Zeiss 50/1.5 Sonnar Sample Shot

[Captain]

I don't like at all the bokeh, and the result is completly different from the antique Sonnar - and it's not a matter of increased sharpness.

It just goes to show bokeh can be a personal thing because I think its really good in that photo. It handled the reflections and concentrated light sources really well. This often gets ugly with some lenses.

 

[sockeyed]

Sorry, I should have mentioned in my original post that this is the NEW Zeiss Sonnar 50.

When Tom gets back from Photokina I hope to take both this lens and the Nokton-50 for for a head-to-head comparison.

 

[JoeFriday]

to my eyes, it has the classic sonnar look.. amazing detail and good tonality.. not real contrasty, altho the film might be affecting that a bit here

I'd gladly trade my 50/2 Summi for one.. any takers??

 

[sockeyed]

The other images that I shot on this roll were with the new ZM 35/2, and to my eye they are more contrasty than this shot with the 50/1.5. The Sonnar reminds me more of my Nokton 40 S.C.

 

[jano]

The sharp focus part looks a bit like my G's sonnar 90, but the oof area looks more like the G's 45 planar, a tad on the harsh side ? *shrug* I do like the result, though, very very nice 🙂 Focus and color are dead on.

 

[Marc-A.]

It just goes to show bokeh can be a personal thing because I think its really good in that photo. It handled the reflections and concentrated light sources really well. This often gets ugly with some lenses.

Absolutely, Captain. It is very personal, and I didn't pretend to any universal jugdment :angel:
Best,
Marc

 

[vrgard]

Very nice sockeyed! How is it that you always seem to get such amazing color saturation? Just like you do with that Nokton 40/1.4 SC lens.

Really looking forward to seeing some more shots and comparisons with this lens.

-Randy

 

[furcafe]

I agree. I have a bit of experience w/the classic 1930s-1950s (1960s if you include the 85/2 Sonnar for Contarex) Sonnar & the boke in sockeyed's example doesn't strike me as being very different from that produced by the classic. For comparison purposes, here's a shot I took recently w/the 1937 version (coated after-market) of the 50/1.5 Sonnar (f/2 @ 1/200th sec. on Fuji NPH):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/furcafe/242919971/

And here's a shot taken w/the 1936-37 version (also coated after-market) of the 50/2 collapsible (f/2 @ 1/15th sec. on Kodak Panatomic-X):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/furcafe/223413251

IME, @ least, the 50mm Sonnar (both the f/1.5 & f/2 versions) wasn't, & isn't, a "boke king" lens, e.g., under certain conditions, the 50/1.5 can produce "swirly" backgrounds @ f/1.5 & you can see a bit of the double-line thing happening in the above shots.

to my eyes, it has the classic sonnar look.. amazing detail and good tonality.. not real contrasty, altho the film might be affecting that a bit here

 

[Avotius]

im really impressed with the shot, its nice and sharp, at least the small one is, the larger shot is sharp enough that I would do more then a 6 or 7 inch print but those large scans cost a lot afterall. Pretty neat though, I look forward to bw shots though!!!

 

[E_Aiken]

Looks great - Zeiss lenses are just fantastic for color work, though I prefer Leica glass for BW. I may have to pick one of these lenses up though, that color is just great.

 

[grainhound]

There are a few more on flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/search/?s=int&w=all&q=zm+zeiss+sonnar+1,5&m=text

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

It is an interesting shot, very sharp, dare I say, almost a bit too sharp for the sonnar heritage ...

I agree with Marc that it does not resemble the classic sonnar signature as much as I had hoped for.

Did I mention it was sharp?

 

[awilder]

The lens has potential as a beater for most high speed lenses based on it's nicely defined plane of focus and slightly quirky OOF. I'd like to see a comparison test against the 50/2 Planar and 50/1.4 pre-asph. Summilux. I think the either may beat it for bokek but overall I like it's look a lot.

 

[Kyle]

The lens has potential as a beater for most high speed lenses based on it's nicely defined plane of focus and slightly quirky OOF. I'd like to see a comparison test against the 50/2 Planar and 50/1.4 pre-asph. Summilux. I think the either may beat it for bokek but overall I like it's look a lot.

Whenever I get time I'm planning on doing some informal comparison shots of the 50/2 ZM vs. the 50/1.5 ZM.

I've never been interested in this lens vs. that, but since I have both of these lenses I figured I'd do it. Does anyone have any advice for me? Is it enough to simply take a few pictures with the same settings in the same conditions, or is there more to it? I'd like to hopefully help some people out with this comparison, so any help is appreciated.

Anybody who tells me to take pictures of a brick wall gets an e-punch in the face! 😀

 

[Nachkebia]

kyle : Why don`t you just take pictures with sonnar, we have seen pictures with planar anyway 🙂

 

[E_Aiken]

i'd like to see a well done comparison. I shot with the Contax 645 system folr ages and loved those lenses, especially the Planar, so I'm curious to see how these 35mm versions stack up. I really miss the Contax for color work.

 

[Avotius]

yup, I think we need more shots with the sonnar then the planar but if you want to throw in one or two side by sides im sure no one will complain

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

Kyle,

Take real street shots of static objects where you can control the same variables for both lenses (lamp post or a person if you can convince someone to sit for 2 shots). Vary the aperture from 1.5 to 8.

And if you have the chance, could you throw in a test shot with some trees/leaves in the background, that is the ultimate bokeh buster.

Good luck and looking forward to it 🙂

 

[rxmd]

almost a bit too sharp for the sonnar heritage ...

I agree with Marc that it does not resemble the classic sonnar signature as much as I had hoped for.

Why should it? There are still old Sonnars floating around if people want it less sharp and with 100% Sonnar signature. No point in exactly recreating something old if the original is readily available.

This is a new lens, with the performance you'd expect from a modern lens, but with the two definining properties of the original Sonnar: creamy bokeh and colour rendition. That's great. If one dislikes the "new" look, they can go for the original.

Philipp

 

[ray_g]

Why should it? There are still old Sonnars floating around if people want it less sharp and with 100% Sonnar signature. No point in exactly recreating something old if the original is readily available.

This is a new lens, with the performance you'd expect from a modern lens, but with the two definining properties of the original Sonnar: creamy bokeh and colour rendition. That's great. If one dislikes the "new" look, they can go for the original.

Philipp

That is true, Philipp. However, I understand Tom's point since Zeiss is playing on the popularity of the old Sonnar, marketing this lens as the "reincarnation of the classical Sonnar 1.5/50, the fastest standard lens of its time, for the Contax II rangefinder camera."

The old sonnar is not that readily available for M or LTM users. The uncommon LTM versions and the rare LTM adapters are ridiculously overpriced.