C-sonnar!
p.18 #1C-sonnar!
GMPhotography wrote:
I'm just a wee bit concerned if I have a good copy. Shot a lot this morning so going to hit computer soon. I may rent one to double check .
I apologize for all the questions , I'm very anal on this stuff
I thought you were looking for a warm body in your previous post....
.
I'm just a wee bit concerned if I have a good copy. Shot a lot this morning so going to hit computer soon. I may rent one to double check .
I apologize for all the questions , I'm very anal on this stuff
I thought you were looking for a warm body in your previous post....
.Sep 15, 2016 at 10:50 AM
p.18 #2C-sonnar!
Yea I need a model. And I need to rent another copy of this lens to make sure I got a good copy of it
Sep 15, 2016 at 11:02 AM
p.18 #3C-sonnar!
GMPhotography wrote:
Yea I need a model. And I need to rent another copy of this lens to make sure I got a good copy of it
Guy,
You can do a few things:
1) Make sure your lens is centered. Most of the time I get softer results (even in the center) if an element is tilted inside a lens.
2) Use TAP in continuous AF. I find it more accurate than AF-S. With TAP, make sure you set the aperture to f/25 and than back to f/2 if you are using IBIS.
3) Use a regular adapter or TAP in manual focus and do some controlled tests on a tripod in good lighting.
Alternatively you could still return the lens and get another brand new copy. (You could also try finding a cheaper mint copy at around $650-$700)
Lastly, if you would like, send it to me and I will compare it with mine.
Fred
Yea I need a model. And I need to rent another copy of this lens to make sure I got a good copy of it
Guy,
You can do a few things:
1) Make sure your lens is centered. Most of the time I get softer results (even in the center) if an element is tilted inside a lens.
2) Use TAP in continuous AF. I find it more accurate than AF-S. With TAP, make sure you set the aperture to f/25 and than back to f/2 if you are using IBIS.
3) Use a regular adapter or TAP in manual focus and do some controlled tests on a tripod in good lighting.
Alternatively you could still return the lens and get another brand new copy. (You could also try finding a cheaper mint copy at around $650-$700)
Lastly, if you would like, send it to me and I will compare it with mine.
Fred
Sep 15, 2016 at 11:24 AM
p.18 #4C-sonnar!
I'm thinking of maybe sending it to you as I know your copy is good out of the gate. But here are a bunch of 1.7 shots. I also found a slight secret in post adding a little structure goes a long way in C1 along with a touch of clarity as well. These are either 1.7 or F2 and many with Tap and some without. TAP is pretty accurate for the most part. I still am getting a little back an forth on the focusing once it nails it but either with TAP on manual or a fixed adapter I'm a little better so I need to watch the AF stuff. No diffrence though manually focusing either the TAP or fixed as there is no difference there. But given the subject here which we all would expect to be brilliantly sharp in these type of scenes the Sonnar bucked the that trend and still gave it the punch. So i view this as really good as this is not really what the lens if typically for but the bokeh is just gorgeous
Sep 15, 2016 at 11:48 AM
p.18 #5C-sonnar!
Couple more
Edited on Sep 15, 2016 at 12:02 PM · View previous versions
Edited on Sep 15, 2016 at 12:02 PM · View previous versions
Sep 15, 2016 at 11:50 AM
p.18 #6C-sonnar!
That first one maybe 2.8
Im trying not to pixel peep too much this is more about the look. Trying to change a old dog is not easy.
Im trying not to pixel peep too much this is more about the look. Trying to change a old dog is not easy.
Sep 15, 2016 at 11:52 AM
p.18 #7C-sonnar!
Here is the good news you want to get sharp you can and still jump off the screen. I think both of these are like F4 or 2.8
Sep 15, 2016 at 12:01 PM
p.18 #10C-sonnar!
Great and thanks. Yea the look is their no question it's pure Zeiss with 3D pop and great bokeh. I have to get used too it's about a half a stop less sharp than the GM85 until F4. Thats what is throwing me off , I just need to get used to that
Sep 15, 2016 at 01:15 PM
|
p.18 #11C-sonnar!
GMPhotography wrote:
I'm thinking of maybe sending it to you as I know your copy is good out of the gate. But here are a bunch of 1.7 shots. I also found a slight secret in post adding a little structure goes a long way in C1 along with a touch of clarity as well. These are either 1.7 or F2 and many with Tap and some without. TAP is pretty accurate for the most part. I still am getting a little back an forth on the focusing once it nails it but either with TAP on manual or a fixed adapter...Show more →
Nice! Yes, clarity and structure sliders in C1 were really improved in v9.. very handy tools, but one where tiny movements are called for.
I'm thinking of maybe sending it to you as I know your copy is good out of the gate. But here are a bunch of 1.7 shots. I also found a slight secret in post adding a little structure goes a long way in C1 along with a touch of clarity as well. These are either 1.7 or F2 and many with Tap and some without. TAP is pretty accurate for the most part. I still am getting a little back an forth on the focusing once it nails it but either with TAP on manual or a fixed adapter...Show more →
Nice! Yes, clarity and structure sliders in C1 were really improved in v9.. very handy tools, but one where tiny movements are called for.
