Zeiss ZM Sonnar 1.5/50 vs Pre-ASPH Summilux 1.4/50

[thomasw_]

LOL. I love these kinds of corrections and I stand corrected. The competition between the sonnar vs pre- asph summilux is closer but the focus shift of the sonnar turns me off.

It did cause me to wait a couple of years before buying one, too. While being cautious is generally virtuous, in this case the best I can say is that there is no big deal in the focus. It is rather like learning to focus a noctilux, less challenging than a lux 75.

 

[willie_901]

There is anecdotal evidence (reading lots and lots of conflicting posts) that some cameras are more compatible with the C-Sonnar than others. Some photographers have experienced dreadful focus issues. Others (myself included with the f 2.8 optimized lens) find the DOF shift to have minimal, if any, impact on their work. Maybe this is a focus cam/lens issue.

If you use a RF camera body to photograph subjects that are 6 M or closer in very low light, the C-Sonnar, is likely to be less successful than other F 1.4 or 1.5 50 mm lenses. I do believe that the C-Sonnar can be used productively with practice close-in and wide open, but I also believe it would be easier to learn other lenses.

For me, the C-Sonnar's advantages overwhelm it's highly asymmetric DOF characteristics below f 2.8 (AKA focus shift) when used close-in and wide open.

 

[b.espahbod]

Zeiss sonnar is perfeKt but i like the feel of pre-asph its images look so appealing to my eyes.

 

[sepiareverb]

I'm a big fan of the pre-ASPH in the woods.

wide open:

@ 5.6:

 

[awilder]

In the past, I've owned a few versions of the 50 pre-asph. 'lux and one 50 ZM Sonnar and here are the differences based on my own tests and observations.
The 'lux has little or no focus shift from sperical aberration (SA), higher contrast wide open, greater curvature of field, higher astigmatism by mid-frame and further out requiring f/5.6-8 or smaller to bring it under decent control and very good flare resistance. Central resolution is good to very good wide open and one stop down and exceedingly sharp by f/2.8 however, one must stop down a few more stops to extend the zone of sharpness further out in the frame due to curvature of field and astigmatism. All these things make for a lens ideal low light with high speed film, repotage or shooting people. For shooting detailed landcsapes or subjects that require high sharpness across the frame, one must stop down to at least f/5.6-8 or switch to a ASPH 'lux or Summicron for better across the frame performance at largrer apertures.
The ZM Sonnar is a little soft wide open with medium contrast primarily due to moderate amounts of uncorrected SA. One can see with certain high contrast subjects a central sharp core (axial image focus) with a surrounding out of focus haze (under-corrected SA image) when looking at a highly magnified image taken at for example f/2.8. The led to the famous focus shift. As the lens is stopped down to f/2.8 or smaller, the front focusing outer rays (from under-corrected SA) are blocked thus allowing the relatively back focusing axial rays to dominate. Typically Zeiss used these axial rays to dictate the proper focal plane of the lens unless the customer requested adjustment for focus optimization at f/1.5 where the outer less corrected front focusing rays dictate sharpest focus. As the lens is stopped down to f/2.8 and smaller, this lens starts to give a good uniform sharpness, not super tack sharp centrally as with the 'lux, but better overall definition with better mid and outer frame performance due to less astigmatism and curvature of field. This gives the Sonnar a couple of stops advantage over the 'lux where sharpness is more critical across the frame for lanscapes as an example. The lens demonstrates slightly better flare resistance with fewer air to glass surfaces and better coating thanks to T* multicoating. The compact lens grouping also makes for a more compact physical size as well. The lens is a good multi-purpose optic with softness wide open or at f/2 to give an artistic "glow" that would be flattering in certain types of portraiture like that with "Softar" auxillary filters or interesting bokeh effects. Stopping down to f/2.8 and smaller provides sharpness similar to most modern well corrected optics that provide good edge to edge performance especially by f/4 or f/5.6. For more exacting performance with high demand on sharpness at all or most apertures, consider the Planar.

 

[ampguy]

This is very good info.

This is very good info.

I don't own the ZM Sonnar, but a couple versions of the pre-asph 50 lux which I like a lot. I have my 1966 in the classifieds here, which I will miss a lot when it sells.

In the past, I've owned a few versions of the 50 pre-asph. 'lux and one 50 ZM Sonnar and here are the differences based on my own tests and observations.
The 'lux has little or no focus shift from sperical aberration (SA), higher contrast wide open, greater curvature of field, higher astigmatism by mid-frame and further out requiring f/5.6-8 or smaller to bring it under decent control and very good flare resistance. Central resolution is good to very good wide open and one stop down and exceedingly sharp by f/2.8 however, one must stop down a few more stops to extend the zone of sharpness further out in the frame due to curvature of field and astigmatism. All these things make for a lens ideal low light with high speed film, repotage or shooting people. For shooting detailed landcsapes or subjects that require high sharpness across the frame, one must stop down to at least f/5.6-8 or switch to a ASPH 'lux or Summicron for better across the frame performance at largrer apertures.
The ZM Sonnar is a little soft wide open with medium contrast primarily due to moderate amounts of uncorrected SA. One can see with certain high contrast subjects a central sharp core (axial image focus) with a surrounding out of focus haze (under-corrected SA image) when looking at a highly magnified image taken at for example f/2.8. The led to the famous focus shift. As the lens is stopped down to f/2.8 or smaller, the front focusing outer rays (from under-corrected SA) are blocked thus allowing the relatively back focusing axial rays to dominate. Typically Zeiss used these axial rays to dictate the proper focal plane of the lens unless the customer requested adjustment for focus optimization at f/1.5 where the outer less corrected front focusing rays dictate sharpest focus. As the lens is stopped down to f/2.8 and smaller, this lens starts to give a good uniform sharpness, not super tack sharp centrally as with the 'lux, but better overall definition with better mid and outer frame performance due to less astigmatism and curvature of field. This gives the Sonnar a couple of stops advantage over the 'lux where sharpness is more critical across the frame for lanscapes as an example. The lens demonstrates slightly better flare resistance with fewer air to glass surfaces and better coating thanks to T* multicoating. The compact lens grouping also makes for a more compact physical size as well. The lens is a good multi-purpose optic with softness wide open or at f/2 to give an artistic "glow" that would be flattering in certain types of portraiture like that with "Softar" auxillary filters or interesting bokeh effects. Stopping down to f/2.8 and smaller provides sharpness similar to most modern well corrected optics that provide good edge to edge performance especially by f/4 or f/5.6. For more exacting performance with high demand on sharpness at all or most apertures, consider the Planar.

 

[larmarv916]

Ok... I now own a Sonnar and found my "lux" as last version to be less that great. The close up focus was not good. I have owned a Noctilux E58 and while But not impressed with the F1 quality and even at F2.8 is was well below the Sonnar I now have. Now I would consider a ASPH "Lux" as it appears to be in a class by it's self in many ways. But....I try and use lenses that give me a "thumb print" that is special in some way I like. So I would like a Zeiss Planar F2 as well as a new F1.1 Nokton. The Lux ASPH is for me a more technical tool...not so much creative. I could be wrong, if I shot with it at F1.4 or F2 and got something different then I would find a niche for it.

I think to lenses more by F stop "usage" rather than a one size must fit all. So for me...and again I say "me" the Sonnar at F2..2.8 and F4 is a winner. Do I want another normal lens. Sure.

 

[awilder]

After many years of chasing the best fast and ultra fast lens from Leica, Konica and Zeiss; at various times owning almost every modern 50 mm lens from f/1 to f/2, I've eventually settled on just one lens: the 50/2.8 Elmar-M. It's compact, very highly corrected, virtually flare free yet has a wonderful signature that is classically Leica but not as clinically perfect like the 50/1.4 ASPH, Summicron or Planar. I don't do as much low light shooting as I use to so this fits my need. If I do low light, I'll pull out my Nikon D700 which easily does ISO 3200 quite well.

 

[helen.HH]

After many years of chasing the best fast and ultra fast lens from Leica, Konica and Zeiss; at various times owning almost every modern lens from f/1 to f/2, I've eventually settled on just one lens: the 50/2.8 Elmar-M. It's compact, very highly corrected, virtually flare free yet has a wonderful signature

PLEASE 'awilder' POST One or Two of your Favorite
50/2.8 Elmar Shots
would LOVE to see
Thank You !

 

[awilder]

Sure, I'l post one or two recent shots later this evening.

 

[awilder]

Here are some sample shots I recently took with the 50/2.8 Elmar-M set wide open, hand held at I think 1/15 or 1/30. The first image shown doesn't do the lens much justice due to the size limitations allowed for image posting, restricting actual much better sharpness. It does however, nicely demonstrate the lens' nice bokeh, color and handling of a dark subject against bright backgound lighting. Stopping down to f/4 and smaller puts it in the same league as the Summicron.

 

[helen.HH]

THANkS so Much for posting awilder...the Elmar 50/2.8 is Lovely

 

[WoolenMammoth]

I shot for about 8 months with a c-sonnar on a project exclusively, probably ran maybe 500 rolls in that period. Shooting primarily portraits of people from about 4 feet. I tried *hard* to get into that lens. After about 8 months I bought a e43 summilux and every bit of frustration I had with the c-sonnar disappeared. An e46 preasph lux came later and that lens is awesome beyond words. There is positively a difference in look between my specific e43 and e46 lux, and the e43 was cla'd before I shot anything with it.

The sonnar is a cool lens if you are looking for an effect and it is really really sharp and modern looking. If you shoot it around f/2, the feel I always got out of it was this cool oof vintage look and then the areas that were in focus popped with modern sharpness. I cant think of another lens that does that, so its pretty cool, but I tired of that pretty quickly. The most annoying thing about the lens is the change in contrast as you stop down. Once you get used to the look of the lens at around f2-4, if you have to shoot in bright sunlight and stop down to f8 or higher you are basically dealing with a different lens. It was just a big pita to deal with sometimes, always having to think about how much the look is changing with the aperature, that change is significant and the change from f4-f8 is as drastic as the change from f1.5- f2.8. I did ALOT of work on that lens and I dont miss using it at all and when I look at photos from that project, I dont get inspired to pick it up again. It is a great lens, without a doubt, but its a three trick pony and in the end that felt constricting.

