Perhaps a step in the exact opposite direction considering the nature of the lens, but how is the modern Zeiss C-Sonnar in comparison to the old Lux? From reading the pages here you'd think that it was a lens unusable except at the calibrated aperture. In the real world photographing people I expect it to be a non point.
you can always tell the people who actually use these lenses and the ones that just like to talk about them. In use, %95 of what you have read on the internet about the c sonnar is exactly that, a non point. Ive shot a few hundred rolls of flim with the lens at this point and my only comment on it is that in a documentary situation it is damn hard to use a 1.5 but whatever. The look you are stuck with is far more of a subject to discuss (which rarely occurs) as opposed to how easy or hard the lens is to use, which for some reason people seem obsessed with. If you are shooting statues I cant imagine why anyone would knock the lens...
I see differences between my e43 and e46 summilux, as I suspected I would. It was suggested here that the lenses are the same formula and perhaps thats the case, I dont know, but the e46 definitely looks like a higher contrast lens compared to the e43. sample variation, the way the wind blows, whatever. The e43 photos look "older" than the photos from my e46.
I got the summilux as a reaction to the sonnar. The thing about the sonnar at 1.5 is that well, its a sonnar at 1.5 Everyone thats ever used a sonnar at that aperature knows what I mean. Its not that the lens isnt so sharp (its not that sharp at 1.5 but thats not the point) its just that the look can be totally overpowering if you dont want dreamy pillowy cloudness going down all over your photograph. When you want that, there is no lens that rules more than a sonnar. And when you dont you get a summilux. The lux wide open looks just like it does at f4 just with less depth of field. Its a far far far more practical lens, owning a lux and a sonnar is for me, totally not redundant. The lux is also sharper at 1.5 than the sonnar but for me, this is such an irrelevant irrelevant irrelevant subtext I hate to mention it. The lux is not "better" at 1.5, its just that the bok doesnt totally overtake everything like the sonnar does. For some situations this is wonderful and for others, its super disappointing. One thing, the ZM sonnar is very "glassy" while the lux is very "chalky" in comparison. No lens does what a sonnar does to someone's eyeballs, its a really interesting thing. Its modern sharp and has more character at all stops than people give it credit for. The problem is, it has character at all stops. The lux is more just a lens that take photos. Its a cool lens. There are lots of cool lenses. I prefer my cron over the lux but the lux is on the camera more often as Im usually shooting in the dark and the extra stop is helpful. I have not found the sonnar particularly useful for shooting in low light, for my taste I find the lens to suit my style much better wide open in a well lit scenario than in the dark where I prefer the lux.
So, you can make lots of comparisons between the two and while I think those comparisons can be fair and accurate, I would suggest that ultimately they are a waste of time. You either want the look of the sonnar or you dont. It may be sharper than this one or not as sharp as that one but it has a look that is unavoidable and that is what the lens is all about. That look. And that look has no bearing on the fact that the lux is sharper wide open. It is. And its also way more boring wide open, at all stops really, in comparison. And thats the point to really focus on. Another point, I have found the lux to have relatively the same amount of contrast at just about every stop, more or less. The sonnar increases contrast to my eye, through the entire movement of the f ring to the point where I really really dislike the lens completely stopped down, very hard to deal with contrast if you dont have a diffused light source.
Anyway, dont be afraid to buy a sonnar, most of the stuff you read about people knocking the lens are made by internet warriors who have never and will never handle the lens. Yes, shooting rulers, you had better believe that the focus shift is a real thing with this lens. Shooting people in the real world however, its just not that much of a big deal. The old summarit is comparable and you dont hear people jumping up and down about how useless that lens is... The focus shift only becomes real gnarly at the minimum focus, which at .9m I use mostly when I use the lens and its easy to overcome. Whats still the main issue which is never spoken about again is the look of this lens at 1.5. Tremendous changes in look between 1.5 and 2split and all anyone wants to discuss is the focus shift wide open, thats enough to know that the people griping are not users. If you dont want your photos to look like they were taken on Dagobah, you'll likely be using the lens closer to 2.8 and if your photos need to look like a jedi in exile then you have that option too... Its a wonderful wonderful wonderful lens. Its probably not the only 50 you'd want to have though.
When (if) you really get to know the sonnar, there will be a spot or two or three on the lens that you know, can anticipate and will use the lens at. Every stop the lens has its own character that is constantly changing and can be used to your advantage. The lux is just a lens that takes cool pictures and there really isnt any learning curve at all with it. To the original poster, a modern cron is orders sharper than either of my v2 lux's and much more modern looking in general as a result.
well, there's some opinion just based on my use with the sonnar over the last year or so. I shot a huge project with it, so feel a bit qualified to comment. Hopefully thats helpful. cheers.
