The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

To keep C Sonnar or not?

edwardkaraa

New member
From what I've seen in the online samples and Leica magazine, the 50AA has an amazing sharpness and micro contrast, but I think the summilux has more 3D.
 

douglasf13

New member
From what I've seen in the online samples and Leica magazine, the 50AA has an amazing sharpness and micro contrast, but I think the summilux has more 3D.
That would make sense. What about your ZM 35/2, since it is pretty flat-field? I didn't notice a ton of pop on my crop camera, but I've not used it on the M9.
 

Double Negative

Not Available
Wide open, my trick was always to simply focus "a little behind" what I really wanted in focus... For example, someone's ears instead of eyes. Works most of time.

If you don't want to deal with that, hey, I get it. That's what pushed me towards mostly Leica glass, avoiding lenses like the 35 Lux "pre-FLE" or many newer CV lenses. But if you don't mind experimenting to get the knack of - and then enjoying immensely the results of the C Sonnar... It really does have a sweet rendering.

It definitely has that Zeiss "pop/3D effect" going on...





 

MCTuomey

New member
.... I also like what the Sonnar does to the backgrounds, how it separates the subject from the surroundings. In fact, apart from the Contax lenses, the C Sonnar has the most 3D I have ever seen from a current Zeiss lens, equally as good or better than the Contax 35/1.4. This confirms my earlier theory that field curvature is behind all that Zeiss 3D.
+1 This is what I referred to above as the dimensionality of the C-Sonnar and why I've kept it. For me, as a practical, in-use consideration, f/2.8 retains a large part of the 3D and the bokeh of the lens's performance wide open while reducing focus errors, so that's why I shoot it mostly at f/2.8 and have it optimized at that aperture.

Shoot the lens for awhile and you'll intuitively be looking for compositions that favor its subject separation (field curvature), I'm sure.

Good examples, Edward, Douglas, and Michael!
 

edwardkaraa

New member
I like these shots, although, to be honest, I think I might even prefer the bite of the Planar for this kind of stuff, but who am I to judge?
That would make sense. What about your ZM 35/2, since it is pretty flat-field? I didn't notice a ton of pop on my crop camera, but I've not used it on the M9.
There is definitely some 3D but it's not over emphasized.

IMHO, the ZM lenses with most 3D are the 18/4, 21/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/2.8, and 50/1.5.

Unfortunately I selected my lens line up for clinical performance so I don't enjoy that 3D look so much, but otoh I get sharp high microcontrast corner to corner performance.
 

edwardkaraa

New member
Michael, very nice examples.

Mike, I agree that is easier to have the lens calibrated at f/2.8. With mine I can get sharp results from WO to 2.8, but I should forget about 4-5.6, while in f/2.8 calibration, I believe it is possible to shoot at all apertures.
 

Stuart Richardson

Active member
Bottom line, if it is bothering you, dump it! There are 80 years of fantastic lenses that fit on your camera, why spend the time being aggravated (and missing lots of shots!) because your lens only works reliably at certain apertures. If you want a balance for your super-sharp modern 50mm f/2, why not something like a 50mm f/2 collapsible? It is still sharp, but with lower contrast and beautiful bokeh. At least in my mind...
Here's an old cat pic (laugh it up!) to illustrate...I would use something newer, but since getting the 50/1.4 ASPH that's all I really use.


Or, better yet, consider in investing in something a little different. The 40/2 Summicron would be a great balance, or for a tighter view, perhaps a 75mm or 90mm. The 75/2.5 CV could be a good bet, or the 90mm f/2.8 Tele-Elmarit-M. They should give you a more relaxed look while still being very good modern lenses.
 

edwardkaraa

New member
Well, that is exactly what I did today. I like to keep it simple so I wasn't going to keep two 50mm lenses. Between the sharpness of the Planar and bokeh and 3D of the Sonnar, I chose the Planar.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
The C in the ZM C-Sonnar is supposedly for "classic". I am not sure the real Sonnar 5cm f/1.5 suffers from this aperture induced focus shift menace.

I do not see it on a Jupiter-3 5cm f/1.5 (cost me ~1/20th of the C-Sonnar, including a coded adapter from Rong Jin)which is a clone of the real Sonnar.
 

MCTuomey

New member
Good decision, Edward. I need to get off my large gear backside and do the same. Some samples from my ZM Sonnar I meant to post earlier, fwiw:

Couple low light portraits, wide open:


20091120-24-copy-Web by Mike Tuomey, on Flickr


20091120-18-Web by Mike Tuomey, on Flickr

Several shot at/near f/2.8:


20110822-059-Web by Mike Tuomey, on Flickr


20110709-056-Web by Mike Tuomey, on Flickr


20110709-059-Web by Mike Tuomey, on Flickr


20100131004_edited-1-w by Mike Tuomey, on Flickr


20120322-032-Web by Mike Tuomey, on Flickr
 

sven

New member
Good decision to sell this lens.

As Vivek mentioned, i also have tried the Jupiter 3 clone and no focus shift, so not sure what Zeiss did to change this lens design. This lens has a love hate relationship. Those who like it absolutely swear by it.

But if you really like the Sonnar look, there is a better lens. It's the Rollei sonnar 40mm f/2.8. Absolutely stunning lens with a signature that is not possible with any lens, with that sonnar bokeh and "pop" of infocus subjects. It is also extremely well suited for monochrome work. Everytime I show my photos to non-photogs, the ones made by this lens get picked up routinely. This lens was selling for 400-500$, very cheap to try if you want to. Really cheap when you consider that the chrome version is made of brass with excellent workmanship.
 

Taylor Sherman

New member
Ah, I just saw one of those go on the 'bay for about $1,200. . . I was surprised, hadn't heard anything about it before and that's a lot of dough for a 40/2.8.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Sven, As I understand, the "C" Sonnar is missing one element of the original Bertele Sonnar design. How big a change this induces is real, despite the major developments in optical glass materials over the years.

I have an uncoated 4cm f/2 Sonnar from an old Contax. It needs to be mounted for Leica. With the MM in hand, I might get that done.
 

sven

New member
Vivek, thanks for the info. You may not know this but a few years back you raved about the kiev rangefinder and Jupiter lens. You posted a few shots, one was a boy running or jumping, dont remember exactly but that series was what lured me into the rangefinder sonnar design and I got both m mount and contax mount versions (along with kiev 4A)

My contax sonnar is one heck of a lens if there is a way to adapt it to M mount I would gladly pursue it.
 

sven

New member
Ah, I just saw one of those go on the 'bay for about $1,200. . . I was surprised, hadn't heard anything about it before and that's a lot of dough for a 40/2.8.
Wow, that is a very expensive price for the lens, i am pretty sure it can be had lot cheaper. I saw new lenses (new old stock) sell for around 500 bucks here in getdpi not long ago. Maybe there is still one or two left...
 
Top