Recieved a 50 1.5C Sonnar ZM today, samples

[FanMan]

i wanted the faster 50 to play with dof wide open and to have the abilty to take some people pics in a darker environment.
it would appear that the zm 50/1.5 will do what i want it to do.
i can have sharp when i want it, outdoors in good light and i can have that sonnar look all the time and i can have a special look when i move inside or lower the lighting for a more intimate portrait session.
i think for a 50 this suits me quite well.
the zm 35/2 gives me what i want too, very sharp all the time and wider pov.
i'm keeping my sonnar.

joe

You must have guessed my thoughts.

This forum is not good for me. Always wanted to end up with a three lens kit 28-50-85. Now I know that I need also the 35.

 

[back alley]

i love the zm 35!
perfect size for my hands, incredibly sharp, the perfect one camera one lens, lens.

joe

 

[Blackbelt]

I really want at least the 1.5 or a 1.4, so the planar is out.

From the Zeiss-statement, this lens apparently is optimixed for ap. 2.8.

However, it is easily optimized for ap. 1.5, for the photographers who do most of theor work or generally prefer to work at this specific aperture.

Did you ever consider such a sligt readjustemt?

 

[rbrooks]

I've owned a few 50mm lenses. Noctilux, 1990s Lux, 1960s Cron, 2x 1950 Collapsible Crons (one radioactive), Summar, 1960s f2.8 Elmar, 1950s Elmar. The most consistent performer has been the Lux. And it gives the nice smooth look as well.
If you want to play with effects dont overlook the old Summar as well. Much cheaper than the Sonnar discussed here.
And with the M8 or R-D1 you can play with the different focus shift issues and learn to correct.
But they all have their uses...

 

[FanMan]

i love the zm 35!
perfect size for my hands, incredibly sharp, the perfect one camera one lens, lens.

joe

You said it - 35 is indeed the perfect one camera one lens, lens. Today I received my own zm 35 ... I know I must be crazy ....

 

[back alley]

congrats, i'm guessin' you will love it.

 

[gurtch]

Quoted from Luminous Landscape:

UPDATE
When the review of the 50mm Sonnar was first published there were some rather derogatory comments made on an online forum about our review, because of the concerns we had expressed about the sharpness (or lack thereof) of this lens when used wide open.
I had contact Zeiss about our finding and was told that the lens tested would be checked and also that the factory would be contacted for their feedback. Below is their response, confirming the appropriateness of our findings, and explaining why this is the case.​

C-Sonnar T* 1,5/50 ZM
Information about special features for dealers and users
The C-SONNAR T* 1.5/50 ZM is a very special lens; based on a classical lens design concept from the 1930´s. The additional letter “C” in the name of the lens expresses this designation.
This lens design helps to achieve pictures with a special artistic touch. This lens ‘draws’ your subject in a fine, flattering manner and is therefore ideally suited for portraiture. It renders a sharpness that is slightly rounded, being less aggressive than in contemporary lens designs, but at the same time not soft in its rendition.
Many famous portraits of glamorous and prominent people during the 1930´s used this technique to great effect. These images are characterized by portraying the person in a shining, nearly celestial way. This effect is very well balanced and not exaggerated; therefore many viewers see it in a subconscious way. The trained observer, however, understands the underlining technique and enjoys the results.
This lens design exhibits some additional effects, which should be understood to achieve the maximum benefit from the C-Sonnar T* 1.5/50 ZM:
Because of the above mentioned classical characteristic of the lens the best focus position in the object space can not be kept exactly constant for all f-stop settings.
The passionate photographer might notice a slightly closer best focus in his pictures than expected. When stopping down the lens to f/2.8 or smaller this effect is minimized, so the focus position will be as expected.
In order to balance the performance at full speed and other f-stop settings the lens is adjusted with above described characteristic.
The special features of the C-SONNAR T* 1.5/50 ZM are best used in emotional, artistic, narrative images, portraits or atmospheric landscapes. For documentation or technical subjects CARL ZEISS recommends to stop down the lens at least to f/5.6 or to use the PLANAR T* 2/50 ZM lens.
​

​

 

[SDK]

OK so my C-Sonnar does show a bit of front focus from wide open to f/2.8, though the effect is minimal at f/2.8. It seems this lens requires focus bracketing when used at wider f/stops and close distances. I did get a fairly sharp f/1.5 mirror-self-portrait by focusing on my cheek and ear with the RF, one of which put my eye in the plane of focus.

Voilà:

 

[Dan States]

I think by the look of your aperture blades this shot was at F2.8.

 

[Huck Finn]

Dan, are you still shooting with your Sonnar? Did you sell it? Is it sitting on the shelf?

 

[Dan States]

Sadly I could not make either of them work reliably. Luckily I bought from Tony Rose and he was outstanding in his handling of the problem. I have been using a Planar and have never found a better 50mm lens...ever...including all my various Summicrons...so there.

