Zeiss 50 C-Sonnar M-mount autumn pix

[Benjamin Marks]

This Sonnar is optimized for f:2.8. But it produces wonderful images at all f: stops. It has taken a little practice to learn how to use the lens, but the effort has been well worth it.


http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/data/500/20091010_5485_50_Sonnar_Yellow.jpg

And another:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/data/500/Sonnar_at_1-5.jpg

I think these images show the in-focus/out-of-focus transitions nicely.

Ben Marks

[GoneSavage]

Nice work, friend! My sonnar is in the shop at the moment, for a 1.5 optimization. And I thought I missed it before!

[Richard G]

Beautiful. It's a wonderful lens. I've had one for 10 days. The focus shift is real but manageable once you know where the depth of field will fall in the first four stops. I'm surprised at some not noticing the focus shift, but it isn't as catastrophic as some imply. One poster reckoned it was a three card trick that soon becomes tiresome. I see what he means, but like any trick, if you don't pull it too often it will last and last and continue to delight. At the other end of the spectrum I think it was Helen who said it makes any ordinary shot extraordinary. There's certainly something in that too.

[back alley]

rd1 with zm 50 sonnar, taken this morning at the farmer's market.
focus is on the husks just in front of the pumpkin.


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2476/3998121945_b7d895ec8c_b.jpg

[Benjamin Marks]

Nice one Joe. This autumn I have been feeling like I cannot take a bad image with this lens. Then again, the color is such a riot that I have been essentially pointing and shooting. Both of the above had very small tweaks in CS3, but I feel like someone has given me a big light bucket and told me to go paint the world.

Ben Marks

[Brian Sweeney]

I would like Fall better if it was followed by Spring.

1956 J-3, optimized for F1.5, wide-open.

http://ziforums.com/picture.php?albumid=129&pictureid=1417

1937 5cm F1.5 Sonnar, converted to LTM, wide-open.

http://ziforums.com/picture.php?albumid=147&pictureid=1379

[back alley]

Nice one Joe. This autumn I have been feeling like I cannot take a bad image with this lens. Then again, the color is such a riot that I have been essentially pointing and shooting. Both of the above had very small tweaks in CS3, but I feel like someone has given me a big light bucket and told me to go paint the world.

Ben Marks

thanks ben.
i had a momentary lapse lately and was thinking of maybe getting rid of this lens but that would be just nuts!
my post process is very simple.
crop (optional)
adjust levels
unsharp mask
resize

[fixbones]

ZM 50mm C sonnar at f4 with Fuji Reala. Love how this lens renders between f2.8 to f4

http://www.ferrabyling.com/wp-content/gallery/film-colouful/crooked-trees-2-birds.jpg

[Benjamin Marks]

I would like Fall better if it was followed by Spring.

1956 J-3, optimized for F1.5, wide-open.

http://ziforums.com/picture.php?albumid=129&pictureid=1417

1937 5cm F1.5 Sonnar, converted to LTM, wide-open.

http://ziforums.com/picture.php?albumid=147&pictureid=1379


Brian: Magic! Wow, those images just pop.

[Brian Sweeney]

Thankyou. There is a reason why Zeiss introduced this lens in modern times.

I was using the J-3 at a party yesterday, and my friend told his wife "That's one of the lenses that I was telling you about". He also described the pictures as "popping out at you".

[kichu1979]

indeed this is just one of the best 50mm lens i've ever used

below shot despite far from being perfect really shows 3d-like rendering of zeiss glass and what the fuss is all about :)

http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/9191/album01.jpg

[MCTuomey]

gawd brian, joe, and everyone - lovely stuff. i've got to get away from the 'puter and shoot w/ mine ...

[Bingley]

Beautiful shots, guys! These are great examples of the wonderful "sonnar look"!

[Bingley]

Forgot to ask: How closely does the C-Sonnar focus?

[kichu1979]

min focus is 0,9m

[gotium]

Indeed very nice pics. Fantastic, even.

Having said that, can anyone point out just what 'the look' of the lens is compared, say, to a ZM 50 planar? Aside from some form of fuzziness when the Sonnar is wide open, I've never really understood it.

[kichu1979]

Having said that, can anyone point out just what 'the look' of the lens is compared, say, to a ZM 50 planar? Aside from some form of fuzziness when the Sonnar is wide open, I've never really understood it.

