M8 and ZM lenses

[Kent10D]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Kent,my friend, that is one h*ll of an excellent image. I am impressed. did you have it

recalibrated by zeiss?.

 

Thanks Fahim.

 

No, that's the Sonnar straight out of the box with the original calibration. So when shooting wide open, especially up close, I have to compensate a bit. Sometimes I get it right, sometimes I don't, but it is beautiful when it works.

[tom0511]

Here are three from the Sonnar 50/1.5. Like this lens for its "character" and tones right now find it more interesting than the 50/1.4asph.

Cheers, Tom

 

I think f1.5:

 

I think f1.5:

 

I think f2.8:

[pelikan1931]

Tom,

 

wonderful pictures, which are more informative than discussion.

[fursan]

Thomas, excellent rendition. I think I am begining to like the sonnar.

[ptomsu]

This lens seems to be a very interesting possibility!

 

I would hope though for a ZM digital body :-))

[ccc yyy]

sample1 sample2

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Talking of ZM lenses, anyone seen an 18/4 in the flesh yet. It was estimated for the end of August. When it comes out, unless like the old CX18/4 Distagon, it is a dog, I will put my 21/2.8 up for sale and get an 18/4. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the 21/2.8 but I just don't seem to need a lens with an EFOV of 28mm a whole lot. An EFOV of 24mm would be somewhat preferable, 21mm would be perfect. However, I don't need another mega-lens like the 15/2.8 Distagon and I can't afford it anyway. I already have the CV35/1.2, Noctilux and T-E 135 to lug around plus the other small lenses.

 

Wilson

[lars_bergquist]

I do not usually comment on other peoples' pictures in an adversary manner, but Thomas Streng's pictures do show a very unpleasant rendering of unsharp structures beyond the plane of best focus (the fault is of course that of Zeiss, not of Mr Streng). I think this is very typical Zeiss – they care about the plane of best focus and little else. This phenomenon, which I think you should look closely at, is as I understand caused by residual spherical aberration. This is the same optical fault that creates aperture difference (focus shift on stopping down) and I do also understand that the Zeiss 1.5 lens is known to exhibit this problem very strongly.

 

I can only say that I would never use a lens which behaved in such a manner.

 

The old man from the Age of the Tessar

[wlaidlaw]

I do not usually comment on other peoples' pictures in an adversary manner, but Thomas Streng's pictures do show a very unpleasant rendering of unsharp structures beyond the plane of best focus (the fault is of course that of Zeiss, not of Mr Streng). I think this is very typical Zeiss – they care about the plane of best focus and little else. This phenomenon, which I think you should look closely at, is as I understand caused by residual spherical aberration. This is the same optical fault that creates aperture difference (focus shift on stopping down) and I do also understand that the Zeiss 1.5 lens is known to exhibit this problem very strongly.

 

I can only say that I would never use a lens which behaved in such a manner.

 

The old man from the Age of the Tessar

 

Lars,

 

I would slightly disagree with you on this. I would say it is characteristic of many of the Sonnar lenses rather than Zeiss as a whole. Quite a few of the Tele-Tessars also have a very abrupt drop off from the in focus zone. Most of the Planar lenses, other than the 35mm Planar G f2.0, did/do not exhibit this characteristic and as far as I am aware, none of the Biogon's do. The 35mm ZM Biogon I have, has a particularly gentle slide into OOF, helped a bit I think by the high contrast, which fools the eye into thinking something is sharper than it actually is. Japanese photographers, who are often obsessed with the characteristics of the OOF zone and invented the term Bokeh, regard the Planar 85mm f1.4 as one of the great Bokeh producing lenses. There was an article about 7 or 8 years ago in the Zeiss Lens newsletter with lots of pics of OOF trees and flower arrangements, extolling its virtues - well they weren't going to print an article saying the 85/1.4 was rubbish, were they?

 

Wilson

[fursan]

I am no expert on lenses. There are times i want sharp,harsh,very contrasty rendering

with minimum ps etc. other times I like gentler oof renderings such as from my nikkor

85/1.4.

 

Took some quick snaps with my M8 and zm planar 50. I like what I see. BW is just the

blue channel, and resizing.

 

resolution and sharpness I like:

 

 

I love the fiber rendition below:

 

 

Just look at the frame and the cement droppings on it:

 

 

I cannot cf with 'lux 50 ( bad copy ).

 

Regards.