Last week I shot a few rolls on my great old IIA with Sonnar F1.5 and I'll be damned if I found any notable focus shift in that amazing lens. It is spot on from f1.5 down at all distances. I specifically did a few shots at F1.5 and then F2.8 to see if I could induce a notable shift and found nothing.

I still hope Zeiss will wake up and fix this design issue. I still want a new Sonnar but I want to be able to focus it accurately all the time.

 

[Mazurka]

Last week I shot a few rolls on my great old IIA with Sonnar F1.5 and I'll be damned if I found any notable focus shift in that amazing lens. It is spot on from f1.5 down at all distances. I specifically did a few shots at F1.5 and then F2.8 to see if I could induce a notable shift and found nothing.

Like I said, Zeiss dealt with focus shift effectively with the f/1.5 Sonnar 60 years ago, why can't they do the same thing now?

It's as if they made the same blunder as Nippon Kogaku, only in reverse: http://cameraquest.com/NRF-Contax.htm

 

[Harry Lime]

You mean Capa. HCB used Elmar, Summitar and Summicron. Capa used Contax and Nikon, among others.

HCB shot a LTM mount 1.5/50 Sonnar for a few years (1945ish - 1954?), until the introduction of the collapsible Summicron, which he then stuck with for the rest of his life.

If you go to the Magnum site you can find some pictures of HCB in China shooting with what appears to be a IIIc, mounting a 50 Sonnar.

 

[Thomas Turnbull]

Its interesting how the new lens has a similar character to the early sonnars.
Here are a couple of images with the originals;
The roses were taken with a 1930's 50mm 1.5 sonnar wide open,
and the tulips with a 1950's 50mm 1.5 at f2 or so.

I would have expected a little more sharpness from a modern lens, although I do like the sonnar 'look'.

I love your flower pictures! I stayed up way too late searching out stuff on the Zeiss50/1.5 last night. Your comments and pictures did it for me and I'd like to see what it's like to use one.

My concern about the new one is two fold: cost and utility. I don't have all that much to spend (having just shot my wad for a nice RD1) and $900 is a lot for me. I also fear it may turn out to be too much of a "one trick pony."

My eyes aren't getting younger, either, and I wonder how such a large focus shift would work out. I live too far away from any place that would stock the new one, too, so the only way i can see to try one out is to find an older one at a good price and buy it.

So I'm wondering if you might be able to steer me to
1) some older Sonnars that would be probable keepers,
2) some good places to look for them,
3) any bad ones that I should avoid &
4) an appropriate price range.

Thank you for your trouble and, once again, for your strangely moving images!

Thomas Turnbull

 

[ferider]

Try Nikkor 50/1.4 or Canon 50/1.5. Around US 300.

 

[Shadowplay]

The sonnars listed on popflash say "HAS BEEN ADJUSTED FOR FOCUS SHIFT"

To me, this implies that the issue has been resolved - is that not the case?

I'd like to pick one of these up for my MP but I'm hesitant - obviously.

 

[Huck Finn]

The sonnars listed on popflash say "HAS BEEN ADJUSTED FOR FOCUS SHIFT"

To me, this implies that the issue has been resolved - is that not the case?

I'd like to pick one of these up for my MP but I'm hesitant - obviously.

No, it doesn't. There will be issues with focus shift at some apertures below f/5.6 regardless of how the lens has been adjusted. The only question is whether you'd prefer to have the focus shift at f/1.5 & f/2 or at f/2.8 & f/4.

I'd suggest that you contact Popflash directly for an explanation for the adjustment, but I suspect it means that the lenses have been adjusted to eliminate the focus shift at f/1.5 & to minimize it at f/2, but that means that you will have issues at f/2.8 & f/4 especially at close distances.

 

[ampguy]

Steve

Steve

Did you read that other thread and the letter from Zeiss to dealers and users?

My understanding is that unless Zeiss modified (Not Popflash or a dealer) adjusts it, it is optimized for focusing at f2.8, and is purposely designed to be soft at 1.5, to be close to the '30s design.

Upon request, the factory will re-optimize it for sharpness at 1.5.

If someone gets one that is sharp at 1.5, from Zeiss, that hasn't been modded, it is ilkely broken.

I shot another roll already in B&W but have not yet processed anything. I did some focus tests but I am sure this is front focusing, as it seems to be normal for this lens. If this is the case, it's not going to work for me. I kind of bought it for close focus use (indoor low light and some portraits at 1.5) so I think it will go back, and maybe Ill buy a used pre-ASPH lux.

Thanks for the comments.

 

[WoolenMammoth]

My understanding is that unless Zeiss modified (Not Popflash or a dealer) adjusts it, it is optimized for focusing at f2.8, and is purposely designed to be soft at 1.5, to be close to the '30s design.

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.

 

[jjovin]

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.

How awesome are the photos (in your opinion) compared to summilux?