At full aperature the lux and c sonnar are not comparable on any level. The sonnar at full aperature is sheer effect. The lux at full aperature is just a stop faster than its look at f2. The sonnar is a cool lens to have as an addition to something else, I would be seriously bummed if it was my only 50. I would get one for fun after owning a lux. Owning both is imo, certainly not redundant.

 

[awilder]

WoolenMammoth, I'm curious as to the difference you found between the E43 and E46 version. The only difference I found was that the E46 version I tried had a little looseness with the optical unit in the focusing mount (even though it was like new) and the lens focused slightly past infinity. No such issues with the E43 Summilux, focus was spot on accurate with the rangefinder and build quality was better with the Wetzlar product over the Solmes unit .

 

[WoolenMammoth]

If you search I started a thread on here a while back when I was in the market for a lux. everyone says the two versions are optically identical, which never held any water for me. Im sure the *design* could be identical, but it struck me as fairly impossible to manufacture something to the same spec over a 30 year period for the simple reason that supplies for fabrication change. Not that this even really matters as the e46 is completely different physical construction. It would make sense that your e43 focuses better as the focus throw is much longer than on the e46. Lens coatings improved over the years and as I suspected, the e46 I have is sharper wide open and has way more contrast. My e43 isnt all scratched up and DAG cleaned it the week I bought it, so its a fair comparison to some degree. With that said, the one e43 and one e46 I have are the only two I have ever compared, so dont consider this any kind of conclusive statement on the subject, just reflects my experience with two random samplings from the open market. Simply put, I like the pictures the e46 makes and its pretty easy for me to tell which lens shot what. Its subtle, but enough for me to have held on to both lenses if that tells you anything...

 

[thomasw_]

...so dont consider this any kind of conclusive statement on the subject, just reflects my experience with two random samplings.....I like the pictures the e46 makes....

I checked my Leica books on this and the word seems to be that besides the focus throw, size/weight, lens coating, close focus, and hood differences, the E43 and E46 were optically the same. But your point about individual variation and the sampling of different glass is well taken, though Gunther Osterloh claims that the design tolerances and consistency of materials used kept the lenses the same. Like you, I have had both versions, though I could not say there was any clear difference optically. In ergonomics, yes; in function, yes, if I can count the ,7m close focus. I loved the size of the version 2, but the close focus of the v.3.

 

[ferider]

Except for the Sonnar shifting more, I feel that wide open, the Summilux and C-Sonnar to be quite similar. From f2 onwards, the Summilux feels more or less like the v3 Summicron I once had, i.e. is sharper in the corners than the C-Sonnar, at least up to f2.8.

The v2 Summilux that I have now is very sharp in the center wide open and at infinity. This really surprised me. Not sure if the E46 that I once had behaves differently from the E43 that I have now. I do like the long focus throw in combo with M3 though, and convinced myself that 1m min. focus is OK, since I will carry the v2 together with a 90mm that is used if I want to get closer.

Here are some (ugly) test shots of the v2 wide open, to illustrate why I think it does behave similarly to the C-Sonnar:

- center:

- center cropped:

- corner:

- corner cropped:

- Bokeh: typical "blotchy", asymmetrical Mandler bokeh, like the 75/1.4. Focus on the coke can:

Cheers,

Roland.

 

[ampguy]

Thanks Roland

Thanks Roland

Very interesting tests. I've never owned a C-Sonnar, (the focus shift is too bizarre...) but close up with the right back-lighting, I've seen much swirlier, usually abstract and out of control OOF areas, while the 50 'lux pre-asph seems to have just the perfect amount, as shown in your Coke can photo.

I miss the longer focus throw, especially when going back and forth between a 75 lux and E46 short throw. The older V2s, while lacking the close-focus, I think more than make up for it in a more solid build feeling.

I still cannot understand how the same optical design (supposedly) took them about 4 decades to get to .7m close focus. very odd.

Except for the Sonnar shifting more, I feel that wide open, the Summilux and C-Sonnar to be quite similar. From f2 onwards, the Summilux feels more or less like the v3 Summicron I once had, i.e. is sharper in the corners than the C-Sonnar, at least up to f2.8.

The v2 Summilux that I have now is very sharp in the center wide open and at infinity. This really surprised me. Not sure if the E46 that I once had behaves differently from the E43 that I have now. I do like the long focus throw in combo with M3 though, and convinced myself that 1m min. focus is OK, since I will carry the v2 together with a 90mm that is used if I want to get closer.

Here are some (ugly) test shots of the v2 wide open, to illustrate why I think it does behave similarly to the C-Sonnar:

- center:

- center cropped:

- corner:

- corner cropped:

- Bokeh: typical "blotchy", asymmetrical Mandler bokeh, like the 75/1.4. Focus on the coke can:

Cheers,

Roland.

 

[edodo]

Does the focus shift in the sonnar ZM has been corrected by repairers?

 

[MCTuomey]

No, it's not a repairable matter. The focus can be optimized at f1.5 or f2.8, owner preference.