santino
FSU gear head
it's quite interesting how fast negative rumours get spread, be it the new Sonnar, M8 etc...
santino
FSU gear head
btw. wouldn't a third 50 from Zeiss be nice? I'm thinking of a Tessar design, 2,8 50mm collapsible in M mount?!? sweet that would be 
Zeiss, hope you read that
Zeiss, hope you read that
John Friar
Member
As you can read above, I ordered this lens on Friday...a black version from B&H. I received the shipping notice today...a silver one is coming! The problem is B&H's website. The one described as black has a code of ZE5015S and the one described as silver has a code of ZE5015B. To make matters worse, both pictures are of black lenses although one is quite cleary not the Sonnar 50...has a min. aperture setting of f22!
I immediately called B&H and was told that I had hit the wrong button. Eventually, after having to raise my voice, he took a look at the website and understood where the confusion came from. Alas, it's too late to stop the shipping so I'll receive the silver lens and will need to return it for a black lens.
I'm telling you this not to warn against B&H (they have been excellent in the past and I will continue to use them), just to be careful when ordering this lens. I think I've heard of someone else on this forum receiving the silver S50 after ordering the black version. Hopefully, B&H will correct their site soon.
I immediately called B&H and was told that I had hit the wrong button. Eventually, after having to raise my voice, he took a look at the website and understood where the confusion came from. Alas, it's too late to stop the shipping so I'll receive the silver lens and will need to return it for a black lens.
I'm telling you this not to warn against B&H (they have been excellent in the past and I will continue to use them), just to be careful when ordering this lens. I think I've heard of someone else on this forum receiving the silver S50 after ordering the black version. Hopefully, B&H will correct their site soon.
john_s
Well-known
Has anyone here taken up Zeiss on their offer to correct the focussing at f1.5? I'm thinking about it and am wondering what the focus shift situation would be like after the adjustment. I wrote to them and in their prompt and helpful reply they said:
"We can adjust your C-Sonnar lens to minimize the focus shift at full aperture."
Actually I'd like to not just minimize it but to have no focus inaccuracy at f1.5. This would result in focus shift towards the rear at smaller apertures, like the Noctilux, but for the photos I take with this sort of lens I'd prefer that. At least I'd know that any focus shift would be in one direction only, rather than saying to myself "which way should I move the camera after focussing, let's see, the aperture is f whatever so I go forward x cm, no back y cm".
"We can adjust your C-Sonnar lens to minimize the focus shift at full aperture."
Actually I'd like to not just minimize it but to have no focus inaccuracy at f1.5. This would result in focus shift towards the rear at smaller apertures, like the Noctilux, but for the photos I take with this sort of lens I'd prefer that. At least I'd know that any focus shift would be in one direction only, rather than saying to myself "which way should I move the camera after focussing, let's see, the aperture is f whatever so I go forward x cm, no back y cm".
back alley
IMAGES
i rarely shoot at infinity or at the closest focusing distance so it seems to work, as is, ok for me.
joe
joe
awilder
Alan Wilder
Jerome's color shot (cropped?) looks quite nice. Love the sharpness, color and OFF imagery. Earlier complaints several weeks ago about focus inaccuracy even at mid-range haven't shown up lately. Anyone know why? Is it limited to subjects under a meter or two?
jerome
Member
so far i did not experience the focus shift , i do have some OOF pictures sometimes but no more than with my cron , and since i m new to the M world i strongly suspect that this more related to my focusing skills
and here more test shots taken today, all were taken wide open (1.5) :
this lens is indeed sharp wide open :
and some bokeh samples :
and finally ... exposure not easy with white flower
and this one is a crop from the previous :
jerome
and here more test shots taken today, all were taken wide open (1.5) :
this lens is indeed sharp wide open :
and some bokeh samples :
and finally ... exposure not easy with white flower
and this one is a crop from the previous :
jerome
Noserider
Christiaan Phleger
To answer an above post, yes, the focus shift is more apparent at less than one meter. It's not really an issue past 1.5m. I'll be posting more info and shots here when I get some chromes back.
Everybody's been posting some great shots, the one with the group of people in color from the M8 gives a good Idea what its all about, Subtle, but if you dig that kind of thing (or want to twist your Leica Buddy's knobs) its a great lens to use.
Everybody's been posting some great shots, the one with the group of people in color from the M8 gives a good Idea what its all about, Subtle, but if you dig that kind of thing (or want to twist your Leica Buddy's knobs) its a great lens to use.
FanMan
Established
Noserider said:
That's interesting. I think there was someone posting some weeks ago that the focus shift is even more apparent at distances > 1 m, e.g. that there is a focus shift of more than 1 meter, when having a distance of 8m.
