you'll never find out.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Dan States]

I have both and hardly use the Planar any more. However, if I were to shoot color slides I would go for the Planar for it's perfect contrast and sharpness at all stops. In black and white I find the Sonnar tends to have a gentle gradation that is easier to print. At the widest stops highlights tend to radiate the tiniest bit of flare that looks quite nice.

In any case you can buy both lenses for not much more than the cost of a Leica Summicron and you won't ever miss the difference in quality.

Best wishes
Dan