VC Heliar Classic 50/2.0 vs. Zeiss ZM Sonnar 1.5/50

[ljsegil]

Hi all,
I have asked this question a number of times in various threads and never gotten a response (perhaps because nobody has a response), so I thought I would just ask outright and see what comes up. Here is my question: These two lenses are frequently described in similar terms, but I have seen no direct comparison between the two. So my simple question is, does the VC Heliar 50/2.0 do anything photographically that dramatically distinguishes it from the Zeiss Sonnar, and vice versa. If they differ in imaging, how so?
Obviously, the ultimate question is whether one is preferable over the other (price aside for the sake of comparison) or do they differ enough that owning both may increase your photographic capabilities (and how so?).
Anyway, thanks to all,
LJS

 

[snip]

Hi all,
Obviously, the ultimate question is whether one is preferable over the other (price aside for the sake of comparison) or do they differ enough that owning both may increase your photographic capabilities (and how so?).
Anyway, thanks to all,
LJS

I don't have an answer to your question, nor am I qualified to tell you if owning both will improve your photographic capabilities, I can however assure you that owning both will reduce your bank balance, so if this is something you desire then you should hurry up and buy both, also buy a Noctilux or two and if you find that they don't improve your picture taking abilities you can always send them to me and I will see if they work on improving mine 😉

//Jan

 

[back alley]

have you tried looking at flickr to compare photos from each lens?

 

[kshapero]

I own both.
CV advantages: smaller, less pronounced imaging. Less money.
ZM advantages: smoother, sometimes creamy. faster.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I have had both and saw no advantage in keeping the Heliar. In my book, the Sonnar has a distinctive (and very attractive) signature, while the Heliar is just a lens that isn't all that good wide open. But, of course, someone else might say the exact opposite.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Hacker]

I have had both and saw no advantage in keeping the Heliar. In my book, the Sonnar has a distinctive (and very attractive) signature, while the Heliar is just a lens that isn't all that good wide open. But, of course, someone else might say the exact opposite.

Cheers,

R.

Roger, is your Sonnar optimized for f1.5?

 

[cmogi10]

do these lenses have much in common? I never compared the two...
I wanted to like the Heliar but I found it slow to focus.
The 50/1.5 Sonnar might be my favorite M mount lens around though.
Get that one.

 

[meven]

The Heliar is one of my favorite lens, I can't really say why but it has (in my opinion) a unique signature. And mine is really sharp wide open!

There is very little samples on Flickr but this guy (mandel lluca) shoots almost exclusively with the Heliar Classic. His photos really show the characterictics of the lens.

You can also check some of my photos HERE.

BTW, I do not own the Sonnar and I never used it so I can't compare the two, I can just say that I love the Heliar!

 

[W@Yne]

Ok. I have both.

Voigtlander Classic Heliar 50mm F2 VM
The classic Heliar VM is my favorite 50mm for the portrait. When fully open in the center, the sharpness looks a lot worse than the C Sonnar at F1.5 (fully open), but in the middle frame it is better than the C Sonnar at F2.8 and has a low contrast, it improves completely with each subsequent aperture. Focus from F2.8 to F8.0 in the center improves and stops in F4.0-F5.6, but in the center it tries to catch up with C Sonnar on every next same F-stop. It looks like the opposite of Sonnar C. I emphasize that thanks to the dense aperture, nothing is lost on the beautiful blurring of the background. Bokeh is always beautiful and perfect. I use it mainly on sunny days. It is small because it is foldable. Heliar never caught a flare and I have had it since 2008. Maybe because it has standard cover on sunny days.

Zeiss C Sonnar 50 mm F1.5 ZM
I had high expectations of him.
It is very sharp, fully open with strong contrast, but only in the center the corners are blurry. Corners improve when the aperture is closed, but not as much as on Heliar. In the center frame, the C Sonnar catches up with the Classic Heliar with the F2.8 with each subsequent stop of the aperture. C Sonnar in the center of focus is the king. You can safely use F2.0-F2.8. Difficult to master in F1.5, but if you hit the eyes you win. You have a super sharp photo to get a nice blur with just the right softness. From F4.0 to F8.0 he is a focus demon, much like Heliar, who is much weaker in the middle.

Conclusion.
I accepted the Classic Heliar, I did not care about its fully open aperture, I always stopped the aperture and compensated it with a beautiful bokeh effect at every aperture. In the case of the Zeiss, 10 diaphragm blades (Ninja star) can destroy the beautiful blur effect for f2.8 to F5.6 apertures, which is not much better than the Hexagon from the Contax SLR, but better. I have not yet received the "3D POP" comparable to the Planar 1.4 50mm. I obtained this effect, but it is not as plastic as in SLR CONTAX 50mm f1.4 and f1.7. Overall, I am satisfied and consider it a worthy successor to the my Classic Heliar (next level of bokeh). The Zeiss offers a C Sonnar 50mm portrait lens that offers a shallow depth of field, beautiful bokeh and very good sharpness further down the aperture. Unfortunately, you have to be careful about its properties. We have all in one and you need to know how to use it. By checking the aperture if necessary, what effect you want to get. All new lenses have a fairly high contrast and are therefore sharper. Classic Heliar is more even at the corners while C Sonnar doesn't care about the corners as it focuses on portraits. The sharpness in the center is an advantage of the C Sonnar. Basically these are two different lenses, so I'll be using both in the future. Classic Heliar is very similar to C Sonnar, but C Sonnar can do more. Classic Heliar forgives a lot, but C Sonnar does not. I think the ZM Sonnar f1.5 at f2.0 gives a better effect than the new VM Nokton 40mm f1.2 near f2.0. The Russian copy of the sonnar from 1953 which I had had a beautiful blur and the same "3D POP" as the SLR Contax Planar 1.4 and 1.7 but it was much weaker than Heliar in terms of sharpness.

 

[W@Yne]

Fuji X-Pro1 Zeiss C Sonnar 50mm F1.5@2.0 ZM

 

[W@Yne]

Fuji X-Pro1 Zeiss C Sonnar 50mm F1.5@2.0 ZM

 

[W@Yne]

Fuji X-Pro1 Zeiss C Sonnar 50mm F1.5@2.0 ZM At this aperture, it's not a landscape lens, but it does the trick

 

[W@Yne]

Fuji X-Pro1 C Zeiss Sonnar 50mm F1.5@2.0 ZM

 

[W@Yne]

Fuji X-Pro1 C Zeiss Sonnar 50mm F1.5@2.0 ZM At this aperture, it's not a landscape lens, but it does the trick

 

[W@Yne]

Fuji X-Pro1 Zeiss C Sonnar 50mm F1.5@2.0 ZM "3D POP"

 

[W@Yne]

Fuji X-Pro1 Zeiss C Sonnar 50mm F1.5@2.8 ZM "Ninja star" Aperture Blades in Bokeh on the left

 

[W@Yne]

Fuji X-Pro1 Zeiss C Sonnar 50mm F1.5@8.0 ZM 0.9m Bokeh looks a lot better than 1m on Heliar.

 

[W@Yne]

I note that this is the only bokeh test.
Please do not take this as a sharpness test as the photos were taken by hand from the minimum distance.
The focus was placed on the front pumpkin, right in the center, which is very hard to see in the photo, but it gave me the ability to control depth of field.

Test ZM C Sonnar 50mm F1.5 Bokeh minimum distance 0.9m
https://photos.app.goo.gl/BmcWcN4sES9X4gJFA

Test VM Classic Heliar 50mm F2 Bokeh minimum distance 1m
https://photos.app.goo.gl/WY2JCyjms9xhHQLH8

 

[W@Yne]

I'm starting to miss you. This is for Zeiss's play.
Maybe I can get it through the near focus adapter as the Contax Planar was only 0.4m.
The photos are of low resolutions because they are over 15 years old.
You had to be very careful at close range, because the frog could be pulled out of the object.
The redraws were terrible at times.

Contax Aria Carl Zeiss T* Planar 50mm F1.4@1.4

Contax Aria Carl Zeiss T* Planar 50mm F1.4@1.7

Contax Aria Carl Zeiss T* Planar 50mm F1.4@1.7

 

[W@Yne]

UPDATE.
3D POP analysis. C Sonnar will be very difficult to handle, except for portraits. You won't get a full body in focus as easily as with a Planar lens with 3D POP effect. Now I know it. With a Planar lens, you can see exactly where the depth of field is set because everything at the same distance is in the depth of field. You won't see this in a C Sonnar lens as the depth of field is in the center (no sharp corners). This creates a specific relationship between the subject and the blur. When you see it and understand it, you will see the benefits. Each shot will look different as the composition will be different. This is best seen in the case of Leica Summilux lenses, in which the sharpness is so surgical that it flattens the entire figure, and it looks as if a lens over ~ 100 mm was used. The depth of focus is clearly visible. You won't see this on a C Sonnar lens because depth of field combines with blur and doesn't flatten the silhouette.