[lars_bergquist]

Lars,

 

I would slightly disagree with you on this. I would say it is characteristic of many of the Sonnar lenses rather than Zeiss as a whole. Quite a few of the Tele-Tessars also have a very abrupt drop off from the in focus zone. [- - - -] Japanese photographers, who are often obsessed with the characteristics of the OOF zone and invented the term Bokeh, regard the Planar 85mm f1.4 as one of the great Bokeh producing lenses. There was an article about 7 or 8 years ago in the Zeiss Lens newsletter with lots of pics of OOF trees and flower arrangements, extolling its virtues - well they weren't going to print an article saying the 85/1.4 was rubbish, were they?

 

Wilson

 

Wilson, I did not speak of the 'abrupt transition from sharp to unsharp'. This is of course inevitable with all lenses that are really sharp, and more the sharper they are. Reason: the sharp part has got sharper but not the unsharp parts, ergo the difference is greater. If this disturbs anyone, well go get a pinhole camera – nothing is totally unsharp but nothing is sharp either!

 

No, I was speaking of the double contours and the busy highlights. And that, and not sharp sharpness, is what is meant by 'bad bokeh'. I see this in the pictures I mentioned. I have no experience of the 85mm lens. Spherical aberration may be corrected differently there, what do I know. I see what I see and believe what I see. Therefore I am ...

 

The old man of the Age of Descartes (well nearly – he got pneumonia and died here in Stockholm because of Queen Christina's ungodly morning habits).

[wlaidlaw]

Lars,

 

From my personal experience, there are a number of lenses, which have a clearly defined ultra-sharpness "plateau" and an abrupt drop off from that into OOF. Where you have this characteristic, you also usually get unpleasant or at best, strange bokeh. The example I would quote for doing this "par excellence" is the Zeiss 35mm f2 Planar G lens. It made it an extremely difficult lens to use and it was in my view, deservedly unpopular - I tried again and again to get pleasing results from mine and failed. The very similar design, 45mm f2.0 Planar G, strangely enough, did not have this problem at all. If you compare the 35 Planar with the Biogon 28mm f2.8 G lens, which was equally sharp but had an incredibly gently drop off into lovely soft bokeh - a photographic tyro could get nice results from it. The Elmar-M 50/2.8 is similarly, a lens you would have to be an idiot not to get good results from on the M8, it is so easy to use.

 

Wilson

[tom0511]

I do not usually comment on other peoples' pictures in an adversary manner, but Thomas Streng's pictures do show a very unpleasant rendering of unsharp structures beyond the plane of best focus (the fault is of course that of Zeiss, not of Mr Streng). I think this is very typical Zeiss – they care about the plane of best focus and little else. This phenomenon, which I think you should look closely at, is as I understand caused by residual spherical aberration. This is the same optical fault that creates aperture difference (focus shift on stopping down) and I do also understand that the Zeiss 1.5 lens is known to exhibit this problem very strongly.

 

I can only say that I would never use a lens which behaved in such a manner.

 

The old man from the Age of the Tessar

 

Lars,

I think its well known that the Zeiss 50/1.5 is not as well corrected in some regards as lets say the 50/1.4asph.

I agree if you say the bokeh is not smooth, I dont agree if you say its bad.

There is definatly more "movement" in the background compared to an image taken with the 50/1.4asph. For example in case of the flower image I posted I think the bokeh of the 50/1.5 makes the image more interesting. It depends what you want and because of its character the Sonnar 50mm for me is a welcome lens to experiment with.

cheers, Tom

[Kent10D]

Here's another sample image from the Sonnar.

 

I find that the trick to using this lens effectively (and this is just my opinion, of course) is in achieving the right balance between the in-focus and out-of-focus areas, as well as choosing a background that the lens will handle well. If you have too much OOF area it can be a bit overpowering. And if the OOF area contains the wrong type of detail it can get nasty. But with the right balance I think it works quite nicely.

In this image the focus plane is around the center of the gate, with a gradual slide into total chaos in the background. But the amount of total OOF cacophony is relatively small, so for me the image balances OK. I'm sure some will disagree, but for those who are interested in this lens, this is just an example of how one guy (that's me:cool: ) likes to use it.

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!

[gurtch]

I have 21mm, 28mm 35mm and 50mm f 2 ZM lenses. Here are some samples with the M8:

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!

[wlaidlaw]

Not a lot wrong with those David.

 

Wilson

[fursan]

David, those images are wonderful.

[dspeltz]

Here is a start:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/people/31168-zeiss-50mm-1-5-sonnar-leica.html

[gurtch]

David, those images are wonderful.

 

Thank you.

Kindest regards

David

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M