Zeiss Sonnar vs Planar 50mm

[Bobbes]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 1 Minute schrieb lct:

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

This is not a perfect comparison 😉, true. But a "real" one with photos i took in the last few days. I always had just 1 lens with me.

[lct]

No problemo 

 

[Advertisement]

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

[Bobbes]

Okay, after testing the two lenses each for one weak, i am not so sure anymore which one is better for me.

The planar ist definitely the better allrounder, but for landscapes i have a Sony A7R2 and a FE55 Sony/Zeiss 1.8, which has at least the (or even better) sharpness of the planar.

In my opinion the Leica M is a retro camera because of the puristic handling, so a "retro" lens like the sonnar would fit on this camera perfectly.

But why not spending about 200 bucks more than for the sonnar (used) and buying an older series of the original (Leica Summicron 50) used? Sadly i can not test the summicron and have never tested any leica lense before.... and going to a leica store and begging to do 1-2 shots in the store is not the way i want to make a buying decision.

Now i am confused 😀

Edited August 13, 2019 by Bobbes

[lct]

My Sony 55/1.8 is very sharp too, more so perhaps that any Summicron 50 besides the apo version. Now as i said above, the Sonnar 50/1.5 is not the better lens for rangefinders due to focus shift. Focusing could be a pain for you if you're a beginner on rangefinders and i much prefer using it on mirrorless cameras personally for the same reason. 

 

[Simone_DF]

You can use the Sony A7R2 and a FE55 Sony/Zeiss 1.8 combo for landscapes and use the Sonnar 50/1.5 on both Leica and Sony cameras when you want a different rendering.

[Bobbes]

vor 4 Stunden schrieb Simone_DF:

You can use the Sony A7R2 and a FE55 Sony/Zeiss 1.8 combo for landscapes and use the Sonnar 50/1.5 on both Leica and Sony cameras when you want a different rendering.

For landscapes i prefer the Sony A7R2 with a Loxia 50mm. This is a real dream combination (and the most compact 50mm native prime lense for this camera) if you want a good colour rendering. The FE55 1.8 is more on the clinical side when it comes to colour rendering. 

I think the Loxia is even better build than the Zeiss lenses for rangefinder! Build like a tank.

I'm waiting for a good used deal, either the planar or the sonnar. Both have their distinct qualities.

[Simone_DF]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

21 minutes ago, Bobbes said:

For landscapes i prefer the Sony A7R2 with a Loxia 50mm. This is a real dream combination (and the most compact 50mm native prime lense for this camera) if you want a good colour rendering. The FE55 1.8 is more on the clinical side when it comes to colour rendering. 

I think the Loxia is even better build than the Zeiss lenses for rangefinder! Build like a tank.

I'm waiting for a good used deal, either the planar or the sonnar. Both have their distinct qualities.

I thought the Loxia was just a redesigned/optimized Planar for Sony mount?

https://www.getdpi.com/forum/sony/54454-loxia-planar-2-0-50-vs-zm-planar-2-0-50-a7r.html

[Bobbes]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Simone_DF:

I thought the Loxia was just a redesigned/optimized Planar for Sony mount?

https://www.getdpi.com/forum/sony/54454-loxia-planar-2-0-50-vs-zm-planar-2-0-50-a7r.html

I think the loxia and the planar zm are very similar in their rendering. That's true.

Regarding this i come to the conclusion that i want to have a sonnar, because it's different.

NOW! 😎

[lct]

2 hours ago, Bobbes said:

i want to have a sonnar, because it's different.

NOW!

Then focus shift issues NOW!  Just kidding .

[mdemeyer]

11 hours ago, Bobbes said:

I think the loxia and the planar zm are very similar in their rendering. That's true.

Regarding this i come to the conclusion that i want to have a sonnar, because it's different.

NOW! 😎

For me, and I currently have the Sonnar, the v5 Summicron, and the Summilux ASPH (and have owned the Planar in the past) the rendering of the Planar and the Summicron was close enough that I could not justify keeping both.  The Summicron is more prone to veiling flare, but slightly smaller and the built-in hood is more convenient.

If you look for the thread in this forum with Sonnar examples you will find some of mine of people, which is my primary use of the Sonnar.  For which it is quite special...

[stephengv]

On 8/13/2019 at 11:13 PM, mdemeyer said:

For me, and I currently have the Sonnar, the v5 Summicron, and the Summilux ASPH (and have owned the Planar in the past) the rendering of the Planar and the Summicron was close enough that I could not justify keeping both.  The Summicron is more prone to veiling flare, but slightly smaller and the built-in hood is more convenient.

If you look for the thread in this forum with Sonnar examples you will find some of mine of people, which is my primary use of the Sonnar.  For which it is quite special...

Does the summicron ams sonnar complement each other? Do they have a different rendering?

[mdemeyer]

10 hours ago, stephengv said:

Does the summicron ams sonnar complement each other? Do they have a different rendering?

Very.  That’s why I keep both. Best to look at images from both rather than me trying to use words.  As I mentioned there is a Sonnar image thread here.  Have a look and see if it suits you. 

[stephengv]

1 hour ago, mdemeyer said:

Very.  That’s why I keep both. Best to look at images from both rather than me trying to use words.  As I mentioned there is a Sonnar image thread here.  Have a look and see if it suits you. 

How different is the rendering?

[DwF]

This is always a fun discussion but as a test it seems to me a flawed comparison.  The OP like any of us will come to conclusions; I've certainly done this between lenses and I even recall doing a similar one testing a Fuji X100 against the X100S when it was released. I soon realized that the two being different animals, needed to be tweaked differently or given different applications in which to show their strengths.

