edwardkaraa wrote:
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 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.

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.

Um, isn't this a lens you buy because you fancy the look wide open which is pretty much the only reason to get the Sonnar over let say, anything else, that will look better stopped down?

JonasY wrote:
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.

Um, isn't this a lens you buy because you fancy the look wide open which is pretty much the only reason to get the Sonnar over let say, anything else, that will look better stopped down?

Of course, but the Sonnar is also quite sharp stopped down. If you want it as a WO speciality lens, then I think the focus should be optimized for WO. But if you want it to be more versatile, I think, and Zeiss seems to agree here, that it should be optimized for f/2.8.

JonasY wrote:
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.

Um, isn't this a lens you buy because you fancy the look wide open which is pretty much the only reason to get the Sonnar over let say, anything else, that will look better stopped down?

I've owned one for nearly 3 years and actually prefer to shoot it at f/2.8 where it gives more depth of field on close-ish portraits but really attractive bokeh and isolation, better imo than at f/1.5. To each his/her own, of course, but I like the Sonnar look at mid-apertures as well.

Calibrating the Sonnar at f/1.5 causes the focus shift to be most pronounced at f/2.8, which happens to be my favored aperture for the lens.

Good points Mike. F/2.8 is my max aperture with any lens, as long as there is enough light. I've never been a big fan of portraits where only one eye lash is in focus

Yeah, many like to shoot the Sonnar around f2.8, where it still has wonderful character that isn't quite as busy, but better sharpness. Like Edward, I also tend to shoot most lenses in the F2-2.8 range on aps-c (f2.8+ on 135,) unless the light dictates needing more.

C-Sonnar @f1.5 at or near MFD on GXR-M, hope the small adjustment in LR doesn't affect its character

I have an optically mint ZM silver Planar in case anybody is interested. It has a small dent on the barrel and so i would be willing to let it go for less than most used quotes. No effect on the image quality, which is stellar. Please PM me.

I updated the comparison and included test shots on NEX-7.

http://www.slrlensreview.com/web/entry/alternative-50mm-lenses-for-sony-nex-part-2

eosslr wrote:
I updated the comparison and included test shots on NEX-7.

http://www.slrlensreview.com/web/entry/alternative-50mm-lenses-for-sony-nex-part-2

thanks for the comparison but your site is coded very poorly. Im on an i5 2500k and 8 gigs of ram in a basically fresh windows 7 64 bit install and it's very laggy. Using Opera 11.62.

Well, the ZM Planar is pretty good isnt it. I should just buy some velvia and bend over for some scans.

redisburning wrote:
thanks for the comparison but your site is coded very poorly. Im on an i5 2500k and 8 gigs of ram in a basically fresh windows 7 64 bit install and it's very laggy. Using Opera 11.62.


yep, the hosting service is one of the slowest - i'm moving next month. but cms also has an overhead - something i need to look into, but don't have time at the moment