Upload & Sell: Off
| p.1 #14 · Planar vs. Sonnar vs. Planar |
i think the planar is a much better choice for your high contrast everything in focus abstracts.
Probably, but maybe that's a good reason to shoot something else for a while.
Wait, are you saying your Sonnar is sharper in the corners wide open than it is at f5.6?? Mine certainly isn't Planar sharp at the edges, but it's not THAT bad. Certainly better than the Nokton 35/1.4 at the corners, FWIW, although both of them have field curvature, and focusing a little past infinity improves the corners.
Haven't tried that much, but it's A LOT sharper in the corners at f/1.4 than at f/2.8. You can see that it's blur discs too, so it's probably just curvature of field.
My 35/1.4 Nokton was the same on Leica M8. Just unusable stopped down but quite nice wide open when it came to corner performance.
Either way, if I need corner to corner sharpness, I shoot the ZM 35/2 (or maybe my new Contax G 45.) The Sonnar is for people shots and general "vibey-ness," for lack of a better term. Of course, at f5.6, I'm not totally opposed to shooting flat field subjects with it, and it should be mostly fine at my 13x19 print size, but there are better options for that.
Yeah, I'll try to take it for what it is. But it's a bit annoying if you get mushy corners even well stopped down. I guess I'll have to bring the Summicron-C 40/2 for that, which is dead sharp at f/2.8 and on but awful wide open ("Leica glow" ).
The C-Sonnar has what Zeiss calls "round" sharpness.
I think this is the least "Zeissy" Zeiss lens I've tried so far. Could as well have been an old Nikon or so. Nothing bad with that, but it wasn't really what I expected.