AGeoJO wrote:
Wow, I didn't keep up with prices lately.....
So, the bokeh at f/1.7 is slightly better and/or if there are no bright spot lights within the frame then?
Bokeh smoothes out at f/2. I find f/1.7 a good compromise between blur and smoothness. Also, at f/1.7, aberrations get more subdue, you get more contrast and bokeh balls are still very rounded.
DavidBM wrote:
...
I could maybe post samples of infinity corners tomorrow - but it's the middle of the night here just not sleeping coz of a nasty cold so can't do now.. But they just show what you should expect.
I've had that same nasty cold since Tuesday and it seems difficult to shake. I'm trusting that the arrival of a Techart PRO will bring me back to perfect health.
I just got mine and took a few snaps around the house just to make sure that there is nothing weird about the lens. I like what I see, especially the bokeh. It is a wonderful lens and now, I need to use it for real life photoshoot. BTW, the lens is so tiny and light, smaller than the FE 55mm f/1.8, even including the TAP although the TAP has a bulge on the lower side.
DavidBM wrote:
I could maybe post samples of infinity corners tomorrow - but it's the middle of the night here just not sleeping coz of a nasty cold so can't do now.. But they just show what you should expect.
David,
I tested at infinity again today in good light. It pretty much confirmed my earlier thoughts...To put it lightly, this beauty is not a landscape lens.
f/1.5, f/2 and f/2.8 should be avoided at all cost!
Starting at f/4, the center area is strong. Mid-field peaks at f/5.6 but the edges need way more stopping down.
I tested f/8, f/9, f/10 and f/11.
There is noticeable resolution/contrast difference from f/8 to f/10 but none from f/10 to f/11. So, for infinity distances with "sharp" edges, f/10 is needed.
However, even at f/10, astigmatism is still present (worse than what we see with the Loxia 35/2)
So, if that's the only lens you have for landscapes and really need to use it, perhaps f/10 is your aperture for acceptable results. I'm sure the ZM 50/2 Planar (Or even better, Loxia 50/2) will yield better results for this application though.
Do you want to see some crop samples? It basically looks the way I described above.
Best,
Fred
AGeoJO wrote:
I just got mine and took a few snaps around the house just to make sure that there is nothing weird about the lens. I like that I see, especially the bokeh. It is wonderful lens and now, I need to use it for real life photoshoot. BTW, the lens is so tiny and light, smaller than the FE 55mm f/1.8, even including the TAP although the TAP has a bulge on the lower side.
It's way smaller than the 55/1.8 with their hoods attached.
However the 50/1.5C is one dense lens. Feels heavy for its size and that is due to its all metal construction.
Fred Miranda wrote:
David,
I tested at infinity again today in good light. It pretty much confirmed my earlier thoughts...To put it lightly, this beauty is not a landscape lens.
f/1.5, f/2 and f/2.8 should be avoided at all cost!
Starting at f/4, the center area is strong. Mid-field peaks at f/5.6 but the edges need way more stopping down.
I tested f/8, f/9, f/10 and f/11.
There is noticeable resolution/contrast difference from f/8 to f/10 but none from f/10 to f/11. So, for infinity distances with "sharp" edges, f/10 is needed.
However, even at f/10, astigmatism is still present (worse than what we see with the Loxia 35/2)
So, if that's the only lens you have for landscapes and really need to use it, perhaps f/10 is your aperture for acceptable results. I'm sure the ZM 50/2 Planar (Or even better, Loxia 50/2) will yield better results for this application though.
Do you want to see some crop samples? It basically looks the way I described above.
Best,
Fred...Show more →
No need for crops from me, Fred: they sound exactly like my infinity crops (with the extra info that there is slight improvement from f8 to f10). But it would need to a lot more than slight for me ever to use it for landscape except out of desperation!
I guess some others might be interested. If so they can chime in...
But, as we knew or at least suspected, this wonderful optic should, for most people, not be your only way to get 50. My Loxia is not losing it's place in my bag, that's for sure!
It's a fantastic thing - I haven't had as much fun for ages - but it's a luxury item on top of your basic kit.
DavidBM wrote:
No need for crops from me, Fred: they sound exactly like my infinity crops (with the extra info that there is slight improvement from f8 to f10). But it would need to a lot more than slight for me ever to use it for landscape except out of desperation!
I guess some others might be interested. If so they can chime in...
But, as we knew or at least suspected, this wonderful optic should, for most people, not be your only way to get 50. My Loxia is not losing it's place in my bag, that's for sure!
It's a fantastic thing - I haven't had as much fun for ages - but it's a luxury item on top of your basic kit.
Exactly!
If the ZM 50/2 (or Loxia) rendered similarly at wide apertures, it could be my only 'fifty'. I don't mind having a couple lenses with the same FL for different applications...
One of the lenses that in my opinion has pleasant rendering and is also excellent at long distances is the 55/1.8 ZA. However, even though it shares a Sonnar design (at least in name), it offers a different look when compared to the ZM 50/1.5C.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Exactly!
If the ZM 50/2 (or Loxia) rendered similarly at wide apertures, it could be my only 'fifty'. I don't mind having a couple lenses with the same FL for different applications...