I always understood that fast lenses (50mm Summicron for one) were designed knowing that shooting wide-open or stopped to f 2.8,  the subject would usually not be out at the edge of a frame where softness was desirable to make the subject "pop".  For shooting brick walls and looking for a flat field across the frame, one stops the lens down, and good lenses accommodate that.  Is the Planar more suited to that then the Sonnar? And if so is it the better lens, or is it simply better suited for that application.

I use two Sonnar lenses and find the 50mm f1.5 C Sonnar to have a nice balance in rendering color, contrast and 3-D affect. To me the nice characteristic of the 50mm F 1.5 is that it is in no way extreme like say the 35mm Summilux pre-asph.  The 50mm C Sonnar does react in a volatile way in bright light that in my opinion can be useful.  It is not my go to for landscape, where the 35 Sonnar on my X1R II is very well suited to landscape shooting, perhaps better than my 35mm Summicron v4.  I have yet to actually test those two in that regard.

David

[lct]

On 12/26/2019 at 7:59 AM, stephengv said:

How different is the rendering?

Difficult to compare lenses of different apertures but in a nutshell:
• Sharpness: The ZM 50/1.5 is infinitely sharper at f/1.5 . At f/2, it is a bit softer at the centre of the frame but it is sharper at edges and corners. At f/2.8, both lenses are sharp at the centre of the frame, the ZM 50/1.5 being sharper at edges and corners. At f/4 and on, i see no significant differences as far as sharpness is concerned.
• Focus shift: Main flaw of the ZM 50/1.5 on rangefinders, the Leica having a bit of it around f/4.
• Flare: The ZM 50/1.5 is clearly the winner.
• CA: The ZM 50/1.5 is still the winner. 
• Bokeh: Subjective matter but both lenses have a rather soft OoF rendition in my view. At the same apertures, the ZM 50/1.5 feels like having less DoF behind the subject matter than the Leica.  FWIW.

[raphael]

On 8/14/2019 at 8:13 AM, mdemeyer said:

the rendering of the Planar and the Summicron was close enough that I could not justify keeping both.  The Summicron is more prone to veiling flare, but slightly smaller and the built-in hood is more convenient.

Do you remember which is warmer? I currently have the Summicron IV which is on the cooler or neutral side. It's definitively not warm.

I'm looking for a warm less-contrasty 50mm lens (like the Contax G Planar 45/2).

[BradS]

I did the same test (Sonnar vs Planar) as the OP a couple of years ago - I kept the Planar. I prefer the size of the Sonar but that's about the only thing I liked about it.  In every other aspect,  I prefer the Planar.

[Infantasy]

Sorry for digging out this old post here.

I have a Summilux 50 E43 and appreciate the nice rendering and bokeh of its performance.  I also have some other 50mm lenses, e.g. Summarit 50 f1.5 and an old Elmar 50 f3.5. Although the E43 is my prime lenses for daily use, it's MFD is 1m which sometimes is too far for indoor shoot, e.g. in restaurant or Cafe, and the edge of this lenses is not sharp enough for some occasion.  I am now looking for a lense which has nice rendering and bokeh as well as short MFD, e.g. 0.7m etc. a Zeiss ZM sonnar 50.f1.5, Zeiss ZM Planar 50 f2 and Voigtlander Nokton 50 f1.5 II are under my consideration for the time being. Any comment from all of you is appreciated. 

 

[lct]

26 minutes ago, Infantasy said:

Sorry for digging out this old post here.

I have a Summilux 50 E43 and appreciate the nice rendering and bokeh of its performance.  I also have some other 50mm lenses, e.g. Summarit 50 f1.5 and an old Elmar 50 f3.5. Although the E43 is my prime lenses for daily use, it's MFD is 1m which sometimes is too far for indoor shoot, e.g. in restaurant or Cafe, and the edge of this lenses is not sharp enough for some occasion.  I am now looking for a lense which has nice rendering and bokeh as well as short MFD, e.g. 0.7m etc. a Zeiss ZM sonnar 50.f1.5, Zeiss ZM Planar 50 f2 and Voigtlander Nokton 50 f1.5 II are under my consideration for the time being. Any comment from all of you is appreciated. 

Do you miss something in what we said above? If you don't know and you like your Summilux v2 a lot, my best advice is pick a Summilux v3. Same rendering as your v2 with less vignetting and a 0.7m MFD. Here v2 and v3 and below technical data.

 

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!

LeicaM_5014_11868_tech_ge.pdf

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Ray Vonn]

8 hours ago, Infantasy said:

Sorry for digging out this old post here.

I have a Summilux 50 E43 and appreciate the nice rendering and bokeh of its performance.  I also have some other 50mm lenses, e.g. Summarit 50 f1.5 and an old Elmar 50 f3.5. Although the E43 is my prime lenses for daily use, it's MFD is 1m which sometimes is too far for indoor shoot, e.g. in restaurant or Cafe, and the edge of this lenses is not sharp enough for some occasion.  I am now looking for a lense which has nice rendering and bokeh as well as short MFD, e.g. 0.7m etc. a Zeiss ZM sonnar 50.f1.5, Zeiss ZM Planar 50 f2 and Voigtlander Nokton 50 f1.5 II are under my consideration for the time being. Any comment from all of you is appreciated. 

 

The Sonnar’s MFD is 0.9m so that might have to come off the list based on your criteria.