Zeiss Sonnar vs Planar 50mm

[Bobbes]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

At the moment i have rented both lenses for 1 week to test them. I plan on buying one of these later in the year.

Here are test shots from both lenses, which show the different characteristics:

a) Planar: sharp and contrasty

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!

 

 

b) Sonnar: less sharp, less contrasty, busy bokeh, faded-"retro"-look

 

 

Which one do you prefer?

 

 

greetings
Christoffer

Edited August 5, 2019 by Bobbes

[Advertisement]

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

[TomB_tx]

On digital I prefer the Planar, where the focus shift of the Sonnar takes some compensating and practice. However, I’ve used a 1.5 Sonnar (post war) on a Contax IIa film camera and was quite pleased with both the dreamy wide open images and the nice tonality stopped down. (Not enough for me to spring for the ZM version though.)

[PaulJohn]

I have the sonnar on film and am very happy with the results. I don’t have problems with sharpness, contrast or busy bokeh (yet).

Very interested to hear your opinion. Can you post photos of the same subject with each lens?

[tom0511]

I think the Sonnar is more interesting/special lens, but you have to like the rendering.

 

[keithlaban.co.uk]

I'd go for the Sonnar. My favourite M fit lens.

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!

[Ecar]

I have both. The Sonnar definitely sees more use. Bought the Planar used a few years back, because I got a sweet deal. Nothing wrong with it: it's objectively a great lens at a great price, but it lacks character IMO. But then, I also prefer the 50/1.4 ASPH to the 50/2 APO, so it's probably just me...

[spydrxx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think the Sonnar has more "character"  whereas the Planar is more clinical. So, I'd choose whichever best suits the type of photography I engage in. As an aside, I keep both designs not only for my Leicas but also for my SLR bodies.

[Bobbes]

vor 8 Stunden schrieb PaulJohn:

I have the sonnar on film and am very happy with the results. I don’t have problems with sharpness, contrast or busy bokeh (yet).

Very interested to hear your opinion. Can you post photos of the same subject with each lens?

I will! In the next few days, atm i am testing the planar.

 

Stay tuned ;).

[Keith (M)]

When I had both, the Planar was used on M9 then M240 whereas the Sonnar was for film use (M7 & MP).  The Planar was replaced by Summilux-M ASPH but the Sonnar still rules for film use.     An example wide-open on Acros 100:-

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 August 6, 2019 by Keith (M)

[lct]

Hard to compare lenses with different apertures but the Sonnar 50/1.5 is one of my favorite lenses on mirrorless cameras, but not on rangefinders due to its focus shift i must say. Great lens i'm using also as a compact substitute to the Summilux 75/1.4 on APS-C cameras. As for the Planar 50/2 it is a lens i never bought curiously. Perhaps i should try it but as mentioned above it is not a lens with much character so i'm not sure i would use it a lot. Matter of tastes anyway and Planars have always been great lenses since those of the Rolleiflex and Contarex of my youth but i preferred Tessars yet so i guess it won't help you much sorry. 

[Mark T]

The sonnar,  when used in its element, is wonderful. In my opinion it works really well in overcast and indoor conditions, or when everything is brightly lit. I don't think it does well in a scene with bright light and hard shadows together. For this reason the planar is more general purpose. But used at the right time, the Sonnar is really special and nothing else is like it. 

Edited August 7, 2019 by Mark T

[Ray Vonn]

I agree that the Sonnar is wonderful, it's my night time lens.  Shows you what a high level we're all at when the Planar is described as "clinical".

[Bobbes]

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!

Don't get me wrong, the Sonnar is a fantastic "character" lens, but for landscape or architecture the planar is far ahead because of the much better sharpness. This may be so called "pixel-peeping" but believe me, you will notice the difference in sharpness in non-magnification too.

So tecnically the sonnar is the inferior lens. This just made my decision between both lenses harder.

[lct]

My Sonnar is not that soft fortunately. I suspect you did not focus it the same way as the Planar or your lens or body needs somme calibration.

[Bobbes]

vor 3 Minuten schrieb lct:

My Sonnar is not that soft fortunately. I suspect you did not focus it the same way as the Planar or your lens or body needs somme calibration.

Believe me, it is that "soft" 😉. There was nothing wrong with the pictures, the camera, the universe etc.... It's just the (shocking?) difference between the two lenses in 200%(!!!) magnification-

Edited August 8, 2019 by Bobbes

[Bobbes]

Heres another normal "comparison":

a) Planar zm:

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!

 

b) Sonnar zm:

 

[Bobbes]

...or here another one:

a) Planar zm (razor sharp, contrasty):

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!

 

b) Sonnar zm (moody, unique, less contrast):

 

Edited August 8, 2019 by Bobbes

[lct]

Been using the Sonnar for many years and 200% magnification does not add any data as you know. I would have my lens adjusted if i were you or i would redo the shot. Look at the backgrounds for example. The Sonnar's look sharper which sounds like different focusing in my book. Anyway, the Sonnar is not the best lens for landscapes when shooting below f/5.6 in my experience due to different sharpness between the centre and edges/corners, let alone focus shift when using it on rangefinders.

Edited August 8, 2019 by lct

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[lct]

2 minutes ago, Bobbes said:

...or here another one:

a) Planar zm (razor sharp, contrasty)

b) Sonnar zm (moody, unique, less contrast)

Nice pics but you're comparing different subject matters here. Rule # 1 for lens comparos: same subject matter, same subject distance, same light, same aperture... and same photographer Just kidding

[Bobbes]

vor 9 Minuten schrieb lct:

Been using the Sonnar for many years and 200% magnification does not add any data as you know. I would have my lens adjusted if i were you or i would redo the shot. Look at the backgrounds for example. The Sonnar's look sharper which sounds like different focusing in my book. Anyway, the Sonnar is not the best lens for landscapes when shooting below f/5.6 in my experience due to different sharpness between the centre and edges/corners, let alone focus shift below.

Again, 200 % Magnification is not usable as a "real" world example, focus etc. everything was allright, i did the same shots 5-6 times and the result was always the same. I know what i am doing, believe me ;).

Edited August 8, 2019 by Bobbes