Recieved a 50 1.5C Sonnar ZM today, samples

honestly, if you compare the price of the two lenses, the zeiss is that much less awesome. Its a really nice lens, its flat out amazing for color work, which I rarely do... Its a little disappointing fully stopped down, my Elmar has a magic to it at 16 which the zeiss doesnt have at all. The thing about the bok on this lens is that its a straight blur with no abberations or swirly stuff. If your light is right its this super nice cream puff effect which Ive seen from no other lens. If not, its imo, a little plain and boring. A second version summilux is definitely sharper wide open in comparison. This lens wide open is definitely more of an effect compared to the summilux which just has another stop... I say this in reference to shooting people, not things.

Its a totally nice lens and a respectable value. After using it for a while though, its not doing the duty I hoped it would be, but Im not sure that should be interpreted as a knock on the lens. I bought it to shoot people at 1.5. Im having difficulty in that department, but I bring the expectation of having someones eyes sharp every time I focus on their eyes. Please weigh my criticism appropriately. If I shot flowers I wouldnt have likely even noticed...

One more thing, just to be clear, this lens looks tremendously different than a summilux, Im not too sure its particularly fair to necessarily compare the two. At 1.5 the ZM is pretty dreamy and other worldly to bring up two silly words. The summilux at 1.4 just has whatever is in focus popping from the background a bit more, nice 3-d thing happening, but the pictures still look "normal" compared to say, "dreamy". Both lenses are nice but they really do very different things. If you are into 50's I wouldnt think it redundant to own both (I do) the one is not going to do what the other does. How important it is to have access to both looks is another discussion. Talk to me after I push 500 rolls through this lens, my opinion of its ease of use might change, doubt it though. I say all this after shooting for three weeks straight with it, probably 75 rolls or somewhere around there. It sure feels nice in the hand, and for its size its pretty light.

Oh, the other thing worth mentioning, I got enough half moons on negs to suggest this lens is not nearly as flare proof as I have read. The only other lens this happens with is my tele elmarit. Id never use this lens during the day without the hood.
 
WoolenMammoth said:
I bought it to shoot people at 1.5. Im having difficulty in that department, but I bring the expectation of having someones eyes sharp every time I focus on their eyes.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply. I do not have the lens yet but will have it soon. I almost never shoot wide open. I always stop down 1 or 2 stops and based on your experience and experiences of others who have written about this lens I think this is just the lens for me. It seems your lens is optimized for 2.8. It would help you, perhaps, if you optimized it at 1.5. Then what you expect to be in focus at 1.5 will indeed be in focus.
My impression is that Zeiss does this adjutment for free.
Good luck and thanks again.
 
so are the C Sonnars that Tony sells fully optimized to be used at F 1.5 close up with no re-focus correction mumbo jumbo or not?
 
the oof area from those initial wide open shots looks quite similar to what a 1.5 summarit delivers... paired with the sharpness of the 1.4 nikkor, which imho has a more twirly bokeh. really interesting lens, that sonnar... me'd want that. bah.
 
jjovin said:
It seems your lens is optimized for 2.8. It would help you, perhaps, if you optimized it at 1.5. Then what you expect to be in focus at 1.5 will indeed be in focus.
Click to expand...

I got my lens from Tony Rose, he said it was optimized for 1.5 and based on shooting my focus charts and seeing others on the web, I believe it is optimized for 1.5. There is still some shift. some, not inches, as would be expected from the 2.8 optimized lens.

My ZM sonnar and my sample of the 1.5 summarit couldnt be more different lenses with absolutely different looks and absurdly different, absolutely different bok. Absolutely different bok as in not remotely comparable at all. The sumarit in comparison isnt very sharp at 1.5 compared the the ZM sonnar either.
 
WoolenMammoth said:
you are not understanding this...

its not that the lens is sharp or soft at 1.5. I have one. Its plenty sharp at 1.5. Its a question of WHERE its sharp at 1.5, the place where you focused it to be sharp, or some other spot...

My lens is optimized for 1.5 and it still front focuses slightly. By slightly I mean half an inch, but with the depth of field at 1.5, 1/2 inch is a lot when you are talking about an eyeball... Its usable but sometimes really aggrivating. I would never do any serious documentary work with this lens on people at 1.5. Please spare me the bit of learning where the lens focuses. That is fine if you are shooting trees but just a ridiculous sentiment when dealing with a moving subject, even more ridiculous when you take into account having to compensate for center focusing if you frame your subject in the corner of the frame... The lens is fine at f2 but for whatever reason I feel more confident with my summicron for run and gun work. If your subject is a rock or a tree or a lamp post, the bit of front focus I have is definitely negligable and frankly, not worth discussing. So, its a big deal and its not a big deal at the same time, it really all depends what you are using it for. And of course this sentiment is consistently left off of peoples reviews of this lens which I find a little ironic.

