50mm Leica Summilux ASPH and 50mm Zeiss C-Sonnar simple comparison

[delander †]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've been intrigued about the stories concerning the Zeiss 50mm C-Sonnar as an old style lens with special rendering (and suffering from focus shift), so I decided to get one as a self-indulgent late Christmas present, it arrived yesterday. (we now have to buy a sofa and 2 chairs to make up for it)

 

I got the silver version and I must say it is a handsome looking lens, smaller than the Summilux ASPH. It seems that the Sonnars are set for accurate focus at F2.8 and I thought hard about getting it optimised by Zeiss for F1.5. Anyway I wanted it now and was told by the dealer that a smidgeon focussing behind the the desired focussing point at F1.5 would do the trick. In fact practising with it quickly showed me that this was the case.

 

Now I know that the idea of this lens is low contrast and softer rendering, but I could not help running a quick and dirty test to see how it's sharpness at F1.5 compared to the Summilux ASPH at F1.4. So two crops for comparison. The M9 was set on a tripod and the lenses interchanged. I made some 7 shots with each lens, focussing with the Sonnar a smdgeon (an it was a smidgeon) past the Zeiss lens diagram. The Summilux ASPH focused dead on and gave a very reproducible result. The distance to the box was 1.3m.

 

Now I wont make everyone guess which is which (you can see it in the image title) but sufficient to say that the Summilux gave a very pleasing and sharp image. The Sonnar however was only just behind which again pleased me (and gives me confidence in the len's performance) since I bought it to use wide open for portraits. Corners may tell a different story but I'm not that interested in them – wide open.

 

Anyway as I go off to try and take some real photographs I thought this might be interesting for those contemplating the Zeiss C-Sonnar.

(I now have 4 50mm lenses, too many I think but it is my favourite focal length on the M cameras).

 

Jeff

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Advertisement]

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

[delander †]

The whole image, RAW and then no processing in ACR/PS

 

Jeff

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[zlatkob]

It seems that the Sonnars are set for accurate focus at F2.8 and I thought hard about getting it optimised by Zeiss for F1.5. Anyway I wanted it now and was told by the dealer that a smidgeon focussing behind the the desired focussing point at F1.5 would do the trick. In fact practising with it quickly showed me that this was the case

I don't have this lens and I'm confused by online reports about "optimized for 1.5" vs. "optimized for 2.8", together with the added complication of "optimized for film" vs. "optimized for digital". The Popflash.com listing for this lens indicates that "all production since 1997 is focus optimized at f/1.5 for film based cameras to a FFD distance at 27.86mm." If that is true, and your lens was made since 1997, then your lens should already be optimized for 1.5. However, it is probably not optimized for digital.

 

Is there an official statement from the manufacturer about this somewhere?

[artspraken]

No. There are no markings on the box or lens either. This Sonnar is very interesting and fun to use because of this makeup.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wattsy]

all production since 1997 is focus optimized at f/1.5 for film based cameras to a FFD distance at 27.86mm." If that is true, and your lens was made since 1997

 

I assume that should be 2007?

[zlatkob]

I assume that should be 2007?

 

Popflash says 1997. Here is the direct link:

ZEISS 50MM F/1.5 ZM C SONNAR T* LENS BLACK USA NEW!

 

I'm guessing it's an error, because Luminous Landscape says these lenses were introduced along with the Zeiss Ikon in 2004. So more confusion!

[delander †]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't have this lens and I'm confused by online reports about "optimized for 1.5" vs. "optimized for 2.8", together with the added complication of "optimized for film" vs. "optimized for digital". The Popflash.com listing for this lens indicates that "all production since 1997 is focus optimized at f/1.5 for film based cameras to a FFD distance at 27.86mm." If that is true, and your lens was made since 1997, then your lens should already be optimized for 1.5. However, it is probably not optimized for digital.

 

Is there an official statement from the manufacturer about this somewhere?

 

Well I had a long conversation with the dealer, one who supports this forum and in the UK is I think the importer. He knew I was going to use it on the M9 and said categorically that all lenses they received from Zeiss were optimised for F2.8. If I wanted it optimsed for F1.5 then they would send it back to Zeiss for the work. Using it at F1.5 it is really just a tiny move of the focus ring and easily accomplished. Even if you dont focus compensate then I feel that it is still acceptable at f1.5. i'm not looking for Summilux sharpness.

 

Jeff

[delander †]

Perhaps it's a typo , but Popflash says 1997. Here is the direct link:

ZEISS 50MM F/1.5 ZM C SONNAR T* LENS BLACK USA NEW!

 

Thanks for that, It seems that if I use it on my MP it will perform correctly. It makes sense for Zeiss to work this way, they dont really like to acknowledge the existence of the M8/9.

 

Jeff

[Double Negative]

I have both lenses; and I'd have to say it's an apples<->oranges thing. They're two different "types" of lenses. The Sonnar being a full-on "classic" while the latest Summilux is full-on "modern." I use the Sonnar when I want "character" and the Summilux the rest of the time.

 

FWIW, I did a review of the C Sonnar T* 1,5/50 ZM and even put it up against other lenses in a Lens Shoot-out (50mm), the latter of which I hope to update with the Summilux and film, as well.

[WillD]

Thank you for this OP, very timely since I've been seriously considering the C Sonnar. I'd love to see some of your portraits when you have a chance to post them!

 

Thanks again.

[MarkP]

Double Neg,

you are spot on! I have both lenses and they are very different for exactly this reason.

