Voigtlander 50mm f1.1 vs Zeiss 50mm f1.5

[colonel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I would like to get a fast, "reasonably priced", 50mm lens for a Leica M9

 

It does not need to be super sharp wide open (but should be usable for portraits in particular) but I would like it to be sharp by f2.8

 

I would like f1.4 or less, but f1.5 would be ok

 

I was considering the Voigtlander f1.1 or the Zeiss f1.5.

Neither is critically sharp wide open.

 

The Voigtlander has vastly differing reviews. Some saying its sharp wide open in the centre, others saying most need adjustment under guarantee to be sharp on a M8 or M9.

 

Both these lenses suffer from focus shift. The Voigtlander between f2 and f5.6.

The Zeiss I have not established the range from reading reviews

I presume both of this shift is at close range.

The Voigtlander is heavier but it does have a wider aperture. However if f1.1 is not usable then it would defeat the point.

 

My question is to those folk who have had both, which would they recommend ?

 

I am interested in sharpness (including wide open), significant of focus shift, colours (I know a personal thing but still interested in peoples views), contrast and micro-contrast and detail.

 

Many thanks in advance

[Advertisement]

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

[Lightwrangler]

You will hate me for not exactly answering your question. But why not consider the VC 50 1.5. It might be exactly what you are looking for. Perfect portrait lens, sharp even wide open, no focus shift and more affordable then the rest you are suggesting.

 

See a review here: Voigtlander Nokton 50-1.5 Lens Review by James Klotz

 

I can only recommend this lens.

 

Mike

[01af]

Mandatory reading for anyone who is planning to buy a 50 mm standard lens:

 

sm-02-09-22

[Ralf]

Get the Zeiss Planar, reasonably priced, well built, very sharp with excellent contrasts, no focus shift as opposed to the Sonnar, in my opinion a no-brainer.

[Ecar]

Mandatory reading for anyone who is planning to buy a 50 mm standard lens:

 

sm-02-09-22

 

 

Absolutey spot on. No cure for GAS, though... and since I own both lenses, I'll try and answer the original question:

• CV 50/1.1: in practice, I haven't found focus shift to be an issue (I believe I have a good copy) and it's definitely sharp at f/2.8, with perhaps some corner weakness. If you don't mind the bulk and are after a fairly neutral rendering, this may be a good choice. The (now discontinued but still available) CV 50/1.5 may be an even better choice, but I have only briefly tested a bad (decentered) copy in the past and can't provide meaningful impressions.
  
• Sonnar 50/1.5: it is much smaller than the CV and has an old-style character, which some love and others hate. Focus shift is fairly obvious; when the lens leaves the factory, it is currently optimized for f/2.8, but Zeiss can adjust it otherwise upon request; for wide open, close-up work, learning to lean forward a bit usually does the trick.
  

If I had to choose between the two, it would be the Sonnar, mostly because of the way it draws - particularly for portraits and B&W. YMMV.

[TomB_tx]

Another vote to consider the Planar. I have both the Planar and the CV 50 1.5, and both are VERY good lenses. This CV is Aspherical, and in LTM mount so it needs an M adapter. Prices have been about the same for both these, if you can find the 1.5. Neither has enough focus shift to notice.

The Planar focuses closer than the CV 50 1.5, which is one reason I use it more. I believe the Sonnar also only focuses to 1M.

I also have Vers 2&3 Summicrons, which cost considerably more used now, and I generally prefer both the Planar and CV 1.5 to these older lenses. New Leitz lenses are beyond my retirement budget.

[nggalai]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

and since I own both lenses, I'll try and answer the original question:

• CV 50/1.1: in practice, I haven't found focus shift to be an issue (I believe I have a good copy) and it's definitely sharp at f/2.8, with perhaps some corner weakness. If you don't mind the bulk and are after a fairly neutral rendering, this may be a good choice. The (now discontinued but still available) CV 50/1.5 may be an even better choice, but I have only briefly tested a bad (decentered) copy in the past and can't provide meaningful impressions.
  
• Sonnar 50/1.5: it is much smaller than the CV and has an old-style character, which some love and others hate. Focus shift is fairly obvious; when the lens leaves the factory, it is currently optimized for f/2.8, but Zeiss can adjust it otherwise upon request; for wide open, close-up work, learning to lean forward a bit usually does the trick.
  

If I had to choose between the two, it would be the Sonnar, mostly because of the way it draws - particularly for portraits and B&W. YMMV.

 

I also own both and concur, in all points. Took me a while to get used to the leaning approach with the Sonnar which was mostly due to the fact I had ordered a lens already adjusted to f/1.5 and then tried to compensate for f/2.8-f/5.6 – but received a standard f/2.8 configuration. The only time since I “do” photography where taking shots of a ruler really helped out.

 

I find the Nokton to be very usable from f/1.7 upwards. f/1.1 helps in very dark environments where I’d have to go to ISO 2500 with the Sonnar on the M9. Wide open, the Nokton also delivers an interesting look which I enjoy as a special effect.

 

Example:

 

Strings with clamps. by nggalai, on Flickr

 

The Nokton is much bulkier and heavier than the Sonnar which can be an issue if you’re into Candids or hiking. Candids, as people tend to be shier in front of such a big lens; hiking as the strap will dig in more over time.

 

By now I’ve shot assignments with both lenses and found the Sonnar more universally usable while being less intimidating. I really like its “old school” look wide open (as Ecar said, that’s a huge point of preference) and prefer it over the Summilux ASPH. At f/1.5, the Sonnar’s construction lets in-focus center parts “pop” much more than you’d expect – or, in other words, it’s very soft in a wide margin of the edges. Colour rendition reminds me of my 1960s Summicron, the Nokton is more modern in this respect, reminiscent of the Summarit line.

 

The Nokton shines with its additional stop over the Sonnar when needed due to lack of light or when used for effect. Before I got the Sonnar, the Nokton remained on my M9 pretty much 24/7 despite abovementioned Summicron and Summarit 50mm lenses – from f/4.0 upwards it’s pretty similar to the Summarit in colour and detail (in detail, it’s also similar to the Sonnar from f/4.0 upwards) and it has almost two stops leeway over the Summicron.

 

The Sonnar’s dimensions though weigh in more for me than the Nokton’s faster aperture. Also, the Sonnar’s look wide open is just as unique as the Nokton’s, just differently so. I’ll keep the Nokton for now, but quite frankly, I haven’t used it in weeks while the Sonnar only had to trade places with a 28mm Elmarit and 90 mm Summarit for some ten shots each. The Summicron now is mated with the M3 for good, the Summarit 50mm I keep as a lightweight backup but hasn’t seen any action in months.

 

So, in short: It’s a question of what look you prefer and how large a lens you find acceptable. If you don’t plan to use the Nokton at f/1.1 most of the time, perhaps even using ND filters, I’d say pass now though.

 

Cheers,

-Sascha

 

 

Edit, in response to @TomB_tx: The Sonnar has a close-focus distance of 0.9m, the Nokton 1.0m. This can be important depending on the subject matter you shoot.

[Double Negative]

I wrote up reviews on both lenses and did a comparison of them (and others) that might be a worthwhile read:

 

Voigtländer 50mm f/1.1 Nokton

Zeiss C Sonnar T* 1,5/50 ZM

Lens Shoot-Out (50mm)