I have tested the focus shift at the minimum distance and indeed the results confirmed that issue. However, I have not taken test shots testing this issued with greater distances.
john_nyc
Established
John Friar said:
I had a similar problem, but in person at B&H. Someone in their stockroom had put the inventory sticker for the black one on the box for the silver.
Of course I took the lens out of the box at the counter to look at it, and it was obviously silver. The guy started arguing with me that it was a black lens because the computer and the sticker said it was black. I'm standing there showing him the silver lens and he's arguing with me! A manager had to come over and tell the guy that it was indeed black (seeing it wasn't enough, I guess). Anyway, I decided to take the silver one. As I was paying, I got the idea that perhaps the black one was marked silver in the stockroom. The customer service guys didn't think it'd work, but as it turned out I ended up leaving the store with the black lens I was after.
B&H seems to have a problem keeping the finish colors straight on this lens. I've usually found the B&H system to be pretty accurate, especially considering the amount of stuff they stock.
As for the lens, although I didn't think I had a problem with focus on it, I wasn't crazy about the bokeh. I sold it and replaced it with a pre-asph 50 lux.
John
willie_901
Veteran
I just saw the results from a roll of Fuji S-800 taken with my ZI M with a C-Sonnar. At the same time I got a roll back (Konica-Minolta 400-S) from a Nikon F3 SLR and an old Nikkor 50/1.4 AI'd lens. Both rolls were shot mostly at f 2.8 or wider and both had numerous frames taken with subjects in the 6 to 10 ft. range.
Guess what? There were more soft shots from the SLR than from the C-Sonnar. The Nikkor focus errors are mostly front focus. I'm sure this is my fault (poor technique and old-man eyes) and partially because the ZI-M is much easier to focus in low light. The fact is, focusing at f 1.5 is tricky. Because rangefinders are not precise and because of unintended forward/backward camera movement after focusing and before exposure, the asymmetric DOF of the C-Sonnar requires more practice than other fast lenses. However the more color shots I see from the C-Sonnar, the more I love this lens.
Now I have to get my butt in gear and develop three rolls of TriX taken with the C-Sonnar.
willie
Guess what? There were more soft shots from the SLR than from the C-Sonnar. The Nikkor focus errors are mostly front focus. I'm sure this is my fault (poor technique and old-man eyes) and partially because the ZI-M is much easier to focus in low light. The fact is, focusing at f 1.5 is tricky. Because rangefinders are not precise and because of unintended forward/backward camera movement after focusing and before exposure, the asymmetric DOF of the C-Sonnar requires more practice than other fast lenses. However the more color shots I see from the C-Sonnar, the more I love this lens.
Now I have to get my butt in gear and develop three rolls of TriX taken with the C-Sonnar.
willie
ljsegil
Well-known
First results from the Sonnar
First results from the Sonnar
Well, I got my first roll of shots from the Sonnar, all shot at f/1.5-2.0, most at 1-2 meters distance. I had no problem with focus (other than some shots I totally scewed up), and most pictures had at least some of that special Sonnar look (call it creamy if you will). A few strongly backlit shots did show some flare (hood on), but it was well controlled and with one exception did not obscure the subject or prevent resolution of detail. I was shooting with T-max, so the contrast was less than I would have liked, but I don't think that was the fault of the lens. Another roll should answer that issue.
Basically, I'm very happy in a preliminary way. I've got a color roll which should be ready tomorrow and will report back then (if anyone is actually interested).
LJ
First results from the Sonnar
Well, I got my first roll of shots from the Sonnar, all shot at f/1.5-2.0, most at 1-2 meters distance. I had no problem with focus (other than some shots I totally scewed up), and most pictures had at least some of that special Sonnar look (call it creamy if you will). A few strongly backlit shots did show some flare (hood on), but it was well controlled and with one exception did not obscure the subject or prevent resolution of detail. I was shooting with T-max, so the contrast was less than I would have liked, but I don't think that was the fault of the lens. Another roll should answer that issue.
Basically, I'm very happy in a preliminary way. I've got a color roll which should be ready tomorrow and will report back then (if anyone is actually interested).
LJ
back alley
IMAGES
i'm always interested in seeing photos from the 50 sonnar.
joe
joe
S
Socke
Guest
Yes please, I'm interested.
John Friar
Member
I now have the black S50, originally ordered from B&H, and have returned the silver one that was mistakenly sent. I had both of them for a day which allowed for some interesting comparisons (not optical!)...all very subjective...
The black lens appears to be physically smaller...a strange optical illusion. The silver is initially a little colder to the touch...silver paint must be a better conductor of heat. The aperture and distance markings seem to be a little sharper in detail on the silver. All very subjective and not very important. The black lens looks sharp on my M8!
I posted these in another thread but they should probably have appeared here, so here goes again...
John
This is a 2/3 crop:
The following 2 are full frame:
The black lens appears to be physically smaller...a strange optical illusion. The silver is initially a little colder to the touch...silver paint must be a better conductor of heat. The aperture and distance markings seem to be a little sharper in detail on the silver. All very subjective and not very important. The black lens looks sharp on my M8!
I posted these in another thread but they should probably have appeared here, so here goes again...
John
This is a 2/3 crop:
The following 2 are full frame:
ljsegil
Well-known
more followup
more followup
I got back a roll of Porta NC400 shot with the 50mm Sonnar, all at f/1.5-2.0, again mostly at close distances. I am blown away. I had absolutely no focus problems, in fact the detail is striking. Color rendition is excellent, very warm. The OOF rendering is beautiful to my eye; very smooth with no geometric shapes intruding on the image. Some of the indoor shots were made of faces with very bright lighting and unlit backgrounds and the facial detail and exposure were fine, very pleasing for portrait use. The lens (and the film too, I guess) handled the extreme contrast very well. (As an aside, the meter on the ZI also acquitted itself admirably in very difficult conditions). I detected no vignetting or softness in the periphery on either indoor or outdoor shots. My next roll will include some comparisons with the Leica 50mm f/1.4 ASPH lens. I am very curious as to the outcome.
Anyway, I have observed none of the focus or softness issues that others have described with the Sonnar. Perhaps there is an excessive sample variation in this lens, but I am certainly pleased with mine. I expect that as I get to know it better it will become my main normal lens (I shoot mostly people and landscapes) for the M mount, with the Leica taking a subsidiary role when detail is more important than warmth and atmosphere.
LJ
more followup
I got back a roll of Porta NC400 shot with the 50mm Sonnar, all at f/1.5-2.0, again mostly at close distances. I am blown away. I had absolutely no focus problems, in fact the detail is striking. Color rendition is excellent, very warm. The OOF rendering is beautiful to my eye; very smooth with no geometric shapes intruding on the image. Some of the indoor shots were made of faces with very bright lighting and unlit backgrounds and the facial detail and exposure were fine, very pleasing for portrait use. The lens (and the film too, I guess) handled the extreme contrast very well. (As an aside, the meter on the ZI also acquitted itself admirably in very difficult conditions). I detected no vignetting or softness in the periphery on either indoor or outdoor shots. My next roll will include some comparisons with the Leica 50mm f/1.4 ASPH lens. I am very curious as to the outcome.
Anyway, I have observed none of the focus or softness issues that others have described with the Sonnar. Perhaps there is an excessive sample variation in this lens, but I am certainly pleased with mine. I expect that as I get to know it better it will become my main normal lens (I shoot mostly people and landscapes) for the M mount, with the Leica taking a subsidiary role when detail is more important than warmth and atmosphere.
LJ
David Noble
Established
I wish I could say that I share the postive experience that others are relating here. I was really impressed by the look of some of the photos that have been posted, so I decided to buy the Sonnar. I shot most of the day and after dark with it today on an R-D1s. My conclusion: it is going back to the shop tomorrow.
I really wanted to like this lens, and fell in love with it on a mechanical level immediately. The Zeiss lenses do feel more solidly built than most of the Volkländer. I have to say, though, that after a couple of hundred shots I am positive that this front-focuses consistently and significantly at apertures wider then 2.8. At 2.8 things improve perceptibly, and I think by f/4 there is no problem at all focus or sharpness. This is not a problem with "softness," because even wide open areas that are in focus have a sharpness and precision, which is what I'd hoped for, and contrast beautifully with the softer surrounding bokeh.
The problem is that there is no way to accurately and certainly place that zone of focus. Trying to compensate for the degree by which it front focuses by guess and by god is too aggravating and unpredictable. And though the front-focusing below f/2 is predictable, I think the degree varies with distance. It is just too much to work out. Rangefinder framing, etc. is imprecise enough already without adding yet another mystery variable. I'm not skilled enough to keep all these balls in the air at the same time.
I suppose I could try to have the lens optimized for 1.5 instead of 2.8 (I really believe from my experience that this is inherent in the lens design and that it is true that it is optimized for 2.8 and above). But I don't really think it is worth it. I suppose, as others have suggested, it might be a QC or sample variation problem. But I don't think so. One thing I have noted (and I think someone mentioned earlier) is that the people relating good results seem to be shoooting film, not digital. The problems with focusing wide open may be more severe on a 1.5 crop with less depth of field.
In any case, with regret, I am returning it. It is a lovely lens, but for me, not useable, even though I really like the look of it. If you can't focus reliably at 1.5 or 2, what's the use?
I will add that I have the Voigtlander Ultron 35 and the Nokton 50, and both of those focus perfectly wide open. No focus shifts going on there.
I really wanted to like this lens, and fell in love with it on a mechanical level immediately. The Zeiss lenses do feel more solidly built than most of the Volkländer. I have to say, though, that after a couple of hundred shots I am positive that this front-focuses consistently and significantly at apertures wider then 2.8. At 2.8 things improve perceptibly, and I think by f/4 there is no problem at all focus or sharpness. This is not a problem with "softness," because even wide open areas that are in focus have a sharpness and precision, which is what I'd hoped for, and contrast beautifully with the softer surrounding bokeh.
The problem is that there is no way to accurately and certainly place that zone of focus. Trying to compensate for the degree by which it front focuses by guess and by god is too aggravating and unpredictable. And though the front-focusing below f/2 is predictable, I think the degree varies with distance. It is just too much to work out. Rangefinder framing, etc. is imprecise enough already without adding yet another mystery variable. I'm not skilled enough to keep all these balls in the air at the same time.
I suppose I could try to have the lens optimized for 1.5 instead of 2.8 (I really believe from my experience that this is inherent in the lens design and that it is true that it is optimized for 2.8 and above). But I don't really think it is worth it. I suppose, as others have suggested, it might be a QC or sample variation problem. But I don't think so. One thing I have noted (and I think someone mentioned earlier) is that the people relating good results seem to be shoooting film, not digital. The problems with focusing wide open may be more severe on a 1.5 crop with less depth of field.
In any case, with regret, I am returning it. It is a lovely lens, but for me, not useable, even though I really like the look of it. If you can't focus reliably at 1.5 or 2, what's the use?
I will add that I have the Voigtlander Ultron 35 and the Nokton 50, and both of those focus perfectly wide open. No focus shifts going on there.
M
mojojones
Guest
Can someone sum up for me?
Can someone sum up for me?
Can someone sum up for me? Is the focus shift only wide open at short distances or more pervasive? The well take images I've seen from this lens are just extraordinary. I'm thinking of selling my summicron to fund a sonnar purchase.
Can someone sum up for me?
Can someone sum up for me? Is the focus shift only wide open at short distances or more pervasive? The well take images I've seen from this lens are just extraordinary. I'm thinking of selling my summicron to fund a sonnar purchase.
40oz
...
let's be honest here. The only "issue" people are having is missing focus close-up wide open. Depth of field is very shallow, and focus error is very easy to do. I think we've all had shots where the focus was off in those circumstances. Since the "issue" has not appeared since, I think it is safe to say it isn't an issue as much with the lens as it is user error. With a depth of field in the range of a 1/4 inch or less, it would be very surprising if people didn't have problems. I've learned that close-up at minimum focus in low light is probably not going to work handheld with a 50/1.5. It doesn't matter who makes the lens.
David Noble
Established
Well, no. The issue I had was not missing focus wide open and close up, but consistently front focusing by several inches, not just close up (though worst at close range) but also at distances of ten feet and more, and not just wide open but at anything below f/2.8. I use other fast lenses, including the Nokton 50/1.5 and the Ultron 35/1.7, and yes, have missed focus. As you say, it can be difficult. But with two different copies of the Sonnar *on the R-D1s* I got the same results, and the people at Fujiya Camera here in Tokyo agreed with me enough to refund my money after testing two lenses.
I think it might very well be a bad match between this particular camera and the lens, and that other people using other cameras may not experience the same problem. But the problem was real.
In the two attached pictures the point I focused on was the leading edge of the lens mount in the first one and the leading edge of the plastic filter case in the second. As you can see, the actual plane of focus falls well short in both cases. This was wide open at a distance of about 4 feet (beyond closest focal range) in a well-lit camera shop.
I wish this were not the case, beause I loved everything else about the lens—the handling, the signature, etc. But to buy an f/1.5 lens and not be able to focus reliably below f/2.8 didn't see worth $800 to me, since the reason for buying it was its character wide open or near it...
I think it might very well be a bad match between this particular camera and the lens, and that other people using other cameras may not experience the same problem. But the problem was real.
In the two attached pictures the point I focused on was the leading edge of the lens mount in the first one and the leading edge of the plastic filter case in the second. As you can see, the actual plane of focus falls well short in both cases. This was wide open at a distance of about 4 feet (beyond closest focal range) in a well-lit camera shop.
I wish this were not the case, beause I loved everything else about the lens—the handling, the signature, etc. But to buy an f/1.5 lens and not be able to focus reliably below f/2.8 didn't see worth $800 to me, since the reason for buying it was its character wide open or near it...
Attachments
Last edited: