gotium
Established
...I'd pegged you as a planar fan...do you have both?
kichu1979
Member
Indeed the choice you mention, ie. planar vs sonnar is a tricky one. Apart from $$$$ value, the real question is your expectation from the lens. Both
lenses can be consideren completely fine in terms of typical optical parametres (sharpness etc.etc.). The real question here is what kind of look from the lens you look for. The planar might be sharper wide open and by many considered better at a first glance, however the more you are into photography the less you look on lenses specifiation, the more you look at the "look of the lens". Since I also own 35/2 ZM my choice was the Sonnar because it gives me an option of a slightly different lens and this way my images from 35/2 and 50/1.5 will have a slightly different signature.
Also judgment of those little nitty gritty differences comes with practical experience. Referring back to my Nikon dSLR experience... I own two very good portrait lens - Nikon 85/1.4 and 105/2 DC. At first glance they seem to be very similar, close focal length, creamy bokeh, yet they have all those nitty gritty differences in terms of resolving of image that make
each lens very unique. However if I hand't used both of them for some time
I would not be able to tell this. 85/1.4 goes a little more towards macro sharpness, DC on the other hand is more smooth lens. Hence when shooting portraits I would pick 85/1.4 for a picture of an old man, where I want to show his face/life experience (bruises, wrinkles etc), on the other hand I would pick 105DC for shooting a model (half of sking blemishes goes away withouy any post-processing retouch).
I like sonnar lens because wide open it reminds me some of Nikon DC lens characteristicks. Yet it is tricky lens, as it has some focus shift which results in a bit of front focus when shooting wide open close to the minimal focus distance.
On the other hand having Planar lens instead of Sonnar would give me 50mm lens which is too similar to the 35/2.
I will be shooting models with Ikon/Sonnar combo next weekend, so I might have some more images to show by the end of the month.
kermaier
Well-known
Are you working from in-camera JPEG or TIFF converted from RAW? If the latter, what are you using for your RAW conversion? (Curious, since my R-D1 results seldom show such luscious colors and pop.)
Ari
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
The other thing in the Sonnar vs Planar debate is that I have seen some focus shift in my M-mount Sonnar (e.g. zone of best focus moves relative to the point that I chose to focus for f:4-5.6) whereas the Planar has none that I can see (very similar characteristics to the Leica 50 Summicron). The Sonnar has more uncorrected spherical aberration when wide open (reads as a "glow" around highlights) and sharpens up when stopped down, whereas the Planar is just sharp -- sharp when open, more DOF when closed. This Sonnar quality may, in fact, be the "point" of this design. They really are very different and as much as I like the Sonnar, I might think twice before making it my only 50.
Notice that my pix above do not require a particular point to be in focus to work. For a portrait on the other hand, you do want to know where exactly your best focus is going to fall. For my Sonnar, f:2.8 is the most reliable wide aperture in terms of placing focus where I want it. Others have had their lenses "tuned" to register most accurately at f:1.5.
Ben Marks
[Edit]: By the way, this focus shift is learn-able -- it shouldn't keep you from buying the lens if it has the look you want. But you do need your brain flipped to the "on" position when you are using it.
Notice that my pix above do not require a particular point to be in focus to work. For a portrait on the other hand, you do want to know where exactly your best focus is going to fall. For my Sonnar, f:2.8 is the most reliable wide aperture in terms of placing focus where I want it. Others have had their lenses "tuned" to register most accurately at f:1.5.
Ben Marks
[Edit]: By the way, this focus shift is learn-able -- it shouldn't keep you from buying the lens if it has the look you want. But you do need your brain flipped to the "on" position when you are using it.
back alley
IMAGES
i work from raw, converted in acr. i save as both a tiff and jpeg and post the jpegs to the net.
back alley
IMAGES
the beauty of the sonnar is that it's like having 2 lenses in one. the dreamy romantic when wide open and the sharp as surgical steel when closed down a bit. both old and modern together.
gotium
Established
I find it fantastic that a company actually produces a lens like this. It really is for a niche within a niche market - just the kind of thing I'd fall for.
If anyone thinks this would be overly difficult to use for low-light photos of people at, say, 4-8 ft distance, please do speak up.
If anyone thinks this would be overly difficult to use for low-light photos of people at, say, 4-8 ft distance, please do speak up.
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
This isn't exactly low light, but it does show what the lens does when it is wide open.
ISO 160, I think. M8.
ISO 160, I think. M8.
