Recieved a 50 1.5C Sonnar ZM today, samples

S

SteveRD1

Well-known
Local time
11:35 AM
Joined
Jun 17, 2005
Messages
309
View My Gallery
Though I use a Leica MP and not a Zeiss Ikon, I decided to give the new 50 sonnar a chance. I just sold my Noctilux, and was all set to purchase the 50 Summilux ASPH but BH had a mix up and was out of stock. I decided to get the ZM Sonnar.

Shot a roll with it and more than half was VERY soft. I realized that most were shot at 1.5 wide open. Im talking soft as is unusable. Im used to shooting with a Noct and 1.4 lenses, and never had this softness. The shots I took at F2 were great.

below are some samples...

1st one is at F2. 2nd is at 1.5, and the sharpest one I had at 1.5, 3rd was at 1.5 and is off even though my focus was on my eye. I tale this shot with every lens I try out, and I can get spot on, even with the Noct. The sonnar was overly soft or did not focus correctly. Looks like possible front focus.
 

Attachments

  • sonf2s.jpg
    sonf2s.jpg
    130.4 KB · Views: 0
  • son3s.jpg
    son3s.jpg
    135.7 KB · Views: 0
  • son2s.jpg
    son2s.jpg
    97.4 KB · Views: 0
A few more, and comparisons

A few more, and comparisons

Here are a couple more...

1st one, summicron at F2

2nd, sonnar at 1.5

3rd, Noct at F1 - focus on the eye. Compare to the shot above with the sonnar at 1.5
 

Attachments

  • crony.jpg
    crony.jpg
    104 KB · Views: 0
  • sony.jpg
    sony.jpg
    99.8 KB · Views: 0
  • meandmynoct.jpg
    meandmynoct.jpg
    109.2 KB · Views: 0
Perhaps you'd want to ask for a replacement, while you're in that 10-day window?

I think the shots look great; I love the Sonnar look. Enough to have bought the Contax-to-Leica adapter so I can use my Contax mount Zeiss-Opton Sonnar 1.5

These look like an improvement over the "old" Sonnar.

But I'd still get the Summilux, if I had the money 🙂
 
So, my 1st impressions..

So, my 1st impressions..

I ordered the lens in Black, but BH sent me silver. Since Im using it on a Black MP, I wanted black. So either way, this lens has to go back. I am not sure I want another becuase at 1.5 it just seems so soft or is not properly focusing. I also would like to save myself $1700 extra $$ over the 50 ASPH Leica, but I use dto own the 50 ASPH leica and its incredible. Just too much $$$.

So, Im going to try another roll, then decide if I want to swap it for the black or get a refund. Its a nicely built lens, and focuses smooth. Seems just as well built as my cron, but a little smoother!

One more soft sample at 1.5 (1st shot)

2nd shot is with another lens I recieved today, the VC 35 PII - $330 and its SHARP and contrasty. Love this one.
 

Attachments

  • soft1.5.jpg
    soft1.5.jpg
    100.1 KB · Views: 0
  • pancsm.jpg
    pancsm.jpg
    144.6 KB · Views: 0
Your sharp images look sharp (in the small web versions, anyway). Maybe it is a front focus thing as Frank mentioned above. You might try shooting a sheet of newspaper at an angle--you know, focus on something obvious like the first line in a paragraph. You should be able to tell in short order whether your focus is accurate.
 
The Noct

The Noct

The Noct is nice, but its not $3800 nice. Its big, HEAVY and makes the M camera feel unbalanced and bulky. It has its share of misses, but it is an awesome lens. Just overpriced, as with most Leica lenses.

I would not of sold it but I needed cash, and was selling it and my cron to buy a summilux ASPH 50. Tried to save more cash by buying the sonnar, but its most likely going back, unless my next few rolls look better. These resized shots are hard to tell but the full size scans (from costco) are vey soft on the sonnar shots.
 
Earlier today I posted a statement from Zeiss about the Sonnar on the thread "3 ZM Lenses Reviewed." It addresses all the issues that you raise. There's nothing wrong with your lens sample, but the Sonnar may not be the one for you. The statement is titled Information About Special Features for Dealers and Users & I encourage you to read it. It will answer all of your questions:

www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35356&page=6

This post is down toward the bottom of the page.

Huck Finn
 
endustry said:
I've seen 50 1.5 ZM shots that were really perfect. I'm thinking sample variation may be afoot. Zeiss can't focus all their QC issues on their bodies alone, can they? 🙄
Click to expand...

It's not a QC thing. This is a reincarnation of a lens from the 1930's & focus shift is one of its characteristics - especially at close distances as in the shots shown. Someone who likes the look learns to work with it. If you don't, you move on.
 
back alley said:
the sonnar self portrait looks a bit sharper than then the noct to me.
Click to expand...

Humh?? Am I blind? It looks definitely the opposite, for me - there's nothing sharp in that Sonnar portrait shot, except the filter bayonet of the lens - but the eyes at the nocti shot are sharper than everything else in the Sonnar picture.

All I can say I'm convinced the Sonnar is nothing for me. This discussion about it's front focus issue is a deal killer. If I want something soft and fast, I can use my Canon 1.2/50...

Didier
 
Thanks for posting the shots. So odd to see the tack sharp shot @ f/2, and just 1 stop away soft focus @1.4.

Since you're on this forum, presumably you've considered the Voigtlander Nokton 50/1.5? Certainly affordable and a good performer wide open center. just a thought.
 
I think there is matching problem between ZM Sonnar and the epson R-D1.
My Sonnar 50mm can not properly focuse on the R-D1. Works fine on the MP.
At the same time, the canon 50/1.5 works very well on R-D1.
 
chenzhaohy said:
I think there is matching problem between ZM Sonnar and the epson R-D1.
My Sonnar 50mm can not properly focuse on the R-D1. Works fine on the MP.
At the same time, the canon 50/1.5 works very well on R-D1.
Click to expand...

Because of the crop factor, there's a depth of field issue for the same field of view with any digital camera vs film camera. Shallower depth of field is going to make the focus shift issue a bigger problem with the R-D1.
 
it seems to me we are talking about maybe 3 different issues here.

one, is the lens sharp at 1.5?
two, is it the sonnar look that is the issue?
three, did zeiss backtrack here? is it the photojournalist's lens as stated on their website or is it the lens of an artist as stated on LL?

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