Sep 15, 2016 at 02:25 PM
p.18 #12C-sonnar!
GMPhotography wrote:
Great and thanks. Yea the look is their no question it's pure Zeiss with 3D pop and great bokeh. I have to get used too it's about a half a stop less sharp than the GM85 until F4. Thats what is throwing me off , I just need to get used to that
Wow Guy...you must have a great copy if it's only half a stop less sharp that the GM85 until f4.
Don't get me wrong, I love this lens, and the central area is sharp enough for what we want it for, but sharpness is not it's strong suit - so I'd be surprised if for example at f 2.5 it's as sharp as the GM at f2! Maybe you mean viewed as a whole image?
Great and thanks. Yea the look is their no question it's pure Zeiss with 3D pop and great bokeh. I have to get used too it's about a half a stop less sharp than the GM85 until F4. Thats what is throwing me off , I just need to get used to that
Wow Guy...you must have a great copy if it's only half a stop less sharp that the GM85 until f4.
Don't get me wrong, I love this lens, and the central area is sharp enough for what we want it for, but sharpness is not it's strong suit - so I'd be surprised if for example at f 2.5 it's as sharp as the GM at f2! Maybe you mean viewed as a whole image?
Sep 15, 2016 at 06:15 PM
p.18 #13C-sonnar!
GMPhotography wrote:
Here is the good news you want to get sharp you can and still jump off the screen. I think both of these are like F4 or 2.8
Lovely samples Guy. I think your lens is fine!
Here is the good news you want to get sharp you can and still jump off the screen. I think both of these are like F4 or 2.8
Lovely samples Guy. I think your lens is fine!
Sep 15, 2016 at 06:17 PM
p.18 #14C-sonnar!
Me too it's my expectations might have been to high. I really like it
Sep 15, 2016 at 07:24 PM
p.18 #16C-sonnar!
Yes the Sonnar at 2.8 is damn good on center. I shot a couple wider shots stopped down. In a pinch they looked really good too
DavidBM wrote:
Wow Guy...you must have a great copy if it's only half a stop less sharp that the GM85 until f4.
Don't get me wrong, I love this lens, and the central area is sharp enough for what we want it for, but sharpness is not it's strong suit - so I'd be surprised if for example at f 2.5 it's as sharp as the GM at f2! Maybe you mean viewed as a whole image?
DavidBM wrote:
GMPhotography wrote
Great and thanks. Yea the look is their no question it's pure Zeiss with 3D pop and great bokeh. I have to get used too it's about a half a stop less sharp than the GM85 until F4. Thats what is throwing me off , I just need to get used to thatDon't get me wrong, I love this lens, and the central area is sharp enough for what we want it for, but sharpness is not it's strong suit - so I'd be surprised if for example at f 2.5 it's as sharp as the GM at f2! Maybe you mean viewed as a whole image?
Sep 15, 2016 at 07:53 PM
p.18 #17C-sonnar!
GMPhotography wrote:
Me too it's my expectations might have been to high. I really like it
Yep that's what I was about to say: we can't expect modern lens resolution levels from this design, though it is surprisingly sharp in the middle for what is basically a 1930s design. And that's plenty sharp enough. And the look (which is a byproduct of some of the aberrations that reduce the sharpness compared to a GM or modern Zeiss) is just gorgeous.
Me too it's my expectations might have been to high. I really like it
Yep that's what I was about to say: we can't expect modern lens resolution levels from this design, though it is surprisingly sharp in the middle for what is basically a 1930s design. And that's plenty sharp enough. And the look (which is a byproduct of some of the aberrations that reduce the sharpness compared to a GM or modern Zeiss) is just gorgeous.
Sep 15, 2016 at 07:59 PM
p.18 #18C-sonnar!
GMPhotography wrote:
Yes the Sonnar at 2.8 is damn good on center. I shot a couple wider shots stopped down. In a pinch they looked really good too
Wow Guy...you must have a great copy if it's only half a stop less sharp that the GM85 until f4.
Don't get me wrong, I love this lens, and the central area is sharp enough for what we want it for, but sharpness is not it's strong suit - so I'd be surprised if for example at f 2.5 it's as sharp as the GM at f2! Maybe you mean viewed as a whole image?
I did a quick walk-around downtown and stopped it down to f/4 - 5.6.. I was really impressed with the sharpness, but even more so the color / saturation.. it was really nice, vivid, but not Sony style saturated (I swear sometimes I feel Sony colors border on cartoonish).
This is sooc, didn't touch a thing other than raw->jpg via C1. Not a great shot, but illustrates what I'm talking about.. I think this was f/4.
Yes the Sonnar at 2.8 is damn good on center. I shot a couple wider shots stopped down. In a pinch they looked really good too
DavidBM wrote
GMPhotography wrote
Great and thanks. Yea the look is their no question it's pure Zeiss with 3D pop and great bokeh. I have to get used too it's about a half a stop less sharp than the GM85 until F4. Thats what is throwing me off , I just need to get used to thatDon't get me wrong, I love this lens, and the central area is sharp enough for what we want it for, but sharpness is not it's strong suit - so I'd be surprised if for example at f 2.5 it's as sharp as the GM at f2! Maybe you mean viewed as a whole image?