Little-Stjarna
Newbie
I bought it yesterday 
Earlier I used the Planar and I do not know whether to sell it now. Probably better to leave both
Earlier I used the Planar and I do not know whether to sell it now. Probably better to leave both
andy_v
Established
Leave both. They are rather different. I prefer sonnar for BW as well as for girls portraiture.
I keep planar because my sonnar is f1.5 optimized so I have some problems with its focus shift from f2 to f4 at close distance. Planar naturally fills this gap and it is soooo good for color.
.I keep planar because my sonnar is f1.5 optimized so I have some problems with its focus shift from f2 to f4 at close distance. Planar naturally fills this gap and it is soooo good for color.
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
The Planar is a wonderful design. The 45-G Planar is one of the most impressive lenses I have ever used. I have never been sure how close the M-Planar designs are to the G-Planar designs. But I liked them well enough that I got a 28/2.8 and the 45/2 converted from G to M mount to use on Leicas. The Sonnar is a different beast altogether as Joe/back alley noted above -- a little like two lenses in one.
Ben
Ben
Nice shots, all! My three M-mount 50's are just back from DAG for 6-bit coding and focus adjustment, so I've been doing some 'real world' testing to see what they're doing on the M8.
The Planar ZM did not require any focus adjustment. Perfect, eh? Coded as a current Summicron.
The Heliar Classic, as adjusted (and coded as an older Summicron), now seems to me "ON" at f/2 and f/2.8. I suspect a slightly concave field of focus. Not crisp wide open but pretty good at f/2.8 and up. Maybe a slight tendency to front-focus a bit at f/4. Lovely smooth bokeh with very slight tendency to doubling in near-bokeh so perhaps undercorrected spherical aberration.
I was most curious about adjustments to the C Sonnar (coded as a Summilux ASPH), which had involved a good bit of back and forth discussion with DAG. He thought he could come up with a better compromize to minimize front focus wide open while keeping back focus in check in the mid-apertures. I think he succeeded. It now seems pretty much "ON" at f/2 and f/2.8, a slight tendency to back focus at f/4, and a small front focus wide open, about half-inch or less at the close-focus limit.
I'm delighted with my Sonnar as it is now. Those who have used one know what exquisite character it displays. What has surprised me in the recent testing is the similiarity between it and the Heliar Classic in their wide-aperture look in both sharpness and bokeh; smooooth and creamy. This will take more examination of the differences and similarities of these two lenses both of which were designed for "character."
Both the following Fall-themed shots from the newly adjusted C Sonnar; the first at f/2.8 and focused on the group of three fruits in a row just above the branch they stem from; the second at f/1.5 focused on the left front "lobe" of the leaf but actual focus is just forward on the center "lobe."
The Planar ZM did not require any focus adjustment. Perfect, eh? Coded as a current Summicron.
The Heliar Classic, as adjusted (and coded as an older Summicron), now seems to me "ON" at f/2 and f/2.8. I suspect a slightly concave field of focus. Not crisp wide open but pretty good at f/2.8 and up. Maybe a slight tendency to front-focus a bit at f/4. Lovely smooth bokeh with very slight tendency to doubling in near-bokeh so perhaps undercorrected spherical aberration.
I was most curious about adjustments to the C Sonnar (coded as a Summilux ASPH), which had involved a good bit of back and forth discussion with DAG. He thought he could come up with a better compromize to minimize front focus wide open while keeping back focus in check in the mid-apertures. I think he succeeded. It now seems pretty much "ON" at f/2 and f/2.8, a slight tendency to back focus at f/4, and a small front focus wide open, about half-inch or less at the close-focus limit.
I'm delighted with my Sonnar as it is now. Those who have used one know what exquisite character it displays. What has surprised me in the recent testing is the similiarity between it and the Heliar Classic in their wide-aperture look in both sharpness and bokeh; smooooth and creamy. This will take more examination of the differences and similarities of these two lenses both of which were designed for "character."
Both the following Fall-themed shots from the newly adjusted C Sonnar; the first at f/2.8 and focused on the group of three fruits in a row just above the branch they stem from; the second at f/1.5 focused on the left front "lobe" of the leaf but actual focus is just forward on the center "lobe."
Attachments
MCTuomey
Veteran
noppharoojlap
Newbie
Bavaricus
Established
Here are two autumn shots from my new M8 with the C-Sonnar, always full open. Hope you like it, still have to learn to handle it the right way