The big thing that takes some getting used to on the 1.5 optimized lens is having all the depth of focus behind your focus point. Its a fiddly little lens with a learning curve, but my work with it so far is really nice and IMO worth the trouble of fiddling.

At the end of the day, a summilux just works at 1.4. You open it, focus it, take a picture, and get a picture of what you thought you were going to get, the end. This lens you have to deal with at 1.5. You can deal with it and get awesome photos but there are scenarios where thats not always going to be practical or possible. Choose wisely.
Click to expand...

I don't use a lens as fast as f/1.5 (although I did have the opportunity to try a C-Sonnar for a few weeks), so I'm just asking a question.

Would you really be using a lens at f/1.5 for moving subjects? With DOF that shallow, I imagine that any shot would be a crap shoot at that speed even without the front focus.

From everyting I've read, the old Sonnars were most valued for use as a portrait lens . . . which is kind of like shooting a rock or a tree.
 
Huck Finn said:
Would you really be using a lens at f/1.5 for moving subjects?
Click to expand...

absolutely.

Im talking about people in conversation. People can be animated, they move, and taking portraits of real people involved in normal life is not anything like shooting a tree unless that tree happens to be in a hurricane... I suppose we all have our definitions of portrait work. Taking pictures of people posed stone still is not something Ive ever aspired to do.

This still beguiles the point a little, wether or not your portrait is moving or not, when you focus on an eye, or whatever point 1.2 meters away, when you look at your negative it should reflect a point of focus at 1.2 meters away. At 1.5, my particular lens does not do that, moving subject or otherwise. You get some other distance off by half an inch. On a tree or a rock you can get away with that as there isnt something, generally speaking, in the anatomy of a tree or rock that *should* be in focus. Now, you can choose to focus on whatever you like in life, but when you take a picture of a person and their nose is in focus and there eyes are not it just looks weird. And if you didnt intend for it, its maddening. The end.

The bottom line is this, regardless of what words we use to describe the activity. I have no problem or hesitation using a summilux at 1.4 to shoot candid portraits of people and in a roll I might miss a few and its usually my fault. I cant use the ZM sonnar at 1.5 like that at all. In a roll I might have 3 or 4 keepers, the rest are a mess of missed focus. Same body. Same operator. Same stop. Totally different results. Draw your own conclusion...

Every picture, on the other hand, that Ive taken with that lens of stuff like street signs and salt shakers, totally rules. Those subjects dont necessarily imply a point of focus and you can live with the results if you dont get exactly what you intended. Its a really cool lens. In my experience, Ive discovered some limitations, perhaps others might not. I can only report on my experience with it, Im not a lens guru or any silliness like that. I have some limited real world use with the lens, I hope nobody takes my comments for anything more than that. I certainly hope my comments dont talk someone out of buying the lens. It would be interesting to hear if others using the design the way I do share similar experiences.

cheers!
 
My experience trying to use the C-Sonnar was the same as yours.

But just for my own education, please explain why you would use a 50 mm lens at f/1.4 to shoot candid portraits of people who are in motion? I can see a 35 mm lens in this application, but why a 50? I wouldn't want to limit my DOF in this application the way a 50/1.5 does. I would be using a larger aperture for such photos with this focal length.

Again, not contesting your point, I just have very little experience in this application.
 
Huck-

Personal preference really, I dont like the look of 35mm lenses at all. I stick to 50's for the most part just from a style perspective. I shoot a lot of doc for rock and roll and spend a lot of time shooting at bars which are always dark. I dont go out of my way to shoot with shallow DOF but most bars in America dictate the stop with their lighting.
 
WoolenMammoth said:
Huck-

Personal preference really, I dont like the look of 35mm lenses at all. I stick to 50's for the most part just from a style perspective. I shoot a lot of doc for rock and roll and spend a lot of time shooting at bars which are always dark. I dont go out of my way to shoot with shallow DOF but most bars in America dictate the stop with their lighting.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I understand the need in those situations. and yes, the longer focal length is probably helpful there.
 
Amen.

And what's the deal w/clubs & crappy red lighting?

WoolenMammoth said:
I shoot a lot of doc for rock and roll and spend a lot of time shooting at bars which are always dark. I dont go out of my way to shoot with shallow DOF but most bars in America dictate the stop with their lighting.
Click to expand...
 
f 2.8

7181389-md.jpg


f 1.5

7181456-md.jpg
 
Last edited:
hello

I have been using C-SOnar on my Leica M8
so far I have been happy.
I think there is a bit of focus shift but for me it it enough cope with. Do I wonder what it would be like to have 50 Summilux? Absolutely!! but for now This works for me.

Here are some samples at 1.5 You may notice the slight (or large) front focus but it worked out as it in my opinion
 

Attachments

  • L1004061.jpg
    L1004061.jpg
    57.2 KB · Views: 0
  • L1004060.jpg
    L1004060.jpg
    45.2 KB · Views: 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom