M8 + Zeiss Sonnar 50mm / 1.5

[leseinne]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just bought this lens yesterday and i think i m gonna really really like it

 

weather was awfull but i manage to take some test shots, just test nothing really artistic ...

 

 

 

 

 

jerome

[Advertisement]

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

[Arielv13]

Wow - Those pix are beautiful. Congrats!! I think I'm going to buy the 50 Sonnar on Monday. I had a couple of concerns about the focus shift and the focus challenges that I have read about when shooting wide open.

 

Have you noticed any problems with either of these.

 

At any rate, I am still 99% sure that I am going to drop the dough on Monday.

[leseinne]

nope no focus shifting so far, even if all those shots were taken wide open (1.5)

 

jerome

[Arielv13]

Thanks for the info. I really look forward to shooting with the lens.

 

Arielv13

[terrycioni]

The Sonar C is one of my favorite 50mm lenses. I particularly like it on the M8. It does have a different look than the CV 50mm Nokton.

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!

[markjames]

Based on the examples here, I am thinking of adding one of these to my arsenal and was wondering if the main difference between this lens and, say, the LEICA 50MM F/1.4 SUMMILUX is that the lens won't have the six bit coding. It seems that the coding isn't crucial for corner correction with lenths longer than 35mm and that a IR filter should take care of the color shift as it does on coded lenses. There's quite a price difference between this Zeiss and the Leica and the Zeiss seems to be a very good, low light, high quality alternative.

 

Am I missing anything here? Has anyone used both of these enough to have a clear preference?

 

Thanks,

 

Mark

[terrycioni]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Based on the examples here, I am thinking of adding one of these to my arsenal and was wondering if the main difference between this lens and, say, the LEICA 50MM F/1.4 SUMMILUX is that the lens won't have the six bit coding. It seems that the coding isn't crucial for corner correction with lenths longer than 35mm and that a IR filter should take care of the color shift as it does on coded lenses. There's quite a price difference between this Zeiss and the Leica and the Zeiss seems to be a very good, low light, high quality alternative.

 

Am I missing anything here? Has anyone used both of these enough to have a clear preference?

 

Thanks,

 

Mark

 

Hi Mark,

 

I don't own the LUX ASPH but I have used it extensively - a friend lends it to me every so often. All I can say is they are two totally different lenses. The LUX ASPH is perhaps the best 50mm lens bar none (my opinion). It is brutually sharp and performs well wide-open. I just can't spring $2600US (close to $3000CDN) for a 50mm lens. If I could I would no doubt get the ASPH LUX. That said I would keep the Sonar C for it's very particular image look and feel and IQ.

 

Cheers. Terry.

[markjames]

Thanks Terry,

 

This 50 would be my 4th lens since buying the m8 (seems I've caught the same disease as others in the forum) so I too have to be a bit cost concious at this point. My 28 2.8 Elmarit is on the body most of the time (also wonderfully sharp) and I use the CV15 and the new 75mm 2 quite a bit -- so this would be mostly for situtations that aren't covered by the first three. At times on the M8, given the crop factor, the 75 is a bit long for some portrait work and the 50 (effectively a 66-67 or so) would seem to fit the gap well. The color and detail in your shots above speak well for the Zeiss.

 

After the 50, I'm done -- otherwise, like Guy, I'll be shopping around for another bag (and maybe having to sell my motorcycle!).

 

Best,

 

Mark

[ken_tanaka]

I, too, recently bought a 50mm C Sonnar and also found it to be a really superb lens at much more wallet-friendly price than the Leica 50mm f/1.4.

 

Having said that, for some rather extraordinary reasons, I recently also bought the Leica Summilux 50mm. I'm currently offering my new C Sonnar (with hood) for sale to U.S. buyers at a terrific price at Rangefinder. But I've had some remorse at making the offer, as the lens really does (as Terry noted) have a unique look. I've had only a few nibbles so far and, if I get no bites by week's end I'll probably withdraw the offer.

[ho_co]

Based on the examples here, I am thinking of adding one of these to my arsenal and was wondering if the main difference between this lens and, say, the LEICA 50MM F/1.4 SUMMILUX is that the lens won't have the six bit coding.

Mark--

Since you mention the pre-aspheric 50 Summilux, note that there are two versions of it; the one built 1992-2004 can be zebra-coded, but the earlier one can't. It is this earlier one whose design is more like the old-fashioned design of the C Sonnar.

