? re. 50 planar vs. 50 sonnar

i don't think so.

i just finished reading every thread title in the zeiss ikon section of the forum.

ok then,
does anyone here have both a 50 planar and a 50 sonnar, the new version, zm versions and how'd ya like to take a few shots of the same thing at the same time etc???

it would be greatly appreciated and i wont tell you how to do it...;)

joe
 
i am starting to obsess about getting one, to the point of thinking about selling the planar and adding cash in order to fund the sonnar.

i just hope this passes...
 
those photo samples taken by the ZM Sonnar
look awfully nice Joe.
a modern lens that still gives that old fashion look to the images.
 
yes, i have seen the pics and yes i know it's a lens i will like.
the thing is to buy it and compare the 2 50's to see if there is enough of a difference for a guy like me to notice.
and if there is a difference then to decide if i should keep both 50's and break my (current) no doubles rule or sell the one i like least.

there would be no grief on my part if i could just swing the purchase out & out but that's not likely soon.
and so continues the self tortue of threads like this one.

:)
 
keep both Joe,
one is a Planar design, the other, a Sonnar design
each very different, and a world to itself.
 
back alley said:
i don't think i use a 50 often enough to warrant having 2.
Click to expand...

Joe,

Keep the Planar, you don't have to give up the Planar, give up something else for awhile...

Stop smoking cigar for a while? (or other luxuries)
 
I dunno what' so special about the "Sonnar look" or even if it exists. I have at least two Sonnars (Contax T2 and 2.8/85 in C/Y mount, Ernostars to be more precise), both have difficulty with bright, OOF highlights -- meaning bright ring background bokeh. From what I've seen here, the C-Sonnar behaves similarly. Haven't use the M42 Jupiter 9 much, but it too seems to have over-corrected spherical aberration.

If you aim for a more vintage or (Leica-)glowy look, a Hoya Softener A would do nicely and costs next to nothing.

Of course, the C-Sonnar's cemented triplet is of historical interest, but I got TWO triplets in my dirt cheap Jupiter 9. ;)
 
Am not a big fan of "lens character" loyalism, but I admit 50mm Sonnars have a signature clearly distinct from anything else. Can't say how much it is evident in modern C-Sonnar, but I can clearly see it from my J-3 negatives.
 

Attachments

  • bergen102.jpg
    bergen102.jpg
    107.7 KB · Views: 0
  • bergen90.jpg
    bergen90.jpg
    126.3 KB · Views: 0
I had purchased a ZM Planar and shot a roll with that before I returned it and bought the Sonnar because I was missing the extra stop of speed. Although I wasn't able to make a shot to shot comparison of the two lenses, I think I did get somewhat of a feel of them.

Planar:
http://www.shutterfall.com/1201

Sonnar:
http://www.shutterfall.com/1213


In my opinion, I think the Planar has better OOF.. it's a bit more creamy. The Sonnar's OOF is certainly not objectionable, though.

On the other hand, I really like the Sonnar's contrast and sharpness. It's a sharp lens, but not shockingly so.

So far my feeling is that the Sonnar is the best lens I've ever owned, better than the pre-asph 50 'lux that I had before I succumbed to the digital insanity.

However, the Planar is certianly not without its merits and for someone who's favorite focal length is 50, different enough from the Sonnar that there'd be room in the bag for both.

John
 
Thanks, Tom.

Btw, the last 3 shots on the Planar page were shot with a red filter, so the contrast is a bit whacked out.

John
 
I am interested in the differences between the two also. I have the planar and don't forsee having the finances to pull off the sonnar any time soon without selling the planar. I was under the impression that the planar was the high water mark of total image quality (balancing sharpness, contrast and low distortion at all apertures) of the zeiss line. Is this assumption correct? Does anybody own both yet and can give their impressions of the differences, or maybe shoot the same subject with both? Well, maybe I will just start saving up for it now so I can have both :)

BTW, has putts done a review of this one yet?

-polarcow
 
the Planar is a first class design, no doubt.
think of the Planar as a fine V8 engine
and the Sonnar as a smooth running straight six engine.
some people love the nostalgia of a smooth running classic six.
 
I received a Zeiss Sonnar lens for my tests of 50mm lenses, but I do not have a Zeiss Planar to compare it to.

Raid
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom