Zeiss 50: To 2.0 or not to 2.0

Zeiss 50: To 2.0 or not to 2.0

  • 50 f2 Planar

    Votes: 61 50.8%

  • 50 f1.5 Sonnar

    Votes: 48 40.0%

  • Something else

    Votes: 11 9.2%
  • Total voters
    120
Nachkebia said:
I would say depends what kind of photos you want to take, if you want a lens that can do anything you desire with perfect balance go for planar ZM! if you want that smooth retro look go for sonar, end of story.......
Click to expand...

Vlad nails the issue here for me. For my uses the planar is a better compliment to my lens bag. Bear in mind that for low light with a 5cm FL I do have the L summilux 50 for a very different signature.
 
For people that have gotten the focus shift "fix" or the latter ones with the fix built in, how does the improved ZM 50/1.5 Sonnar-C perform under various focusing situations, i.e. close up at f/1.5 and f/2.8-4, mid-distance and far at the same apertures as with close up?
 
just read through this (as well as the linked 50 thread)... now i haven't read much about the zeiss 50's (just flirting with the idea of getting one), but is the general consensus that the sonnar needs "fixing" to focus correctly.??
 
"but is the general consensus that the sonnar needs "fixing" to focus correctly.?"


No.

It's not broken.

It will shift after the change as much as before.

So do older Sonnars, like the Nikkor 50/1.4 that was used professionally for many, many years
without this issue even coming up.

Say you have a modified or newer lens with maximum sharpness at f1.5.
Further, say you will shoot at f5.6. Your f5.6 DOF window will start (i.e. softly) at
your focus plane and go back, i.e. the lens will back focus.
 
Last edited:
ferider, i don't quite understand what you're saying... does it shift? at 1m (mark on lens), does it focus a subject correctly at 1m. or does it have to be "modified" to do so? or is the "issue" more complicated (since you mention other sonnars)? all i'm thinking, is that this is a new lens, and i would assume that i could mount it on a camera and expect it to focus according to the rf, close as well as infinity (meaning a correctly calibrated rf, accurate enough to focus it at these distances).
 
thorirv said:
ferider, i don't quite understand what you're saying... does it shift? at 1m (mark on lens), does it focus a subject correctly at 1m. or does it have to be "modified" to do so? or is the "issue" more complicated (since you mention other sonnars)? all i'm thinking, is that this is a new lens, and i would assume that i could mount it on a camera and expect it to focus according to the rf, close as well as infinity (meaning a correctly calibrated rf, accurate enough to focus it at these distances).
Click to expand...


Basically it shifts before and after the "fix".

Older versions of the lens, when you focus at 1m, will shift toward you
(front focus) by around 6cm at f1.5, not at all at f2.8 and back-focus
by about the same amount at f5.6.

Newer versions of the lens, when you focus at 1m, will not shift at f1.5,
will back-focus by 6cm at f2.8 and around 12cm at f5.6. Not as visible
because the DOF window covers the shift partially, but visible IMO.
Basically your focus plane will always be at the border of the DOF window,
towards you.

In really, it's a little more complicated since the corners behave a little
differently, but in practice, in the center that's what happens.

Roland.
 
Last edited:
mfunnell said:
If I didn't like my M-Hexanon 50 so much as my "general purpose 50" I'd probably be thinking very seriously about the 50 Planar. But since I do have and like that lens, I'd be far more likely to want to investigate the Sonnar. However, I have other 50s (and a 55, which is almost the same) I need to explore first, before I even think about acquiring another one. :)slaps self: "out, damned GAS!")

...Mike
Click to expand...

Mike this is exactly the reason I don't have the Planar - the Hexanon is so good. It is a little bigger though.

I have the Sonnar and it is my favorite M-mount 50, followed closely by a very nice Summarit that just came abck from a CLA by DAG. I use the extra stop a lot. The Hexanon gets used about 5 x less than these other lenses.

- John
 
Marc-A. said:
What did you expect? "I like this one" or "I don't like this one"? If there's nothing to say except I like this one rather than that one, I don't see the point of discussing gear, nor participating in a poll in this forum. My 2 cents.
Click to expand...
Make that 4 cents, because I agree completely. Unless someone tells me why they like a particular lens, I can't begin to judge whether their choice can tell me anything. And if it can't tell me anything, why am I going to waste my time reading it, or participating in a poll?

