Zeiss ZM 50/1.5 C-Sonnar: Survey

Huck Finn

Well-known
Local time
10:44 AM
Joined
Apr 14, 2004
Messages
1,943
I remain curious about the different experiences people haave reported with this lens. The various photos that have been posted haven't helped. I am considering buying one, but I can't make up my mind.

So . . . I'm asking if owners of this lens can each post the serial numberof his/her lens with comments indicating what your exsperience has been & whether you've experienced any problems/issues with your images/results.

Maybe there's a pattern. :confused:

Thanks for taking the time to do this. :)
Huck
 
ferider said:
Good idea, Huck. I'm curious as well (for similar reasons).

Thanks,

Roland.

Another one interested.
Also, two new lenses in classifieds. Relatively rare for such a low number, new lens. May be the sellers can help enlighten us?

Andreas
 
i'll have to check when i'm at home...

some of us already listed the serial #'s in one of the sonnar threads.

joe
 
I have a silver one... Bought in December. Works fine (I think).

What problems are you peeps referring to?
 
back alley said:
i'll have to check when i'm at home...

some of us already listed the serial #'s in one of the sonnar threads.

joe

Thanks, Joe. That other thread was a lot of pages. I thought it might be easier to have them all in one place on a dedicated thread. :)

Huck
 
back alley said:
i'll have to check when i'm at home...

some of us already listed the serial #'s in one of the sonnar threads.

joe
Joe, here are the serial numbers I found on the Luminous Landscape thread:

FanMan --- #156006 - no problems
back alley - #156007 - no problems

Hmm . . . these must be siblings that rolled off the assembly line at the same time. ;)

Is there any way to create a box at the top of the page where the numbers can be posted all in one box?

Huck
 
I have a front focus issue but I have only seen it wide open AND at minimum focus distance. It sounds as though Zeiss knew this would be an issue. Have the lenses that have "no problem" been tested this way?

I'll add my serial number when I get home.

After all is said and done, I love the lens and will be hanging on to it.
Cheers,
Nick
 
Does anybody know how the serial numbering works ? The two lenses in the classifieds have 15600 and 15601161.

Why so many different digits (see Joe's nr above) ?

Roland.
 
This might be slightly OT but anyone that has this lens who feels that it has a front focus issue and lives near Baltimore, MD, I'd be happy to run some tests on my resolution and contrast charts with my properly calibrated MP to determine if it's a manufacturing error or simply normal (for this lens anyway) spherical aberration. I'll provide film, processing and post my results for all to see. I'd prefer not to deal with shipping but do it in person so not to be responsible for someone's lens or incur the cost of shipping. I can also determine if there is a focus error issue immediately before the film is processed by evaluating the image with a film plane compensated ground glass and 25x magnifier but processing will obviously tell us more about on-film performance.
 
Last edited:
Had one since November and can only say good things about the lens. The contrast and image resoloution rendered is outstanding. Now, I also owned the 50/1.4 ASPH Summi and it ain't no Summi.

Wide open it's true, the Summilux and the Noct. are stellar performers. The price for either option is also stellar.

Be honest with yourselves.... the Sonnar is the only mid-range option between the Summilux on one end, and the CV 50/1.5 Nokton on the other end. The only real reason that we all don't own the Noct. or the Summi is price. If you really are in need or want the option then the Sonnar is a no brainer. You could do what a lot of folks do here and in other forums and wait for another 30 or so years and then maybe purchase the lens at a more affordable price:D

I recall a post here last fall that asked if you had $ 10,000.00 to spend on camera equipment the overwhelming response was new Leica gear. Come on folks, the only reason that we tell ourselves that we love the look of the older lenses and the character of the older Contaxes and M's is because that's what we can afford. I think (myself inluded) should use what we have and improve on our own skill and techniques. The vast majority of us are already overequiped for the photography that we do. If you don't have the funds, any number of posts from msyelf or other forum members are not going to put the Sonnar or any other lens for that matter withing reach.

Personally, the lens I use most these days is the 40/1.4 SC from CV. Plenty sharp and a more mellow tonal rendition in B&W that is very appealing. Price point $ 399.00, and greatly exceeds my talent and ability.


Have Fun!!

Scott
 
I'd really appreciate it if we could stick to the topic of this thread & not get off on another debate. Please. . . with all due respect. :)

On the Luminous Landscape thread, Sebastel posted that he had been told by Zeiss that his lens had been callibrated for f/2.8. As I posted on that thread, this never made any sense to me. Lenses with focus shift are normally callibrated for the widest aperture because depth of field covers the shift at smaller apertures. He also posted that he was told that his lens could be sent back to the factory to be recallibrated to his chosen setting.

I'm trying to see if there is a pattern to discover whether the lenses with problems vs those without are grouped separately in series or are mixed randomly together. If they are grouped in series, it may suggest that some lenses were callibrated differently & would explain why people got different results. As a potential buyer, I would find that helpful to know.

So again, please don't hi-jack the thread. Pretty please. :angel:

Huck
Huck
 
Huck,

Absoloutely not trying to hijack the thread huck:)

I love the lens

Apologies for the extended rant

Scott
 
huck, we can gather the numbers and just put them in one post.

as for my lens, i don't think i have 'tested' it at the absolute minimum focus distance but pretty close and wide open.
 
back alley said:
huck, we can gather the numbers and just put them in one post.

as for my lens, i don't think i have 'tested' it at the absolute minimum focus distance but pretty close and wide open.

Thanks, Joe
 
Huck,

The C Sonnar is tricky to use at short distances (< 6 ft).

I am 90% certain example does front-focus wide open at the minimum focus distance. It turns out I did tests using a 3D subject at the minimum focus distances of several of my lenses (RF, Nikkor AI/AIS and Mamiya/Sekor M42) during Christmas break. I would be happy to email you C Sonnar examples at the minimum focus distance for f 1.5, 2.0, 2.8 and 4.0. I'm not going to post them because at the time I didn't know this would become a hot topic, and while I focused carefully, the DOF for f 1.5 at the minimum focus distance of 0.9 M is only 0.027 M or 1 inch. With my subject a very small focus error could appear to large effect. Frankly I'm not sure I can focus that carefully. Also, somebody will jump in and say these photos are not a proper test, etc, etc.

I have three things to say about the C Sonnar.

1. My test is entirely consistent with the information from Zeiss posted about the C Sonnar focus shift posted in the LL update. At 2.8 the shift looks like it's gone and at f 4 the subject I chose is well rendered (sharp).

2. My serial number is 1560085X.

3. At the risk of being viewed as a Zeiss "fan boy" I really don't understand what the fuss is about. Is any fast 50mm lens versatile wide open at distances of less than 6'? For f 1.5 at less than 6' if the camera moves by a half inch between the time you focus and the time you push the shutter release, what you know you focused on is no longer the point of focus and much of your DOF moves.

Distance(ft)___DOF at f 1.5

4______________2"
6______________4.6"
10_____________1.1'

Using a Canon 50/1.2 LTM taught me that very fast lens are of limited practical use at relatively close distances. Now, consider that one useful way to focus (an any f stop) is to intentionally back focus a bit to make the most use of the DOF you have. Of course for fast apertures at close distances how much back focus to use is a guess. You can use the C Sonnar like any other fast 50mm lens, i.e. intentionally back focus. But a hand-held rangefinder with a wide open fast lens is not the way to make a carefully focused photo at close distance. You need a tripod or better yet, a fast lens on an SLR (and a tripod). My Nikkor 35/2 CRC with floating elements excels at non-macro close ups and it is really sharp too.

I accept that fact that the C Sonnar is not the lens to use if you want to take close ups at f 1.5. I would not hesitate to use it near the minimum focus distance at f 2.8. I have used it at distances of about 6 ft wide open and obtained useful images (one of these I posted here recently). It makes lovely photos wide open (in my opinion) at reasonable subject-to-lens distances. Joe posted several examples.

Fast 50mm lens are great. But all of them are a challenge to use wide open at distances of less than 10 ft. Like any lens, the C Sonnar has strengths and weaknesses, so in the end one compromises. Even a brand new 50mm Summilux is a compromise because the cost benefit ratio not favorable (but is is acceptable for many).

I plan to just go out and take photographs with my C Sonnar. What I've learned from this controversy will increase my chances of getting useful photos at distances of less than 10 ft. But I'm done reading or talking about this lens.

Huck, I hope this is of some use to you.

willie
 
Last edited:
Huck Finn said:
Is there any way to create a box at the top of the page where the numbers can be posted all in one box?

Couple work-arounds. If you can create a simple website off rff, just link to it in the first post. Or just brute force it in the first post, by editing it each time with a hand-made table? :)

I have the 50c as well, but haven't had a chance to test it yet. Maybe soon.
 
Back
Top Bottom