ZM Sonnar optimized for Leica M9 and F 1.5 ?

[drjoke]

I am interested in purchasing ZM Sonnar 50mm for use with my
Leica M9. I would like the lens optimized for Leica M9 (Digital) and F 1.5.

However, I read conflicting messages on the Internet. I read that if I buy
the lens right now, it is optimized for film and F 2.8 and that I would
have to send it to Zeiss to adjust for free.

In any case, can someone please confirm the best option if I would like a new ZM Sonnar 50mm that is optimized for Leica M9 (Digital) and F 1.5. Can I buy the lens to such specification online or directly from Zeiss?

DrJoke

 

[CrisR]

Not sure what country you're in, but The Classic Camera here in London, sells both and specifies which f stop they're optimised for. I believe any stockist can request Zeiss send them either version at no extra cost?

 

[thompsonks]

Same with Popflash in US.

 

[kshapero]

Exactly what does all this mean?

 

[furcafe]

Different lenses optimized for different situations.

Exactly what does all this mean?

 

[TheGodParticle]

I bought mine from an online store and had it sent to Oberkochen to be optimized for f1.5. Works perfectly on my M9. I like this lens do much I don't feel the need for the asph 50 1.4 lux

 

[Monochrom]

Hi, distances between leica and ZI camera are just the same...ther´s no need to do that "optimization"...

My sonnar works as it should on every digital rangefinder i had and of course the same way on every film M camera I own...

Difference may appear when the lens is out of adjustment or the rangefinder is also out of it´s position....
The lens adjustment is far more reliable but depends as well on the cameras adjustment
The cameras go out of adj as you use it....to set it to proper alignment (horzontal) is easy since you rotate the coupling wheel as you get a infinte object on alignment...

I sugest you to optimize the sonnar to a 2.8 figure....because this way you´ll only have about 1.5 cm front focus as you use it at 1.5....but from 2.8 on focus will be spot on.

Many say that this lens is to be used at 1.5 and then they optimize it at taht setting...but i wouldn´t recomend it since it´s true that focus will be spot on at 1.5 but from 2.8 on your focus point will move several meters back from the subject....leaving your subjects dull and the results will lack the punching sharpness of this extraordinary and not so expensive lens!!!

Cheers!!!

 

[redisburning]

if all you care about is f1.5 and you dont intend to sell there is no reason not to have the lens optimized for your specific camera.

RF cams and lens cams have tolerances, you CAN see an improvement in focus accuracy if they dont happen to line up and you have a good tech collineate them properly.

 

[MCTuomey]

My C-Sonnar works equally well on my M4-P and M9. It's optimized at f/2.8, my preference, since that's my most-used aperture.

 

[Richard G]

Mine was sold as optimized for 1.5. My tests on a film camera proved inconclusive, and in practice I had little trouble if any with focus shift. I was able to do a much more accurate assessement on my M9 and found that it is probably optimized for around f2.2. This is ideal perhaps and seems to accord with others' experience. Mine is front focussed at 0.9m distance by about 1-1.5cm at f1.5. it starts to be slightly back focussed by f2.8, but at all apertures above f1.5 the increased depth of field mitigates the focus shift to the point that it is negligible. Other tests posted online indicate a major problem with back focussing through f2 and f2.8 on a 1.5 optimized Sonnar. My conclusion is that copies vary. If the lens is actually optimized for focus at 0.9m at f2 or f2.2, then all apertures are useable without much difficulty and without the need for specific tricks to compensate for focus shift.

 

[Mark T]

The lens design is what it is. How can it be optimised for film or digital? This doesn't make sense. Think about it, would optimisation involve for digtal vs film? Just get the lens, learn to use it, and enjoy it for what it is.

 

[Pioneer]

DAG has my Nokton 50/1.1 so it can be optimized for wide open aperture. If I decide I need to close down I take it off and use my ZM Planar 50/2 or Elmar 50/2.8, neither of which seem to need any optimizing.

For what it is worth my particular ZM 50/1.5 seems to be best at 1.5. I haven't used it much but if I stop it down to 2.8 I have to lean back just a tad after focusing before I grab the shot. But I bought it used so it may have been adjusted by the previous owner.

 

[Doug]

The lens design is what it is. How can it be optimised for film or digital? This doesn't make sense. Think about it, would optimisation involve for digtal vs film? Just get the lens, learn to use it, and enjoy it for what it is.

The issue here is one of acceptable tolerances; a digital M simply makes it easier to see focus errors that wouldn't bother anyone on film.

I sent many of my lenses to DAG for focus-checking and adjustment if needed, as a side-issue when having the 6-bit coding done. Some required some tweaking to meet tight tolerances, and some didn't.

My C-Sonnar had come set to focus accurately at f/2.8, and that was ok with me as I had worked out two techniques to compensate for front-focus errors at f/1.5 - an aperture I rarely use. The DAG-adjusted lens turned out optimized more around f/2... and that's ok also as long as I'm aware of the extra backfocus effect at smaller apertures. A minor matter...🙂