Planar or Sonnar?

S

Superdave

Newbie
Local time
12:40 AM
Joined
Jul 29, 2008
Messages
5
Hello guys,

Have been reading this forum for a while and I'm finally about to give in and get myself a Zeiss Ikon ZM with the 35mm Biogon and a 50mm lens. I like the Sonnar for its unique look (I have the old version for my Contax IIIa), but I'm also blown away by the quality of the Planar.

I know this topic has probably been discussed many times, but do any of you have any advice to which lens I should buy? What are the differences? I've read that the Sonnar pretty much performs like a Planar at f4 and up. Is that correct?

Thanks a lot for your help.

cheers
 
Two pluses for the Planar are:

1. same size filter as the 35 Biogon
2. Focuses down to 0.7m whereas the Sonnar only focuses down to 0.9m.

That said, I bought the Sonnar myself. You can't go wrong with either.
 
Good point. Any problems with the focus shift? I spoke to Tony over at Popflash and he said all his newly calibrated Sonnars should be fine in the f2.8-f1.5 range.

At f4 and up, is the Sonnar pretty much comparable to the Planar in terms of look? Anyone using both?

I've seen some color stuff from the Planar that's very, very nice.
 
To start with, buy the Planar (no focus shift, sharpest 50mm around) and a soft filter for portraits, then there are some other interesting 50mm lenses to consider, depending on your needs, ranging from the Elmar to Noctilux passing through the C Sonnar and the DR Summicron. The Planar and C Sonnar shots start looking the same at about f8.0-f11.0, not before.
 
Last edited:
I always felt a planar is a little too truthy to use as a portrait lens for models who are over 16 years old. But the sonnar fornula is sharp but somehow gentle.
 
steamer said:
I always felt a planar is a little too truthy to use as a portrait lens for models who are over 16 years old. But the sonnar fornula is sharp but somehow gentle.
Click to expand...

She is over 16 and Zeiss Sonnar 50/1.5 does a good job. It's a S-mount version lens, but formula is the same as in ZM. Shot at f/2.8.

The winner of "Pitsimissi 2008" beauty contest:
 
Jari,
That's what I was saying: Over 16, break out the sonnar, but Miss Lace looks like she could handle the planar no problem ;-)
 
spiderfrank said:
You just have an old Sonnar... Buy the Planar to have something different!
Click to expand...

I'm actually saying the same, because old and modern Sonnar 50/1.5 have same "signature". Here are some samples.

Modern Sonnar:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jsuominen/2593551244/
Vintage Sonnar (from 1950's):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jsuominen/2592707573/

Modern:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jsuominen/2586900786/
Vintage:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jsuominen/2586923286/

Modern:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jsuominen/2592585276/
Vintage:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jsuominen/2592580366/
 
Spyderman said:
Buy the Planar and a Jupiter-3 (which is actually a Sonnar).
Click to expand...

Build quality and low contrast of J-3 kills me. (Though I got no J-3 focus shift on M3)
So in pair to Hexanon 50/2 I will buy ZM Sonnar. Even assuming that I can buy plenty of J3s here in Russia at reasonable price ($60)
 
Thanks guys. I'm leaning towards the Planar at this point, just because of its performance with color.

Can't believe I'm buying another camera. I need help of some kind. :D
 
I have the Planar -- see attached image. Just ordered a Sonnar from Tony.

2697513192_856a1da2a4.jpg
 
When faced with the same decision I went with the Planar.

It's lovely. Lovely in colour or BW, high contrast but I like that.

I can see the attraction of a smaller lens though.

I have enough grief with focus shift with my Canon 50L f1.2, I wanted something that would make my life easier, especially since it was my first RF camera, and I thought I might find focusing a bit tricky at first. It was the right choice I think; I still find focus difficult, though the fact that my rangefinder was out of alignment for ages didn't help. (Now in the hands of Zeiss to be mended.) Hopefully things will get easier soon. :)
 
A new ZI owner, I went with the 50/2 Planar for the unscientific (and maybe uneducated) reason that the 45/2 Planar on my Contax G2 is absolutely superb.
 
How does the Planar compare against a 50 'Cron? The Summicrons are obviously fantastic performers in B&W, but as an overall lens, how does it compare (apart from the obvious difference in price)?

I just went ahead and bought myself the Zeiss Ikon with the 35mm Biogon. Loving the combo so far. Holding off on the 50mm lens just a little longer...
 
Cant go wrong with a planar, talk about super clear images, its my favorite RF lens I got and gets a hell of a lot of pro use with excellent results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom