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!

Leica 50mm ASPH Summilux vs. Zeiss 50mm f/1.5 Sonnar

peterm1

Active member
I am trying to decide between these two lenses for the M10. I used to have the 50mm Summilux ASPH and loved it, but now I am thinking about the Zeiss for its much cheaper price and reputation for great color and 3D pop. Focus shift should NOT be an issue for me since I will use the Visoflex EVF to focus. I assume the Summilux will be a bit more clinically perfect, especially wide open, but I am intrigued by the characteristics that are attributed to the Sonnar.

I shoot a wide range of subjects, mostly travel and street and casual use at friends' events, etc. (By the way, I also just got a used 35mm Summicron ASPH as my other main daily shooting lens for the M10).

I'd love to hear people's experiences and thoughts, especially if they have used both lenses.

Thanks!

Peter
 

thrice

Active member
The Sonnar is a hugely flawed character lens. The 50 Asph is a very well corrected lens.

If you're after the Sonnar 'look' which is typically more painterly out of focus areas and a general softness then it's great, otherwise the Asph beats it in every concievable way except size.
The Sonnar has a lot of longitudinal CA.

I owned both concurrently.
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
+1 they’re just different. Decide what look that you want and go from there. I have the 50 ASPH welded to my M246 and 35 FLE similarly on my M10. I like their rendering but the Zeiss has its own unique view and challenges.

As mentioned, you’ll want both :ROTFL::thumbs:
 

peterm1

Active member
Thanks. I think you are right. Since I loved the Summilux I had, perhaps I will go with the Summilux again to avoid unexpected disappointment...(although I'd love to try the Sonnar)...
 

D&A

Well-known member
I've used both extensively but at different times (and currently own the Sonnar). Without pointing out the technical differences as to why, they are very different lenses as pointed out by others. I love the way the Sonnar draws and it most definitely has a very unique signature and often imprints its look on certain types of images. Its highest "center of the image" resolution is good but well below that of the Lux asph, even at their respective best apertures if resolution measurements are taken. The Lux asph as pointed out has quite stunning performance across the frame but much more neutral in its rendition.

Not a precise analogy but think of the 35mm Lux pre asph vs. the current 35mm Lux asph FLE. Night and day difference, especially at the wider apertures. The former often loved by many for the way its captures an atmospheric look in certain situations, while the 35mm Asph FLE is more similar in performance to the 50mm Lux asph...near perfection.

I will add that the look of the 35mm Lux pre asph vs the 50mm Sonnar are also quite different, even though each has a well described recognizable atmospheric signature, since the optical design and various aberrations characteristics of each are very different, so in my opinion, they cannot really be compared (aside from their focal length differences).

Dave (D&A)
 
Last edited:

KeithL

Well-known member
In a perfect world and with an unlimited budget I'd own both, but the world is less than perfect and my budget is far from unlimited.

What I can say for sure is I love my Sonnar, particularly for the kind of environmental portraits and other subjects that I find myself producing lately. My copy is spot on at f/2 - tested thoroughly on two M240 bodies - which I'm more than happy with as I find the DOF too narrow at f/1.5 and by f/2.8 the lens is losing that unique character.

A couple of examples at f/2.



 

Paratom

Well-known member
I am trying to decide between these two lenses for the M10. I used to have the 50mm Summilux ASPH and loved it, but now I am thinking about the Zeiss for its much cheaper price and reputation for great color and 3D pop. Focus shift should NOT be an issue for me since I will use the Visoflex EVF to focus. I assume the Summilux will be a bit more clinically perfect, especially wide open, but I am intrigued by the characteristics that are attributed to the Sonnar.

I shoot a wide range of subjects, mostly travel and street and casual use at friends' events, etc. (By the way, I also just got a used 35mm Summicron ASPH as my other main daily shooting lens for the M10).

I'd love to hear people's experiences and thoughts, especially if they have used both lenses.

Thanks!

Peter
In my experience the Leica has a little smoother bokeh, and the bokeh of the Zeiss has a little more contrast and life.(a matter of taste)
I find als the Leica renders a little warmer and the Zeiss a little colder.
For my taste the Zeiss renders skin tones very nice, since the midtoness seem to come out a little brighter. (My subjective impression).
I find the Zeiss the more interesting lens, since it gives you 2 chracters, depending on the f-stop you use.

My favorite 50 would be the Summicron by the way ;)
 

chiquita

Member
I have both and have used them extensively on the M240 and the Sony A7RII. I generally take the Zeiss when I'm travelling because it's so much smaller and lighter than the summilux. I'm in a similar dilemma, going to Venice next month.... do I take the perfection of the 50mm Summilux or the character of the Sonnar! I now have the M10 and Visoflex although my Zeiss was perfect at 1.5 on the M240. Plenty of examples on my flickr page https://www.flickr.com/photos/christilou1/albums
 

rayyan

Well-known member
I have both. Use them both
Different renderings.
But that is what makes the 50/1.5 special for me.

Lux is a very contrasts lens.
 

MCTuomey

New member
Owned both - used the sonnar enough to wear out several threads (prematurely due to poor factory lube). Acquired a lux while the sonnar was in the shop, ended up keeping the leica and selling the zeiss. Which i regret a bit because the sonnar is such a fine portrait 50 at f1.5 to f2.8. If money isn’t a factor, and you only want one, the leica is the better all-rounder imho.

KeithL - beautiful portraits!
 
Last edited:

KeithL

Well-known member
Owned both - used the sonnar enough to wear out several threads (prematurely due to poor factory lube). Acquired a lux while the sonnar was in the shop, ended up keeping the leica and selling the zeiss. Which i regret a bit because the sonnar is such a fine portrait 50 at f1.5 to f2.8. If money isn’t a factor, and you only want one, the leica is the better all-rounder imho.

KeithL - beautiful portraits!
Mike, many thanks, much appreciated.

I love the Sonnar despite and because of its imperfections.

;-)
 
Top