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

[pmendelson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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 and compared both lenses.

Thanks!

Peter

[lct]

I have no experience with the M10 sorry. Focus shift aside, main difference is at full aperture where the Summilux asph is significantly sharper. The Sonnar is my favorite 50 for soft portraits for this very reason but it has no more pop there than the Summilux asph. At f/2 and on the Sonnar is almost on par with the Summilux asph but it is a Zeiss lens with typical OoF rendering that one may like or dislike and gives that pop feeling you were referring to. Otherwise the Sonnar has the well known Zeiss focus bump instead of a focus tab for the Summilux asph. Also both lenses are resistant to flare but the Leica has a rather useless built-in hood whereas the Sonnar has a sturdy separate vented hood which is more efficient to protect the lens against light rays and bumps. The Sonnar is also a smaller lens but you now all that certainly. Both great lenses anyway. Happy snaps .

Edited April 9, 2018 by lct

[chris_livsey]

 

 

Sonnar showing Bokeh which is personal taste of course, this lens optimised for f1.5

 

I don't think and examples may vary that this is less sharp than my Summilux wide open but that is not an Asph version.

 

Certainly stopped down the Sonnar is super sharp: @f5.6 (even on the M9 resolution f8 shows diffraction effects to the critical eye)

 

 

and @f1.5 closest focussing distance

 

 

All these on an M9 a couple of weeks ago in Scotland, I chose to take the Sonnar instead of the heavier Summilux, none Asph. For me I see no reason to buy the Asph. sharp enough is sharp enough. If you check others from the trip on my Flickr you will see the Sonnar is coded as a Sumiilux Asph 

 

Now it may be the extra resolution of the M10 will split the lenses but that then depends on your final size of print if that is going to be visible.

 

I would personally purchase a used Sonnar to see it yourself and re-sell if you feel the need to spend more on the Asph. looking at others work, even mine, doesn't give you the feel for the light at the time and how the lens responds. it is always interesting to hear opinions but your's is the one that matters, the Sonnar is inexpensive enough to buy and sell without a great worry of loss and the experience alone is worth the outlay. BTW mechanically mine has been fine but I do note issues on the build on the Cosina/Zeiss series, a 35mm Biogon of mine was rebuilt by Zeiss as I had "worn out the focussing helical". It performed even better on return though 

 

[Ecar]

Not much to add to the above.

I also have both and they render very differently in the OOF areas. If you are picky about matching the look of your images, the Summilux would be a better companion to your 35/2 ASPH.

[Leicaec421]

I use both 50 lux ASPH and 50 Sonnar on my M10.

 

 

They render very different images - in terms of micro contrast, sharpness and OOF rendering.

 

Sonnar tends to render 'softer' images whereas the Lux tends to render more of clinical/sharper images.

 

 

Another thing to keep in mind is ergonomics - Size/weight of Sonnar is great but Lux has the built in hood and the focusing tab, making it easier to control.

 

 If money is not an issue, I would definitely recommend the Lux. Having said that Sonnar is a fantastic piece of optics.

[SiggiGun]

Hi all 

 

I can't give a direct comparison. I sold my Summilux to replace it by a Noctilux. However I remember and I would like to say that this to lenses are very different in  every point. The colors and the bokeh are very different. Clearly the Summilux is a modern general purpose lens. The Sonar is "between" a Summilux and the Noctilux in color, rendering and bokeh. In termes of "behavoir" the summliux is close to the Apo-Summicron (my opinion) at f2.0 of course.  For me, the bokeh of the Sonnar is "classic" like Meyer-Optik. Personnaly I prefer the less "powerful", and more "naturel" bokeh of modern Leica classes.

If any interrest you can fin here some exemples:

 

Sonnar > https://www.flickr.com/gp/siggigun/6182VF or https://flic.kr/s/aHsjEAHgpo

Apo-summicron > https://flic.kr/s/aHsmePPd8i

 

At the end, both lenses are great but different. So It depends what your are looking for,...  I

[Mark II]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I use both fairly regularly, and they are both excellent yet very different lenses. I mainly use the C-Sonnar for night shots on film because of the nice effect on highlights when shot wide open. On digital, the two lenses render completely differently.

 

Shoot the Zeiss when:

- you want classic rendering and do not care about soft corners

- you want a lighter, cheaper and compact lens (esp if shooting in dodgy/dirty/wet environments...)

- you don’t mind dealing with focus shift (only really an issue when wide open and up close with the subject)

- you like Zeiss ergonomics (metal focus nub; 1/3 stop aperture; firm aperture ring + loose focus)

 

Shoot the Leica when:

- you want modern rendering

- you want a lens that is easy to shoot with (lower field curvature, no focus shift)

- you either shoot “safe” environments, or are not worried about the cost of damaging the lens

- you like Leica ergonomics (focus tab; half stop aperture; loose aperture ring + firm focus)

 

FWIW, the Summilux is clearly the better lens technically, and one of the best 50mm lenses ever made. But there are so many good modern 50mm lenses on the market today, shots taken with it are not going to stand out because of the lens - it is very neutral. In contrast, the Zeiss has a strong signature that many like but which some might argue make the images about the lens rather than the subject.

 

And of course, all the above only really applies when shooting wide open. If you mainly shoot at f8, most people would never be able to see any difference.

[steamboat]

Buy the Leica lens. Don't buy off-brand lenses. No reason. 'Just my opinion. I still own the M2 and lenses I bought in 1966. I've always bought Leitz/Leica lenses. Good luck with your photography.