You don't have a focus shift issue if you focus at your working aperture. It only happens if you focus wide open than stop down. Just focus at working aperture and it will not happen. TAP or normal adapt makes no diffrence
Yes but sometimes so much easier to manually focus wide open
GMPhotography wrote:
You don't have a focus shift issue if you focus at your working aperture. It only happens if you focus wide open than stop down. Just focus at working aperture and it will not happen. TAP or normal adapt makes no diffrence
kin2son wrote:
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"?
Thanks in advance.
Gee that's a difficult question, because everyone means something different by 'character'.
What I mean by 'character' is endearing optical flaws: under corrected aberrations which have an effect (often in the bokeh) which can sometimes be used to artistic benefit. But by it's very nature, not all the time or it becomes an effect that you can be tired of.
If that's what you mean by character I'd say the C-sonnar is like that at it's wider apertures. But there's really not much point using it unless you have to stopped down. It becomes a perfectly acceptable but not by modern standards great 50mm stopped down (and in the outer field you might not find it acceptable, if you take images that rely on the outer field)
I do love the look it gives portraits at 1.5-2.5. But 'character' lenses all have a *different* character. Wheras optical perfection tends to look the same. So you need to look at a lot of C-Sonnar images to see if the character it has is one that *you* like, and compare it with more neutral lenses and other character lenses.
But if I were you I wouldn't sell your Loxia to get the Sonnar unless you have some other way to get a highly corrected image in this focal length range (GM zoom? 1.8/55? Even the cheap 1.8/50 @ f8 is sharper stopped down I suspect). Most of us that have and love the C Sonnar have it as a adjunct to a highly corrected lens. Of course it's not that the Sonnar is *terrible* stopped down. If it's all you have with you and you see a great image that needs across the field resolution then f9 and pray. But I don't think it's as good as the better zooms of today for that purpose, let alone the primes.
So by all means get the Sonnar (or a Jupiter or some cheaper variant). I'm having more fun with it than I've had with a lens for ages. But its not a replacement for your Loxia, but an adjunct. And if you can't afford both - they are pretty pricey - I'd stick with the Loxia. If I wanted an all round lens for both stopped down and wide portrait use the 1.8/55 is an alternative to having both the Lox and the C Sonnar. The Jupiter is very cheap though if you can find a clean one. That's something you could supplement your Loxia with without breaking the bank. It's basically the same design as the C Sonnar, but coatings not as good and a little less sharp in the centre at wide apertures.
DavidBM wrote:
Gee that's a difficult question, because everyone means something different by 'character'.
What I mean by 'character' is endearing optical flaws: under corrected aberrations which have an effect (often in the bokeh) which can sometimes be used to artistic benefit. But by it's very nature, not all the time or it becomes an effect that you can be tired of.
If that's what you mean by character I'd say the C-sonnar is like that at it's wider apertures. But there's really not much point using it unless you have to stopped down. It becomes a perfectly acceptable but not by modern standards great 50mm stopped down (and in the outer field you might not find it acceptable, if you take images that rely on the outer field)
I do love the look it gives portraits at 1.5-2.5. But 'character' lenses all have a *different* character. Wheras optical perfection tends to look the same. So you need to look at a lot of C-Sonnar images to see if the character it has is one that *you* like, and compare it with more neutral lenses and other character lenses.
But if I were you I wouldn't sell your Loxia to get the Sonnar unless you have some other way to get a highly corrected image in this focal length range (GM zoom? 1.8/55? Even the cheap 1.8/50 @ f8 is sharper stopped down I suspect). Most of us that have and love the C Sonnar have it as a adjunct to a highly corrected lens. Of course it's not that the Sonnar is *terrible* stopped down. If it's all you have with you and you see a great image that needs across the field resolution then f9 and pray. But I don't think it's as good as the better zooms of today for that purpose, let alone the primes.
So by all means get the Sonnar (or a Jupiter or some cheaper variant). I'm having more fun with it than I've had with a lens for ages. But its not a replacement for your Loxia, but an adjunct. And if you can't afford both - they are pretty pricey - I'd stick with the Loxia. If I wanted an all round lens for both stopped down and wide portrait use the 1.8/55 is an alternative to having both the Lox and the C Sonnar. The Jupiter is very cheap though if you can find a clean one. That's something you could supplement your Loxia with without breaking the bank. It's basically the same design as the C Sonnar, but coatings not as good and a little less sharp in the centre at wide apertures.
Thanks for your detailed response. I actually own both FE55/1.8 and the Loxia 50. Yes I know it's highly subjective like you described, but just thinking whether the Sonnar or Planar will give me more "character"
Thanks for your detailed response. I actually own both FE55/1.8 and the Loxia 50. Yes I know it's highly subjective like you described, but just thinking whether the Sonnar or Planar will give me more "character"
Your well set up!