 

That is, the C Sonnar can't be coded, but neither can the Leitz lens with similar attributes, so there is no loss there.

 

See Zeiss' statement on re-issuing a lens design that goes back to the '30s of the past century at Zeiss M-Mount Lenses.

 

As remarked above, the current aspheric Leica 50/1.4 has completely different rendering from this older design.

 

They're both beautiful, but in different ways. For portraiture, the C Sonnar should be excellent. And the images here show what a nice lens it is!

 

--HC

[rsh]

I have both the 50 Noctilux and the 50 Summilux Asph. I am thinking of selling the Summilux because I do not use it, Prefer the Noctilux because I like the look.

[leseinne]

and here more test shots taken today, all were taken wide open (1.5) :

 

 

 

 

this lens is indeed sharp wide open :

 

 

 

and some bokeh samples :

 

[leseinne]

and finally ... exposure not easy with white flower

 

 

and this one is a crop from the previous :

 

[tom0511]

I know its a old thread but has anybody done any comparison between the older 50lux and the 50sonnar?

 

Thanks, Tom, (starting to feel like a 50mm-lens-collector)

[carstenw]

Am I the only one who finds that the bokeh in these images is a little hit and miss? I find it strained quite often, so far.

[Tony C.]

Carsten–

 

I think that your choice of the word "strained" is accurate. I find that the bokeh on many of these excellent examples to have a tension to it which I don't find appealing.

 

Regards,

 

Tony C.

[pklein]

NOTE: The examples in this post were shot on film. If this bothers you, skip the post.

 

The classic Sonnar design is known for distracting bokeh. At wide apertures, it has what the Japanese call "ni-sen" bokeh--"double line." Specular highlights become donuts with a bright ring at the edge. Out of focus lines have an "edge" to them that can be distracting.

 

The 1950s 50/1.5 Canon is practically a clone of the Sonnar. Several 1950s Nikkor RF lenses were closely based on the Sonnar design: The 50/1.5, 50/1.4, 50/2 and 85/2. They all show the effect well at wide apertures. This shot below was taken with an 85/2 Nikkor, wide open.

 

 

And here's one with the 50/1.4 Nikkor, wide open. See how "E" in the famous E=MC^2 equation has the lines doubled (to the left and behind the woman)?

 

 

Then again, the modern aspheric lenses often render OOF highlights with sharp edges, to similar disturbing effect. Here's a picture shot with the 50/1.5 VC Nokton, taken in mid-turn on a dance floor. Note the out of focus chairs to the right, and the highlights above the man's head.

 

 

Lenses of the Sonnar family are capable of absolutely beautiful portraits, sharp in the center with a beautiful dissolve to blurred. But they have quirks you have to take into account. Watch your background.

 

You can get the Sonnar effect with any of the old Nikkor and Canon RF lenses I mentioned above. But these are becoming collector lenses. Less expensive than the new Zeiss 50/1.5, but they were in the $300-$500 range for good users last time I looked.

 

If you want the Sonnar effect on the cheap, pick up a Russian Jupiter-8 50/2 or Jupiter-3 50/1.5 for peanuts. Have a Leica-savvy repairperson adjust the lens for spot-on focus at about 8-10 feet. Use the lens only at 4-12 feet at wide apertures, and test first before taking any important pictures. For faraway shots, stop down to f/8 or f/11. With these restrictions, you have a decent chance of having a usable lens with the "retro" Sonnar qualitites for not too much money.

 

Here's a 50/2 Jupiter-8 shot on an old Russian Zorki 4 camera, probably at f/4 . It shows the Sonnar fingerprint:

 

 

But don't say I didn't warn you about playing Russian Roulette with your sanity. Read Dante Stella's excellent account of Soviet lenses' focus issues on Leica cameras: Dante Stella article . See the section "Ivan the Incompatible."

 

--Peter

[ChrisC]

Peter - Congratulations for being the first person to introduce Einsteins theory of relativity to this forum. How it effects bokeh;.......not sure. Maybe it's a space time lapse focus kind of type thingy.

 

.............Chris

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[sean_reid]

My review of 50 mm lenses on the M8 includes the 50 Sonnar as well as the other (F/2.0 and faster) current production RF lenses.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[tom0511]

My review of 50 mm lenses on the M8 includes the 50 Sonnar as well as the other (F/2.0 and faster) current production RF lenses.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

Sean, are you still planning to include the section about oof-rendering in this article?

For me it would be one of the most interesting parts

Cheers, Tom