In summary I really like this lens as its not what i am used too in a way where wide open its more about the look than the sharpness but I like having a lens like this in the bag just for that stuff but as you stop down it gets very sharp. Certainly not a landscape type as the corners are really just okay stopped down but I have other lenses for that shooting. As you can see things are just poping everywhere in the images and thats what you buy it for. Admittedly i was nervous buying it but after putting some time on it, its really growing on me.
The interest and activity on this thread is somewhat surprising to me.
The ZM 50 C-Sonnar is not cheap and does not make to the top of any resolution chart. Still, we have a specialized lens that wins our hearts in rendering and subject isolation.
Instead of prioritizing sheer resolution across the frame and aberration control, Zeiss successfully under corrected this lens, added its famous micro-contrast and coating and created a special compact fast lens capable of delivering a unique look.
Yea and it bucks all modern lens design. Go figure. Lol
Fred Miranda wrote:
The interest and activity on this thread is somewhat surprising to me.
The ZM 50 C-Sonnar is not cheap and does not make to the top of any resolution chart. Still, we have a specialized lens that wins our hearts in rendering and subject isolation.
Instead of prioritizing sheer resolution across the frame and aberration control, Zeiss successfully under corrected this lens, added its famous micro-contrast and coating and created a special compact fast lens capable of delivering a unique look.
I completely agree, I love this lens, great honeymoon so far. I generally gravitate towards modern lenses, but this is really a great old school design that's been fun to shoot with the past couple days. The rendering from f/1.7-2/0 is so pleasant and contrasty at the same time, sharp enough in the plane of focus. You can add funk at f/1.5. And it's not too bad across most of the frame at f/5.6-8.0, especially if you can crop down to 5:4.
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
Guy, I have had 4 copies of this lens, and there was a lot of variation at the time. If in doubt try another copy and at least it will give you the confidence. It is an amazing lens.
Similarly with Leica's 50 Lux Asph. I did not think there was too much variation, but when I was discussing with Camera Clinic in Melbourne, they continually tested the 50 Lux's and there was a lot of variations. Some had the Leica glow and some were really sharp.
It gives me hope Fred. I'm tiring of the race for perfection in all things. Go see an exhibit from any master of the previous century and you can't help but be shocked by the imperfection in almost every photo and the breathtaking beauty of the result.
Fred Miranda wrote:
The interest and activity on this thread is somewhat surprising to me.
The ZM 50 C-Sonnar is not cheap and does not make to the top of any resolution chart. Still, we have a specialized lens that wins our hearts in rendering and subject isolation.
Instead of prioritizing sheer resolution across the frame and aberration control, Zeiss successfully under corrected this lens, added its famous micro-contrast and coating and created a special compact fast lens capable of delivering a unique look.
Btw price went up on this lens about 50 dollars. It's I believe 1261 with 125 rebate. Also I can't return mine if I wanted too. I registered it so that's considered warranty card filled out. I'm keeping it anyway but I shot myself in the foot.
This is for those who have or continue to use both the 50mm/2 Loxia and the 50mm/1.5 Sonnar.
I realize the Sonnar may not be the best choice for landscapes but once stopped down to say f8 -- is there still a major difference in image quality including sharpness, tonal range etc between these two lenses? The reason I ask is that my Sonnar gets very good even in the corners at f8 and even at F11-- less distortion than I get with some of my other lenses (e.g. Sony 24-70/2.8)
mark1958 wrote:
This is for those who have or continue to use both the 50mm/2 Loxia and the 50mm/1.5 Sonnar.
I realize the Sonnar may not be the best choice for landscapes but once stopped down to say f8 -- is there still a major difference in image quality including sharpness, tonal range etc between these two lenses? The reason I ask is that my Sonnar gets very good even in the corners at f8 and even at F11-- less distortion than I get with some of my other lenses (e.g. Sony 24-70/2.8)
Yes. The difference in corner resolution at f8 between the Sonnar and the Loxia Planar is significant. Quite a large corner area is vastly worse. I don't mean coke bottle soft, but I mean quite noticeable without peeking at a modest print size. I love my Sonnar, but if I had to have only one of the Sonnar and Planar I would get the Loxia Planar. (although if I was mainly taking 50mm portraits or street work I might reconsider). The Planar has noticeably better microcontrast stopped down across the field too.
I'm very interested in this lens and the Teckart adapter. However, returns are not easy for me here in Canada and I'd like to see how the rendering compares to the FE55 if possible before making the commitment (which will be $2K CAD all-in for both the lens and adapter).
Would someone who owns both this lens and the FE55 be able to post some same shots taken at f/1.8 using both and then the same shots with the 50 C-Sonnar at f/1.5 also?
I would use it for portraits and shots like this which I take in my travels so anything similar would be very helpful.
edwardkaraa wrote:
The 85 sonnar is extremely sharp from wide open but suffers from purple fringing at wide apertures. I'm not sure I agree about the similarities with the 50 sonnar.
Ed,
I posted a capture using the Zeiss ZM Sonnar 85mm f/2 at wide open of the same girl at the Getty Center in the big FE image thread. Somehow I could see some similarities in their rendition. If you are interested, here is the link: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1255248/1834#13728151.
DavidBM wrote:
Yes. The difference in corner resolution at f8 between the Sonnar and the Loxia Planar is significant. Quite a large corner area is vastly worse. I don't mean coke bottle soft, but I mean quite noticeable without peeking at a modest print size. I love my Sonnar, but if I had to have only one of the Sonnar and Planar I would get the Loxia Planar. (although if I was mainly taking 50mm portraits or street work I might reconsider). The Planar has noticeably better microcontrast stopped down across the field too.
Glad I found your post. I am contemplating whether or not to sell my Loxia and get this instead.
So what's your opinion? Which lens has more "character"?