One of the lenses that in my opinion has pleasant rendering and is also excellent at long distances is the 55/1.8 ZA but although it shares a Sonnar design (at least in name), it offers a different look when compared to the ZM 50/1.5C.
Agreed about 55. I'm hanging on to mine: it's a great all-rounder so for travel I get an AF portrait lens and a sharp scenic/landscape lens as well. And it is amazing how different it looks from the both the Lox and the Sonnar. Some say it looks different from the Lox stopped down at infinity - but I'm not convinced that's not just a touch more contrast in the Lox which you can always add (though the Lox is a bit better in the corners at f11; at least with my two copies.) But the 55 is still great.
Not sure how much "sonnar" there is in the 55: it doesn't look like it's based on a triplet, or have a buch of glued elements to minimise glass-air surfaces -- which I guess was the basic idea of a sonnar. (not that you need to reduce glass-air surfaces these days). I think Sonnar nowadays doesn't mean a specific design so much as moderately fast but not super fast lens which is not massively retrofocus or symmetrical.
Here's an interesting site with some stuff about the history of Sonnar designs (and brandings)
Fred Miranda wrote:
Exactly!
If the ZM 50/2 (or Loxia) rendered similarly at wide apertures, it could be my only 'fifty'. I don't mind having a couple lenses with the same FL for different applications...
One of the lenses that in my opinion has pleasant rendering and is also excellent at long distances is the 55/1.8 ZA. However, even though it shares a Sonnar design (at least in name), it offers a different look when compared to the ZM 50/1.5C.
yeah, this is why i love my rokkor 58/1.2 so much (shame it's so da** big!). it has a beautiful rendering at large aperture for portraits that can be smooth or funky depending on aperture choice, but it is also a solid landscape lens that can be sharp everywhere but the extreme corners by f/4 and doesn't really lose out to my dedicated landscape 50s at f/8 in terms of detail (though contrast is behind my zeiss lenses).
i seem to recollect ron getting solid landscape results by f/5.6 with the zm 50/1.5 on an m9, i wonder if the same would be true for a modded sony?
for anyone looking for a cheaper option for a portrait 50 the original jupiter-3 has a very similar look with a smaller centrally sharp area at large aperture and much more difficulty with back lighting. the calibration issues with leicas aren't a concern on a sony with the TAP. it does require stopping down to f/2.5 rather than f/2 (on the zm) to get well controlled bokeh though. a few sample of the j-3:
sebboh wrote:
yeah, this is why i love my rokkor 58/1.2 so much (shame it's so da** big!). it has a beautiful rendering at large aperture for portraits that can be smooth or funky depending on aperture choice, but it is also a solid landscape lens that can be sharp everywhere but the extreme corners by f/4 and doesn't really lose out to my dedicated landscape 50s at f/8 in terms of detail (though contrast is behind my zeiss lenses).
i seem to recollect ron getting solid landscape results by f/5.6 with the zm 50/1.5 on an m9, i wonder if the same would be true for a modded sony?
Yeah, if cost is a consideration, I'd look at 'vintage' Sonnars... like the Canon 50/1.5 or a Zeiss Opton Sonnar (though you will need a way to adapt it to Sony and not sure if any of those are not the more expensive helicoid options). Bonus with those is greater 'mojo' at perhaps the expense of flare control/contrast. That said, I've found the Zeiss Opton pretty good with backlighting compared to some other 'old' 50s.
DavidBM wrote:
It's arrived!!!!
Fred Miranda wrote:
Now you need the hood!
DavidBM wrote:
Ordered: open box from B&H for $55....
Annoying though, the Zeiss hood tax...
FWIW, the Voigtlander hood for the 35/40 f/1.4 lenses is the same one and cheaper (at least the last time I checked).
bjornthun wrote:
Threads like these are potentially expensive, ZM 35/1.4, ZM 50/1.5, ZM 85/4, TAP adapter....
As Guy implies, these ZM lenses are really only 'midrange' in the rangefinder ecosystem. Not to say spending for a Leica will really get you anything better, in some respects.
That said, I finally picked up a 90/4 Macro-Elmar and shot it against a borrowed ZM85/4 (on the M240) and it's sharper at infinity than the ZM already from wide open, peaking at f/5.6. But it's a very difficult lens to justify at full retail... I bought it used from Japan and though not as perfect as the listing pictures implied, performance seems as good as expected with a much more reasonable price paid. It's probably not a lens on most people's radars because of the price point.
arduluth wrote:
I've been waiting for a Jupiter-3 (or even J-8) on the B&S board for months - it'd be nice to get an OK copy.
yeah, they don't come up often here. there's plenty for sale from ukraine, lithuania, or russia though. never sure exactly what you're getting there or when it'll arrive with them, but the prices are low at least.
Ever since I got the TAP --- I was disappointed I ever sold my Leica 28mm 2.8 R Elmarit... The only reason i sold it was because no AF.... and was satisfied with the 25mm Batis. However, I still preferred the color, contrast, bokeh and general IQ of the Leica. .
AGeoJO wrote:
How about the second version Leica-R 28mm f/2.8 Elmarit with built-in sliding hood, Fred? Bob is enjoying his and his results speak for themselves. I had that lens before and it was an awesome performer but for whatever reasons I sold it during the Leica heyday and it was sold in minutes.
. 
