Zeiss 50mm Sonnar or Planar?

[dugby]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Have google at Ming Thein's side-by-side of the APO-Summicron-M 50mm ASPH to the Planar and be astonished at what he reports.

 

May 10, Part 2: The Leica APO-Summicron-M 50/2 ASPH review, and a comparison – Ming Thein | Photographer

[tmldds]

If you like a modern lens that you can "just shoot", go for the Planar.

 

If you like an older lens with "character" or need the extra stop, get the Sonnar.

 

The Sonnar does require a little extra care in shooting up to about f/2.8 (assuming that's what it is optimized for) due to a focus shift. It's a minor thing, but you'll be rewarded with a very unique image/bokeh which makes it well worthwhile. If you intend to shoot it wide open all the time, you can optionally have it optimized for f/1.5.

 

I don't have the "Sonnar," but my "Planar" has been gathering dust. For a more contemporary rendering, I prefer my "lux" asph and for a more classic rendering, I use my Nocti F/1. You should look at a lot of photos taken by different lenses and select based on the characteristic rendering, especially, wide-opened and how much you want to spend.

Edited November 26, 2013 by tmldds

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[MarkP]

Have google at Ming Thein's side-by-side of the APO-Summicron-M 50mm ASPH to the Planar and be astonished at what he reports.

 

May 10, Part 2: The Leica APO-Summicron-M 50/2 ASPH review, and a comparison – Ming Thein | Photographer

 

I don't have either lens but on this review of n=1 per group I am hard pressed to see a difference in performance worth $6500. Not to say I wouldn't mind an APO-Summicron but it's not high up on my list.

Edited November 27, 2013 by MarkP

[MarkP]

I don't have the "Sonnar," but my "Planar" has been gathering dust. For a more contemporary rendering, I prefer my "lux" asph and for a more classic rendering, I use my Nocti F/1. You should look at a lot of photos taken by different lenses and select based on the characteristic rendering, especially, wide-opened and how much you want to spend.

 

I fully agree regarding the 1.4/50 Summilux ASPH and the 1.4/50 Noctilux.

 

I also do have the 1.5/50 C-Sonnar which still gets a fair amount of use as it does to some extent cover both bases in a small package, especially if I'm going somewhere I may worry about the Leica lenses.

[dugby]

I don't have either lens but on this review of n=1 per group I am hard pressed to see a difference in performance worth $6500.

 

That's why I bought & saved $6500........

[dugby]

That's why I bought & saved $6500........

 

I actually thereafter went forth and bought both 35LUX/FLE and also a 50LUX/FLE, so Leica eventually still got my $$

[Keith (M)]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Prefer the rendering of the C-Sonnar on my film M's (and no problems with focus-shift), whilst the Planar produces superb results on digital M, as does its sister Biogon 35mm f2 (both three years on an M9, now on an M240).

[asiafish]

When I just want to shoot, I grab my 50 Cron (latest version). For portraits, indoor people shots or just plain nostalgia, however, nothing comes close to the C Sonnar, except of course, a vintage Sonnar.

 

I currently own three Sonnar-type lenses, the modern C Sonnar (optimized for f/1.5), a coated Jupiter 3 (1963 Zomz) and an uncoated Carl Zeiss Jena (1937 Contax mount, converted to LTM). While I use my Summicron more, the three Sonnars are the ones I'm most passionate about, and believe it or not, I like them all equally.

 

Of the Sonnars, the modern one is the easiest to use with the best contrast. The 1937 has the smoothest rendering, while the Jupiter 3 draws close to the 1937, but is easier to focus and somehow just a bit more forgiving, despite having a slightly longer actual focal length. If I could keep only one, it would be the 1937.

[NJH]

I currently own both. On the M8 I can't see any difference in sharpness across the frame from f5.6 down. Doing a lot of background reading though there is an opinion that it never fully sharpens up in the corners on full frame digital. Going the other way though what Zeiss say is true in my opinion its very soft around the edges and corners at f2.8 and wider, as has already been said probably due in part to hefty curvature of the focus plane. The centre seems as sharp at f2 but it may or may not have lower contrast there I haven't decided yet for myself. I confirmed all this by shooting a series of infinity shots out the front of my house. The Planar is always sharp unless one misses the focus.

 

Controversial opinion perhaps but thus far I haven't seen anything to suggest the Sonnar has some magical bokeh that other lenses don't have. I think a lot of thought, dubious testing and internet bandwith is wasted on this bokeh subject. What is a definite though is that off axis areas can be massively blurred with the Sonnar due to its technical optical deficiencies already talked about, this seems to give an impression of much less depth of field than the f1.5 aperture suggests.

 

The dual personality of the Sonnar and the fact I have it for my M6 means its a keeper for me. 46mm vs 43mm filter thread needs to be considered as well as the Sonnar ZM fits neatly into an M lens set whereas 43mm on the Planar means it really partners with Zeiss's own 35, its an oddball size for sure.

 

Physically I prefer the weight and feel of the Sonnar in the hand both in terms of its dimensions and focusing feel, its a little shorter/wider than the Planar and has a slightly weightier feel on the focus ring.

 

230g for an f1.5 lens is also not to be sniffed at, its the same weight as the 50 summarit f2.5.

[escimo]

I own the C Sonnar 1.5/50 ZM only, because of focal length, dimension, filter thread size, performance against the sun (T* coating), weight and price.

So consider for which purpose you want to use the lens.

 

Also balance your decision concerning the usage of filters (filter size) and maybe other planed lenses:

 

C Sonnar 1.5/50 ZM: 46mm filter size

-> also at Biogon 21/25/28mm ZM

Planar 2/50 ZM: 43mm

-> also at C/Biogon 35mm ZM lenses and Tele-Tessar 4/85 ZM

 

escimo

Edited January 12, 2014 by escimo

[rramesh]

I was led to believe that the Sonnar is focus optimized for f/2.8. However if you are buying a new one, you can take it to Zeiss and they will send it under warranty back to have it optimized for f/1.5. Maybe someone in this forum could verify this.

[Ecar]

I was led to believe that the Sonnar is focus optimized for f/2.8. However if you are buying a new one, you can take it to Zeiss and they will send it under warranty back to have it optimized for f/1.5. Maybe someone in this forum could verify this.

This is correct.

[MarkP]

+1. This is correct

[TomB_tx]

This used to be common practice for lenses with focus shift as they stop down. Both my '60s 50 Summicrons show best focus at f2.8, with slight front-focus at f2.0, and some back-focus stopped further down. Never noticed it on film over all the years of use, but careful testing on digital will show it.