Well, I'd certainly say the Lox planar is more neutral. And to my taste the portrait bokeh of the Sonnar is more beautiful. I guess most people would say the Sonnar has more character in the sense of aberrations that some (including me) find attractive at wide aperture. I can see a case for all three 50s if you really want: the Lox for ultimate extreme landscape corner performance stopped down, the FE as an all purpose lens, and for clean neutral smooth bokeh with sharp images at wide apertures, and the Sonnar for funky portraiture at wide apertures. But that's a lot of dough depreciating on 50s. It's where I'm at.
I think you need to get someone who has both (can't be me at the moment as I'm a bit busy) to shoot the same wide portrait with the Lox and the Sonnar. The Lox has it's own character at wide apertures (and is also a little soft in the periphery at wide apertures compared to the FE, but much sharper than the Sonnar).
It's not so much which has *more* character, than which has character you like.
I had Loxia 50, FE 55 and ZM Sonnar C (plus some other 50s, like the OM 50/2 Macro, Leica R Cron, etc.).
I ended up selling the Loxia even though I preferred the IQ in many respects over the FE 55, as I felt the Sonnar was the better complement to the FE and I'd decided not to keep all 3. The Loxia and FE 55 just occupied similar usage in my mind.
I primarily shoot the Sonnar at F/1.7-f/2.8. I appreciate its color rendition in low light - a beautiful soft, rich pastel like rendering as I see it. Here in the Pacific Northwest I've ample opportunity to appreciate that quality.
I do miss the Loxia at times but time has reinforced it was the right decision and I expect the TAP which should arrive in the next day or two to make the Sonnar even more appealing.
Here's the thread on FM where I solicited advice on this very decision.
darrellc wrote:
I had Loxia 50, FE 55 and ZM Sonnar C (plus some other 50s, like the OM 50/2 Macro, Leica R Cron, etc.).
I ended up selling the Loxia even though I preferred the IQ in many respects over the FE 55, as I felt the Sonnar was the better complement to the FE and I'd decided not to keep all 3. The Loxia and FE 55 just occupied similar usage in my mind.
I primarily shoot the Sonnar at F/1.7-f/2.8. I appreciate its color rendition in low light - a beautiful soft, rich pastel like rendering as I see it. Here in the Pacific Northwest I've ample opportunity to appreciate that quality.
I do miss the Loxia at times but time has reinforced it was the right decision and I expect the TAP which should arrive in the next day or two to make the Sonnar even more appealing.
Here's the thread on FM where I solicited advice on this very decision....Show more →
Ooh it's hard to choose!
I'm glad I can keep all 3; but if I had to have just one it would be FE 55 because its nice both close and open for portraits, and infinity and stopped down for landscape. But if I could keep just two it would be Loxia 50 and the Sonnar (especially with TAP making the Sonnar less of a pain for portraits) as they in their specialist domains have features I (marginally, it's all swings and roundabouts) prefer to the FE.
It was even worse with too many options at 35mm... A bunch of choices gets fatiguing for me so every once in a while I force a rationalization. My camera shelf is getting crowded so there may be some activity soon.
DavidBM wrote:
Ooh it's hard to choose!
I'm glad I can keep all 3; but if I had to have just one it would be FE 55 because its nice both close and open for portraits, and infinity and stopped down for landscape. But if I could keep just two it would be Loxia 50 and the Sonnar (especially with TAP making the Sonnar less of a pain for portraits) as they in their specialist domains have features I (marginally, it's all swings and roundabouts) prefer to the FE.
I have been playing around with the Sonnar and really like it but realize not great for landscape. I never loved the 55 1.8 -- some reason the look a bit "sterile" -- perhaps not the right word. Nonetheless, I just ordered the Loxia especially now because of TAP adapter.
DavidBM wrote:
Ooh it's hard to choose!
I'm glad I can keep all 3; but if I had to have just one it would be FE 55 because its nice both close and open for portraits, and infinity and stopped down for landscape. But if I could keep just two it would be Loxia 50 and the Sonnar (especially with TAP making the Sonnar less of a pain for portraits) as they in their specialist domains have features I (marginally, it's all swings and roundabouts) prefer to the FE.
Could you possibly help out with my earlier request for shots comparing the FE 55 with the ZM C Sonnar? (It would really help me decide if I want to spend the $2K on a ZM-TAP setup or not).
