the lens is just awesome when it comes to fine detail, i want to get the NEX-7 just to do it justice.
The exit pupils of both the G 35 and 45 seem better suited for the NEX-7, when I compare them to my ZMs. I don't see much shift, smear or exaggerated field curvature to speak of, so far, with these two Gs on the 7.
By the way, I took these with my NEX 7 and exposure comp. set to -.3. Default processing in Capture One 6, with absolutely no adjustments other than a positive EV boost of about .2 for the two Cron shots and about .5 for the two Planar shots. All four were taken at F2.
I'm glad I saw the answer before forming an opinion because I don't think I'd ever have guessed. No doubt some of the Zeiss-a-philes with perfect eyes can. If I'm given a choice of either, based on these probably I'd go with the cheaper of the two.
With respect to the thread and decisions, I ended up going with the Planar 50 and one is already in the mail.
i had the second two picked as my preferred shots and what i thought were the leica's but i kept second guessing myself because of the colder color in the first two (all my contax lenses are much warmer than leicas).
I think you've got it, but so everyone's clear, #1 & 4 are with the Planar and # 2 & 3 are with the Cron.
Until I did this, I was sure that the Planar made skin render less smoothly than the Cron, but like Michael said, I don't see much reason to here to prefer one over the other unless you really like a built in hood.
I was also going to guess based on the warmer color of the 2nd ones, but then notice it was AWB. Well, just go on to show how similar double gauss are.
Feel free to do whatever with images, if you link, pls link to thumbs, since full res images are, well huge and suck up a ton of bandwidth
Nice! You can see the terrible focus shift of the Sonnar, because I suppose you didn't refocus when stopping down? That's a good idea for further testing.
I also suggest that you do a simple comparison with a flat subject, because the worst thing with the Sonnar is the curvature of field. It's just unusable if you want sharp corners.
Jeff Kott wrote:
I think you've got it, but so everyone's clear, #1 & 4 are with the Planar and # 2 & 3 are with the Cron.
Until I did this, I was sure that the Planar made skin render less smoothly than the Cron, but like Michael said, I don't see much reason to here to prefer one over the other unless you really like a built in hood.
Nice comparison! I couldn't have guessed which is which. It shows that most differences are in our own minds. I can't see the infamous harsh rendering and busy bokeh of the planar.
Appreciated test, but I would have loved a shot at f2 for comparison! Looks like the exposure is different between the Planar/Sonnar @ f4, making it a bit difficult to compare them (or is it just the colors and contrast that differ?). Sonnar seems to have a tad bit longer effective focal length. Focus shift is a true PITA on a rangefinder so the Planar will probably be my choice, even though the Sonnar has a very appealing look at f1.5 for portraits, very 3D, and the softness is almost an advantage.
On a related note, interesting how similar the Planar and Summicron rendered the portrait in the post above. Doesn't motivate me to pay a premium for the Summicron.
Makten wrote:
Nice! You can see the terrible focus shift of the Sonnar, because I suppose you didn't refocus when stopping down? That's a good idea for further testing.
I also suggest that you do a simple comparison with a flat subject, because the worst thing with the Sonnar is the curvature of field. It's just unusable if you want sharp corners.
correct, no refocusing between test shots on the same lens
JonasY wrote:
Appreciated test, but I would have loved a shot at f2 for comparison! Looks like the exposure is different between the Planar/Sonnar @ f4, making it a bit difficult to compare them (or is it just the colors and contrast that differ?). Sonnar seems to have a tad bit longer effective focal length. Focus shift is a true PITA on a rangefinder so the Planar will probably be my choice, even though the Sonnar has a very appealing look at f1.5 for portraits, very 3D, and the softness is almost an advantage.
On a related note, interesting how similar the Planar and Summicron rendered the portrait in the post above. Doesn't motivate me to pay a premium for the Summicron....Show more →
yes, my copy of sonnar is calibrated for f/2.8 and it is hard to adjust for focus shift with rangefinder. i have been planning to send the lens to zeiss for recalibration to f/1.5...
jupiter also has a focus shift btw.
i noticed the change in effective focal length as well - seems like sonnar is mroe of a 52mm fl rather than 50mm
Yeah, I would consider refocusing NEX whenever you change apertures, as one of the camera's big advantages over a rangefinder or an SLR is that you can negate focus shift.
douglasf13 wrote:
Yeah, I would consider refocusing NEX whenever you change apertures, as one of the camera's big advantages over a rangefinder or an SLR is that you can negate focus shift.
Most of the time I can focus at f5.6 or f8 if those are my shooting apertures, but when it's difficult to focus at those apertures (sunny days and lots of contrast) I will open the lens part way to f2.8 or even f4, focus and then stop down. I find that by opening the aperture part way to f2.8 or f4, most of the focus shift is eliminated that you would otherwise get by focusing wide open. I got this idea from a piece written by Sean Reid.
Jeff Kott wrote:
Most of the time I can focus at f5.6 or f8 if those are my shooting apertures, but when it's difficult to focus at those apertures (sunny days and lots of contrast) I will open the lens part way to f2.8 or even f4, focus and then stop down. I find that by opening the aperture part way to f2.8 or f4, most of the focus shift is eliminated that you would otherwise get by focusing wide open. I got this idea from a piece written by Sean Reid.
That makes sense, although I find it pretty easy to magnify and focus even at f8 with focus peaking on. Either way, I simply meant for eosslr's testing purposes, he should focus at every aperture, as it could skew results.
eosslr wrote:
yes, my copy of sonnar is calibrated for f/2.8 and it is hard to adjust for focus shift with rangefinder. i have been planning to send the lens to zeiss for recalibration to f/1.5...
IMHO, it is better to keep the Sonnar calibrated for f/2.8, unless it is used exclusively at f/1.5. It is very easy to slightly back focus when shooting wide open to compensate for the (lack of) shift.
edwardkaraa wrote:
IMHO, it is better to keep the Sonnar calibrated for f/2.8, unless it is used exclusively at f/1.5. It is very easy to slightly back focus when shooting wide open to compensate for the (lack of) shift.
+1 you'll get a variety of opinions, but fwiw i'm in the f/2.8 camp because i shoot more at f/2.8 and down than at f/1.5. i would have my c-sonnar "optimized" at f/1.5 only if i shot wide open and close the majority of the time. my workaround when shooting wide open and close is to bow several inches toward the subject. easy once i got the habit going.
I feel like the 1st one of each pair is a wee bit smoother and less contrasty for a Zeiss lens.