I bought the 50mm Summilux ASPH first, and the 50mm C-Sonnar later after deciding I also wanted a more 'classic' lens but didn't want to buy an older Leica 50mm. However, the lens rendering is much more modern/sharp as it is stopped down. I plan to keep both although, if I could only keep one it would be the Summilux ASPH

 

 

Zlatkob,

the film/digital focus shift issue is blown out of all proportion with this lens. Think of the older Leica lenses with focus shift on digital which everyone loves and pay a fortune for because of their 'character'. I sent mine back to Zeiss within a week of purchase to have it optimised for digital. As Jeff posted above and the Popflash site states, the lens is optimised for film of course because they only make a film rangefinder camera! On email communication with Zeiss Germany they clearly knew exactly what needed to be done. The adjustment and return shipping (from Germany to Australia) was done at no cost to me with a total turnaround time of about 12 days (did you hear that Leica?). Upon return the focus was much more accurate close up wide-open.

[algrove]

Can anyone confirm for sure that all Sonnars are optimized for 2.8 not 1.5. If some are 1.5 ready, perhaps a list of serial numbers exists.

[zlatkob]

On email communication with Zeiss Germany they clearly knew exactly what needed to be done. The adjustment and return shipping (from Germany to Australia) was done at no cost to me with a total turnaround time of about 12 days (did you hear that Leica?). Upon return the focus was much more accurate close up wide-open.

That's good service and good to hear!

[MarkP]

Can anyone confirm for sure that all Sonnars are optimized for 2.8 not 1.5. If some are 1.5 ready, perhaps a list of serial numbers exists.

 

Someone may correct me but it's not that they are optimised for f2.8 but that they are adjusted for the tolerances of a film plane rather than a digital sensor. The adjustment corrects for this but there is still very small residual focus shift as there is with many older Leica lenses now used on digital bodies. ALL Sonnars are set the same from the factory because they are:rolleyes:

[MarkP]

That's good service and good to hear!

 

I should clarify that return shipping meant the return trip to me. I paid to send the lens one way, offered to be billed for the return shipping but received the lens adjusted and shipping gratis.

 

Mark

[delander †]

Thank you for this OP, very timely since I've been seriously considering the C Sonnar. I'd love to see some of your portraits when you have a chance to post them!

 

Thanks again.

 

We've been out shopping this morning and I have taken a few real world shots at f1.5 on the M9 which some may find useful. I like the lens because of its small size and lighter weight than the 50mm Summilux but it does show considerable blue fringing around specular highlights although this might be sensor overload? Anyway I'll almost certainly convert a lot of of the images to B&W. The images can be seen here: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/other/217239-zeiis-c-sonnar-test-shots-m9.html

 

Note to Mods: I would rather post them here in the customer forum, but I know you will get uptight over it.

 

Jeff

[kdriceman]

I do get pretty strong purple fringing on very high contrast edges with this lens shot wide-open. It seems to be stronger than with my summilux 50, but I still love the lens.

[delander †]

Me too, hopefully I'm going to use it again this afternoon on a subject close to my heart.

 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Double Negative]

Double Neg,

you are spot on! I have both lenses and they are very different for exactly this reason.

I bought the 50mm Summilux ASPH first, and the 50mm C-Sonnar later after deciding I also wanted a more 'classic' lens but didn't want to buy an older Leica 50mm. However, the lens rendering is much more modern/sharp as it is stopped down. I plan to keep both although, if I could only keep one it would be the Summilux ASPH

 

Ha, that's funny! I did the exact opposite. I started with just about every other 50 and finally got the Summilux. I'm still in awe with it. The Sonnar definitely sharpens up dramatically stopped down, even at f/4. I was a bit shocked when I first saw a particular example of it:

 

56e l1000272

[tobey bilek]

There are two issues with the Sonar, focus shift and the digital sensor being flat and uncompromising.

 

Fast lenses tend to have focus shift, ie you set it for wide open and the small stops are off.

F 1.0 Noct is like this also and people say it is not sharp at small stops. Not true, but you have to adjust the focus. Then it works much better at 5.6.

 

The second is Leica set the focus of their lenses to a spot in space somewhere in the film channel which has debth to it. Now digital came along and the lenses were focusing in front of the sensor in that "space". Leica should have chosen to set the sensor where the RF focused and not where the pressure plate was. Someone forgot the film channel had debth.

 

Solution to the first problem is set the focus for wide open. Leica did this and their lenses never required readjustment unless there was a tolerence stack up problem between a particular lens and body. Nobody complained because because they bought the Noct to use wide open and were willing to sacrafice some closed down performance. Zeiss somehow believed people bought the Sonnar to use it closed down so they hit a compromise and set the focus to 2.8. I believe they changed after numerous complaints and moved it to 1.5. Now it works at 1.5 on a film camera. There is still the film vs digital issue and Zeiss may need to further adjust to optimize it to work with digital probably by moving the optical cell closer to the sensor.

 

I have no idea how Leica solved the digital/film plane issue, but my old and new lenses seem to work on either without issue. They could have moved the mount closer or moved the sensor forward or have separate jigs to set the RF on digital. I believe they went the latter route.

 

As far as lens usage goes, I prefer to think of the Sonnar as optimized for people or less than a 100% realistic look and Leica optimized for general photography. Zeiss just let the defects stay for this one lens and Leica designed them out. Just take a pic of someone with a 100 2.8 APO. UGLY as it shows every skin pore and facial blemish. I keep the 90 Summicron for that.

If you read Thorsten Overgard`s pages, you will see he still uses his Rigid Summicron on the M9. You just know he could buy "something newer/better" if he wanted. I remember stories back from 1969 when the new Summicron came out. Numerous people traded up from the Rigids and Dual Ranges, then went back to retrieve the old lenses.