FYI the Loxia won't work on the TAP. You'd want to get the ZM50/2 to use on the TAP. With Loxia you're locked into manually focusing, albeit with the benefits of a chipped lens and auto-magnify.
mark1958 wrote:
I have been playing around with the Sonnar and really like it but realize not great for landscape. I never loved the 55 1.8 -- some reason the look a bit "sterile" -- perhaps not the right word. Nonetheless, I just ordered the Loxia especially now because of TAP adapter.
mark1958 wrote:
I have been playing around with the Sonnar and really like it but realize not great for landscape. I never loved the 55 1.8 -- some reason the look a bit "sterile" -- perhaps not the right word. Nonetheless, I just ordered the Loxia especially now because of TAP adapter.
Mark you know the Loxia wont work on TAP? (It's native e mount so it ha s to mount flush to the camera)
The very similar ZM planar will work on TAP, but is not optimized for the Sony sensor and so has worse corners at wider apertures..
David and Matt
Oh i forgot about this .. Stupid-- I know because i realize this to be true of some other lenses I used to own. Well 50mm not as difficult to MF especially for landscape
A few days ago I did a photoshoot in a studio. Prior to the session I took a few behind the scene shots of the models. Here is one during the makeup session, taken at f/1.7 using available light. I really love the bokeh this lens generates.
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 have had my eyes on this lens for a couple years, but I prefer prefer a 28-35 and 85 over 50, so I've not ever pulled the trigger. What this thread (and lens) proves is that there is still a place for vintage/classic/less corrected glass. Personally, I would be pretty happy to see the deluge of massive hypercorrect optics continue, but with more lenses like the C-Sonnar coming out in parallel. Many of us here on FM and elsewhere are happy with "merely" very good performance or lenses that have an emphasis on rendering and aesthetic. The Otus has it's place, but don't lenses like this too? Anyway, very nice thread guys, with lovely images. Would love to see Zeiss put out a C-line to continue this trend. And would love to see more lenses like the R 80 or Minolta 85 1.4 Limited. But These optics are magical, just not technically. Thanks for jacking up interest and the price
virtualrain wrote:
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. ...Show more →
Not exactly the subject you were looking for, but I happened to have both lenses with me when I drove past this today. Don't judge anything from the attached jpg, please download the RAW files from WeTransfer at the following link:
I still have the lenses in my bag; if I get a chance this week I'll look for a subject more similar to that in your original post, unless someone else beats me to it.
Please don't make your decision based on these pictures! They don't show what it can do for portraits, which is pretty amazing (if you like the rendering), and there are plenty of samples in this thread and elsewhere. To be honest, I don't really use it much for buildings as in your sample, the ZA wide open might be adequate for that, if a little "harsher".
S Sobrinsky wrote:
Not exactly the subject you were looking for, but I happened to have both lenses with me when I drove past this today. Don't judge anything from the attached jpg, please download the RAW files from WeTransfer at the following link:
I still have the lenses in my bag; if I get a chance this week I'll look for a subject more similar to that in your original post, unless someone else beats me to it.
Please don't make your decision based on these pictures! They don't show what it can do for portraits, which is pretty amazing (if you like the rendering), and there are plenty of samples in this thread and elsewhere. To be honest, I don't really use it much for buildings as in your sample, the ZA wide open might be adequate for that, if a little "harsher".
Thanks. I appreciate the effort. I had almost given up.
I'll check them out properly tomorrow. I'm open to any suitable subject comparisons. That photo I posted of the fountain was a typical thing I would shoot in my travels with my fast 50 to isolate it from the background a bit, so any shallow DoF photo comparisons would be welcome. Including portraits.
Thanks again, and in advance to anyone else that can provide some comparison shots.
S Sobrinsky wrote:
Not exactly the subject you were looking for, but I happened to have both lenses with me when I drove past this today. Don't judge anything from the attached jpg, please download the RAW files from WeTransfer at the following link:
I still have the lenses in my bag; if I get a chance this week I'll look for a subject more similar to that in your original post, unless someone else beats me to it.
Please don't make your decision based on these pictures! They don't show what it can do for portraits, which is pretty amazing (if you like the rendering), and there are plenty of samples in this thread and elsewhere. To be honest, I don't really use it much for buildings as in your sample, the ZA wide open might be adequate for that, if a little "harsher".
Thanks... Finally had a good look at these. I'm not really seeing much interesting here but as you say, these are probably not the best photos to make a judgement on the rendering of the C-Sonnar.
Anyone else got any comparison shots of the FE55 and the C-Sonnar?
Try to buy both, look for reputable sellers here, won't cost much more than either cost buyers upon release. 50mm is the one of a few focal lengths it pays to have several lenses. If I shot more 'character images' at 50mm I'd look seriously at the C-S.
You need 50-200 images to get a fair idea of what a particular lens can do; even then you have to imagine it in your setting and work style. It's always a bit of a lottery.
Actually have shot maybe a dozen sets for you over the last few days; will try to upload RAWS tonight after work. I agree with what Philip says, but if you want 50-200, you're on your own!!!