I did a quick walk-around downtown and stopped it down to f/4 - 5.6.. I was really impressed with the sharpness, but even more so the color / saturation.. it was really nice, vivid, but not Sony style saturated (I swear sometimes I feel Sony colors border on cartoonish).
This is sooc, didn't touch a thing other than raw->jpg via C1. Not a great shot, but illustrates what I'm talking about.. I think this was f/4.
Sep 15, 2016 at 08:02 PM
p.18 #19C-sonnar!
edwardkaraa wrote:
Fred said it all. Rangefinder optimization is about the focus shift of the C-Sonnar playing havoc with the Leica rangefinder system. You focus your M9 on a short range subject at f/1.4 and the subject is sharp. Then, you stopdown to f/2 and suddenly the focus point moves back. This is a rangefinder issue.
Most lenses have focus shift to some degree, but the smaller apertures usually cover with greater DOF. C Sonnar has more.
If the Sony a7 metered and focused wide open, then stopped down for exposure like the SLRs, that would be a different story, but the Sony a7 doesn't.It is not a rangefinder issue, focus shift is a big problem with SLR too. The canon 50/1.2 is an example. Only mirrorless is immune to this issue.
Yes, Edward, focus shift is a problem with SLR lenses, too. But, as far as the ZM C-Sonnar is concerned in this thread about the ZM C-Sonnar, it is a rangefinder issue. Leica M camera shooters like yourself, who may like to shoot the ZM C-Sonnar at f/2.0 more than f/1.5 may like to have the lens in-focus more at f/2.0. There apparently was/is a lens service that would adjust the lens to be sharp at the stopped down aperture of f/2.0 at closer distances. This is basically a modification of infinity focus with lens shims. That's all I'm saying.
BTW, I have a first cousin that has lived in Bangkok for years.
JimBuchanan wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
There is zero advantage sending your lens to Zeiss for optimization as with mirrorless, focus is achieved in live feedback, meaning, what you see is what you get. As long as you shoot at working aperture you should be able to nail focus every time. (Manually or using TAP)Most lenses have focus shift to some degree, but the smaller apertures usually cover with greater DOF. C Sonnar has more.
If the Sony a7 metered and focused wide open, then stopped down for exposure like the SLRs, that would be a different story, but the Sony a7 doesn't.
Yes, Edward, focus shift is a problem with SLR lenses, too. But, as far as the ZM C-Sonnar is concerned in this thread about the ZM C-Sonnar, it is a rangefinder issue. Leica M camera shooters like yourself, who may like to shoot the ZM C-Sonnar at f/2.0 more than f/1.5 may like to have the lens in-focus more at f/2.0. There apparently was/is a lens service that would adjust the lens to be sharp at the stopped down aperture of f/2.0 at closer distances. This is basically a modification of infinity focus with lens shims. That's all I'm saying.
BTW, I have a first cousin that has lived in Bangkok for years.
Sep 15, 2016 at 08:34 PM
p.18 #20C-sonnar!
JimBuchanan wrote:
Fred said it all. Rangefinder optimization is about the focus shift of the C-Sonnar playing havoc with the Leica rangefinder system. You focus your M9 on a short range subject at f/1.4 and the subject is sharp. Then, you stopdown to f/2 and suddenly the focus point moves back. This is a rangefinder issue.
Most lenses have focus shift to some degree, but the smaller apertures usually cover with greater DOF. C Sonnar has more.
If the Sony a7 metered and focused wide open, then stopped down for exposure like the SLRs, that would be a different story, but the Sony a7 doesn't.It is not a rangefinder issue, focus shift is a big problem with SLR too. The canon 50/1.2 is an example. Only mirrorless is immune to this issue.Yes, Edward, focus shift is a problem with SLR lenses, too. But, as far as the ZM C-Sonnar is concerned in this thread about the ZM C-Sonnar, it is a rangefinder issue. Leica M camera shooters like yourself, who may like to shoot the ZM C-Sonnar at f/2.0 more than f/1.5 may like to have the lens in-focus more at f/2.0. There apparently was/is a lens service that would adjust the lens to be sharp at the stopped down aperture of f/2.0 at closer distances. This is basically a modification of infinity focus with lens shims. That's all I'm saying.
BTW,...Show more →
No worries, Jim!
Is your cousin still in Bangkok?
edwardkaraa wrote
JimBuchanan wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
There is zero advantage sending your lens to Zeiss for optimization as with mirrorless, focus is achieved in live feedback, meaning, what you see is what you get. As long as you shoot at working aperture you should be able to nail focus every time. (Manually or using TAP)Most lenses have focus shift to some degree, but the smaller apertures usually cover with greater DOF. C Sonnar has more.
If the Sony a7 metered and focused wide open, then stopped down for exposure like the SLRs, that would be a different story, but the Sony a7 doesn't.
BTW,...Show more →
No worries, Jim!
Is your cousin still in Bangkok?
Sep 15, 2016 at 10:22 PM