Jump to content

Zeiss C Sonnar 50/1.5 Images


Rollin

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A great lens with great bokeh and character

M10

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!

Edited by cp995
  • Like 15
Link to post
Share on other sites

Another one ...

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!

  • Like 14
Link to post
Share on other sites

M9 & C-Sonnar.

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!

 

M240 & C-Sonnar

  • Like 18
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/20/2018 at 9:09 AM, Ray Vonn said:

I don't know if it's me but there seems to be a certain silence when bringing up this lens in comparison to say the pre or current asph lux.  I wonder why that is?

It's a Sonnar design, which means it's like Marmite: you either love it or you hate it.  Personally I love the Sonnar signature look and own a number of them both young and very old.  The difference here, I suspect, is that pretty much all Leica lenses are, or are based on, Double-Gauss designs, which give a different 'draw' or 'look' to the pictures, which might cause resistance among those who are more used to pictures from Leica lenses..  

Add to the above that it's made by Leica's 'arch-enemy' Zeiss, the focus and aperture rings rotate the 'wrong' way, and that it suffers from focus-shift, and I suspect that might be the answer.

Pete.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 19 Stunden schrieb farnz:

...Add to the above that it's made by Leica's 'arch-enemy' Zeiss, the focus and aperture rings rotate the 'wrong' way...

No, the C-Sonnar 1.5/50 ZM (our topic here) rotates aperturering and focusring in the same way/direction as Leica lenses.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, cp995 said:

No, the C-Sonnar 1.5/50 ZM (our topic here) rotates aperturering and focusring in the same way/direction as Leica lenses.

Yes a fair point, and thanks for the correction; I've been using 1940's vintage lenses recently and had forgotten that the ZM 'works the right way'.

Pete.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
Link to post
Share on other sites

Festive locomotive. M7 & Tri-X.

 

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!

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

M9

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!

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

M9

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!

  • Like 12
Link to post
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

At the market. M7, C-Sonnar, Tri-X.

 

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!

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, stephengv said:

Rangefinder, particularly the Leica M 240. 

Then you'll have to make do with focus shift on the ZM 50/1.5. Either it is calibrated at f/1.5 like mine and you'll have to adjust focusing manually from f/2 to f/5.6 more or less. Or it is calibrated at f/2.8 and you'll have to do the same at f/1.5, f/2 and probably above f/2.8 to some extent but i have no experience with this. By comparison, my M 50/2 v4 and v5 have a bit of focus shift around f4, f/5.6 but it feels less pronounced than on the ZM. I mean on rangefinders since focus shift is not a problem on mirrorless cameras or M bodies in EVF mode when focusing a working aperture. Aside from focus shift, the ZM is infinitely sharper at f/1.5 ;). Compared to the M 50/1.4 asph it is rather soft there which is exacly what i like for portraits. At f/2, both ZM and M 50/2 are sharp enough at the centre, the ZM being a bit softer there but also sharper at edges and corners. At f/2.8, both are sharp at the center but the ZM feels a bit sharper at corners. At other apertures, both lenses are sharp everywhere aside from focus shift mentioned above. None are free from field curvature (like all my 50's but the M 50/2 apo) and none car be considered clinically sharp in that they have less acutance than modern asph lenses like M 50/1.4 asph. But none give a feeling of softness either at the exception of the ZM at f/1.5 and to a lesser extent f/2. Otherwise the ZM has more vignetting and less CA, also less flare than the M 50/2. Both have a rather soft bokeh and feel compact on the M240.

Edited by lct
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lct said:

Then you'll have to make do with focus shift on the ZM 50/1.5. Either it is calibrated at f/1.5 like mine and you'll have to adjust focusing manually from f/2 to f/5.6 more or less. Or it is calibrated at f/2.8 and you'll have to do the same at f/1.5, f/2 and probably above f/2.8 to some extent but i have no experience with this. By comparison, my M 50/2 v4 and v5 have a bit of focus shift around f4, f/5.6 but it feels less pronounced than on the ZM. I mean on rangefinders since focus shift is not a problem on mirrorless cameras or M bodies in EVF mode when focusing a working aperture. Aside from focus shift, the ZM is infinitely sharper at f/1.5 ;). Compared to the M 50/1.4 asph it is rather soft there which is exacly what i like for portraits. At f/2, both ZM and M 50/2 are sharp enough at the centre, the ZM being a bit softer there but also sharper at edges and corners. At f/2.8, both are sharp at the center but the ZM feels a bit sharper at corners. At other apertures, both lenses are sharp everywhere aside from focus shift mentioned above. None are free from field curvature (like all my 50's but the M 50/2 apo) and none car be considered clinically sharp in that they have less acutance than modern asph lenses like M 50/1.4 asph. But none give a feeling of softness either at the exception of the ZM at f/1.5 and to a lesser extent f/2. Otherwise the ZM has more vignetting and less CA, also less flare than the M 50/2. Both have a rather soft bokeh and feel compact on the M240.

 

Thank you for a very detailed response. I was wondering whats the difference in "look" between the ZM 50 1.5 and the 50 V5 Cron. Can you provide sample image with the same subject? if you don't mind. Thanks. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...