Among 50mm Leica-fit lenses I currently have in my possession (I don't own all of them) are the Sonnar; a 1930s Elmar; a DR Summicron; a Noctilux; the new Summarit; a Nokton (current); a Color-Skopar 50/2.5; and a Canon 50/1.2. I have tried an awful lot of others including most Leica 50s (except Summiluxes, for some reason), the 50/2 Planar, various Summicrons, most FSU lenses, and more.

The 1,5/50 C-Sonnar is easily my favourite: it has a 'magic' that I don't see in any other 'standard' I own or have used except perhaps the 58/1.4 Nikkor. The Planar is a superb lens. So is the current Summicron. But they don't have the 'personality' of the Sonnar -- and incidentally, I cannot begin to see why anyone thinks this lens is tricky to use. My second choice for a new 50 would be the Noctilux, and my third, the new Summarit.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
Roger Hicks said:
........The 1,5/50 C-Sonnar is easily my favourite..................., I cannot begin to see why anyone thinks this lens is tricky to use. My second choice for a new 50 would be the Noctilux, and my third, the new Summarit.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

I found it tricky to use because of the focus shift. I take fairly close portraits of children at wide aperture, and couldn't get it to focus. Altering the focus (plus or minus) according to which aperture I was using was too tricky for me. I did some tests with tripod and found that the problem was all to do with the focus shift.
 
My understanding was that with a Sonnar calibrated for f/2.8 all one has to do to avoid focus shift at f/1.5 is to focus on the end of the subject's nose. Thus the plane of focus will fall at the eyes. Is that correct? If so, that sounds simple enough.

I would choose the Sonnar calibrated for f/2.8. That would leave a good all-round lens.
 
visiondr
No, the "f2,8" version front focuses at f1.5. Search for my comparative focus test of the C Sonnars.
 
visiondr said:
My understanding was that with a Sonnar calibrated for f/2.8 all one has to do to avoid focus shift at f/1.5 is to focus on the end of the subject's nose. Thus the plane of focus will fall at the eyes. Is that correct? If so, that sounds simple enough.

I would choose the Sonnar calibrated for f/2.8. That would leave a good all-round lens.
Click to expand...

if you focus with an 2.8-optimized version on the nose, the portrait will be entirely out of focus when using the lens @ 1.5. With a 2.8-version you will have to focus on the person's ear when using aperture 1.5. With a 1.5-version you have to focus on the tip of the nose when using aperture 2.8.
 
I think one can reasonably prefer either of the focus optimizations and work the consequent downside usefully into one's work. Mine is the original f/2.8 optimization, and in practice this seems more appropriate for my use, and I've figured easy workarounds for the times it's not ideal.

I like the character of the lens even at mid-apertures and seldom shoot wider than f2.4 or so. For wider apertures at portrait distances I can focus on the desired point and then lean forward a few cm. Or, more generally, focus as desired and then manually rotate the focus ring so that the focused distance marking is halfway to the first DoF marking at left of center.

As to which lens... I have both and plan to keep both. The Planar is a more conventional lens with exquisite performance, while the Sonnar is a real character calling for special handling. :)
 
The Sonnar is fantastic. Shift is easy to compensate for with the 2.8 optimised version. I love mine :)

Incidentally I purchased it after reading Roger Hicks' review.
 
I went for Sonnar 'cause I have planar on my Rollei and will have on G1.
I really love the picture from planar but see no reason to have all lenses similar.
Second reason is that I liked portraits made with Sonnar
Third reason is that I can buy it new at my place for reasonable price :two times less than Leitz Summicron here and three times than Summilux
 
Roger Hicks said:
....-- and incidentally, I cannot begin to see why anyone thinks this lens is tricky to use. My second choice for a new 50 would be the Noctilux, and my third, the new Summarit.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Surely having to account for shift at varying apertures slows you down and is a PITA when you are rushing to get things done. If you work slowly it might be fine but if you have to grab shots with no time at all I would not want to contemplate such an issue! The sonnar might appeal to me for more relaxed portrait work perhaps but I went for the planar for simple dependability at all apertures. I wanted a lens that I did not have to think about in use and that offered the same look and handling as my other ZMs. It does this perfectly and so I can slip from lens to lens without a second thought. I can certainly see the appeal of the sonnar, but it would not work for me as my only lens. The 1.5 optimised version sounds fun and would be something I would love to try for female portraiture in particular.

I am consistently amazed by how wonderful the planar images are wide open or close too. very smooth with lovely bokeh and whilst sharp, not insanely so at these apertures. At 2.8 and beyond it is like a razor however.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom