Planar vs. Sonnar vs. Planar
/forum/topic/1095523/5

1       2       3              5      
6
       7       end

douglasf13
Registered: Apr 09, 2008
Total Posts: 5966
Country: United States

Gary Clennan wrote:
Are there problems or issues with the adapters for the Contax G lenses? I recall some gripes but not sure exactly what the issues are.... If they are minor, this lens may be next on my list.


Yep, the G adapters have focus rings built in to them that all have kind of a grainy quality to them. The Metabones seems to have the smoothest feel, but it is large and heavy, and you have to remove the adapter to remove a lens from it. I've stuck with the Kipon adapter.

There are a couple of services that'll convert G lenses to M mount for a few hundred bucks, which I've been considering.



douglasf13
Registered: Apr 09, 2008
Total Posts: 5966
Country: United States

sebboh wrote:
douglasf13 wrote:
I just started playing with the Contax G 45 on the NEX-7, and, wow, I think I may have to get used to a longer focal length for my standard lens. This thing is a reference lens. Damn you, sebboh!!


bwahaha.

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.



Gary Clennan
Registered: Mar 29, 2007
Total Posts: 4870
Country: Canada

Thanks Douglas!



Jeff Kott
Registered: Oct 12, 2008
Total Posts: 1146
Country: United States

This post is a little off topic. Here are two from the 50 Planar (ZM) and two from the 50 Cron. See if you can guess which is which.



























atran
Registered: Apr 23, 2011
Total Posts: 122
Country: United States

I would say the 2nd one of each pair is the ZM I feel like the 1st one of each pair is a wee bit smoother and less contrasty for a Zeiss lens.



Jeff Kott
Registered: Oct 12, 2008
Total Posts: 1146
Country: United States

Atran,

You're wrong on two of them.

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.



michaelwatkins
Registered: Oct 08, 2011
Total Posts: 1698
Country: Canada

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.



sebboh
Registered: Nov 02, 2009
Total Posts: 10200
Country: United States

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).



Jeff Kott
Registered: Oct 12, 2008
Total Posts: 1146
Country: United States

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.



aleksanderpolo
Registered: Jan 18, 2010
Total Posts: 880
Country: United States

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.



eosslr
Registered: Mar 29, 2007
Total Posts: 423
Country: United States

As promised first batch of results posted:
http://www.slrlensreview.com/web/entry/alternative-50mm-lenses-for-sony-nex-part1

Voigtlander 50/1.1, CZ Sonnar 50/1.5 ZM, CZ Planar 50/2 ZM, Cron 50/2 Rigid, Cron 50/2 Col, Summarit 50/1.5, Jupiter 3 50/1.5, canon 50/1.2

I'll do another run on NEX 7 next week.

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



Makten
Registered: Jul 14, 2008
Total Posts: 4044
Country: Sweden

eosslr wrote:
As promised first batch of results posted:
http://www.slrlensreview.com/web/entry/alternative-50mm-lenses-for-sony-nex-part1

Voigtlander 50/1.1, CZ Sonnar 50/1.5 ZM, CZ Planar 50/2 ZM, Cron 50/2 Rigid, Cron 50/2 Col, Summarit 50/1.5, Jupiter 3 50/1.5, canon 50/1.2

I'll do another run on NEX 7 next week.

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.



edwardkaraa
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Total Posts: 7207
Country: Thailand

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.



JonasY
Registered: Aug 25, 2008
Total Posts: 416
Country: Sweden

eosslr wrote:
As promised first batch of results posted:
http://www.slrlensreview.com/web/entry/alternative-50mm-lenses-for-sony-nex-part1

8<


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.



eosslr
Registered: Mar 29, 2007
Total Posts: 423
Country: United States

Makten wrote:
eosslr wrote:
As promised first batch of results posted:
http://www.slrlensreview.com/web/entry/alternative-50mm-lenses-for-sony-nex-part1

Voigtlander 50/1.1, CZ Sonnar 50/1.5 ZM, CZ Planar 50/2 ZM, Cron 50/2 Rigid, Cron 50/2 Col, Summarit 50/1.5, Jupiter 3 50/1.5, canon 50/1.2

I'll do another run on NEX 7 next week.

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.


correct, no refocusing between test shots on the same lens



eosslr
Registered: Mar 29, 2007
Total Posts: 423
Country: United States

JonasY wrote:
eosslr wrote:
As promised first batch of results posted:
http://www.slrlensreview.com/web/entry/alternative-50mm-lenses-for-sony-nex-part1

8<


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.


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



douglasf13
Registered: Apr 09, 2008
Total Posts: 5966
Country: United States

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.



Jeff Kott
Registered: Oct 12, 2008
Total Posts: 1146
Country: United States

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.



douglasf13
Registered: Apr 09, 2008
Total Posts: 5966
Country: United States

Jeff Kott wrote:
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.


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.



edwardkaraa
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Total Posts: 7207
Country: Thailand

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.



1       2       3              5      
6
       7       end