Having this lens is like having 2 lenses in one. Smooth and creamy (see bokeh) wide open

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/8015/10180025.jpg

sharp and sort of clinical when you stop down

http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/3021/10180026.jpg

http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/1885/10170009.jpg

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/1166/10170014.jpg

the wide open signature is what the fuss is all about

[gotium]

Kichu -

That flower pic is magical. Thanks for posting.

Is it the bokeh that is characteristic, or the er, luminance of the in-focus areas? Opening up a planar would presumably produce some nice out-of-focus blur, with a sharp in-focus subject.

There is clearly something really lovely with the sonnar shots in this thread, but I'm not really sure what it is.

[kichu1979]

Is it the bokeh that is characteristic, or the er, luminance of the in-focus areas? Opening up a planar would presumably produce some nice out-of-focus blur, with a sharp in-focus subject.

Lots of aspects actually. It's not only the bokeh (which would the the unsharp areas), it's also how sharpness and unsharpness spreads all over the frame... my lack of english here... the way the lens renders transition from sharp to unsharp, also the way the lens in sharp. No RF examples here, but in SLR
world compare Nikon 105 F2 DC shots with 105 F2.8 Micro Nikkor (macro lens). The macro one is sort of clinical sharp, the 105DC lens is sharp and smooth at the same time (specialized portrait lens).

Take a look, an eye from DC lens

http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/385/20100.jpg

same eye from macro lens

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/385/20100.jpg

see how how portrait lens is smooth with skin micro-wrinkles etc, whil keeping the eye sharp

on the other hand macro lens got all the microwrinkles etc. etc.

[gotium]

Thanks again for posting examples, Kichu. Your macro lens picks up the pores and wrinkles, along with the fine capillaries in the sclera, while the DC lens is more milky - although the focal point for the DC photo looks like it is a tiny bit further forward. While I like the sharpness of the reflections in the iris in the macro photo, the DC photo is much more pleasing overall.

Your flower pic really bowled me over. I'd been planning on adding a planar to my ZI for people photos, but I think this has changed my mind. I'd probably learn a lot more from the Sonnar, if nothing else. It would be interesting to learn what leads to the particular "character" it produces, although I assume that the design was derived empirically, rather than deliberately.

BTW, if English is not your first language, you really have mastered it - in written form, at least.

[Double Negative]

Gotta love the Sonnar... It's got such a nice "draw" to it.

[gotium]

Gotta love the Sonnar... It's got such a nice "draw" to it.

...I'd pegged you as a planar fan...do you have both?

[kichu1979]

Your flower pic really bowled me over. I'd been planning on adding a planar to my ZI for people photos, but I think this has changed my mind. I'd probably learn a lot more from the Sonnar, if nothing else. It would be interesting to learn what leads to the particular "character" it produces, although I assume that the design was derived empirically, rather than deliberately.

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.

[Double Negative]

...I'd pegged you as a planar fan...do you have both?

I do have both. I like "technical" (e.g. modern/Planar) lenses, but also love lenses with real "character." I tend to shoot one extreme or another; stopped-down landscapes and such or close to wide open isolated subject type shots. The Sonnar ZM is something special at f/2.8 or wider though.

[kermaier]

my post process is very simple.
crop (optional)
adjust levels
unsharp mask
resize

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]

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.

[back alley]

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

i work from raw, converted in acr. i save as both a tiff and jpeg and post the jpegs to the net.

[back alley]

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.

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]

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.

[Benjamin Marks]

This isn't exactly low light, but it does show what the lens does when it is wide open.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/data/500/Sonnar_at_1-51.jpg

ISO 160, I think. M8.

[Little-Stjarna]

I bought it yesterday :)
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2527/4042858799_0cc83a4572_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2501/4042851155_b00bd7eefd_b.jpg

Earlier I used the Planar and I do not know whether to sell it now. Probably better to leave both

[andy_v]

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.

[Benjamin Marks]

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

[Doug]

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."

[MCTuomey]

meant to post awhile ago - one modest contribution, c-sonnar wide open;

[noppharoojlap]

This is my C Sonnar 50mm with f 8 in Thailand.

http://http://i637.photobucket.com/albums/uu98/Noppharoojlap/Zeiss%20Ikon%20ZM/1.jpg

[Bavaricus]

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

74718

74719