The TAP really helped me the other day shooting product as it made the ZM much closer focusing and really only had to pull out a extension tube for a couple shots. So it's really useful in the close focusing for both my ZM 35 and 85. I would imagine the same for the 50 as well.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Don't forget focus distance which was greatly improved with TAP or any other close focus adapter. The main complaints with this lens are no longer issues and on top of that we get AF when needed.
AGeoJO wrote:
Even when I had my M9 the look the C-Sonnar renders appealed to me but back then there was the focus shift issue when stopped down and the two different calibration setups, for digital and for film. The whole "unknown" factor kind of turned me off and I didn't bother getting that lens but chose something else. The TAP and this thread reminded me of that and I am just a mere mortal, just like Guy. Right, Guy? We can only resist up to a certain degree and that degree is.... very, very low, I guess.
So does this mean it doesn't matter what the lens is "optimized" for if we're using it with TAP on an A7XX body?
Uh-oh . . . this is not good. I'm beginning to lust for a lens before I sell the lenses I vowed to pay for the ones I already bought. Not good at all . . .
BrandonSi wrote:
You guys ever compare this with the Planar 50 1.4? I'm about to google the heck out of that, but just curious to hear it from one of you.
The bokeh of the c/y 50 planar is pretty busy wide open. As for the Lux, I think the pre-asph versions(a la Mandler design) are much closer to the C-Sonnar look, IMO. I've used them all, and I think the C Sonnar has the best people look, then the Lux pre, then whatever else you want to throw in the mix. The new FE 50 ZA isn't too bad bokeh wise, but it's still a planar design too.
Gregg
Here's a grab from my old A7rM(Kolari v2) with the pre-asph. I was pretty impressed with the lens
Fred...love the grabs of your daughter. Really nice! Which island?
@f1.4 Summilux M 50 pre asph
@f1.4 Summilux M 50 pre asph
An example of the new FE 50 1.4 ZA wide open
And a portrait of my wife;c-Sonnar 50 @f1.5... we were dressed up for a 60's themed party
The c sonnar field curvature turns towards the camera in the corners, which is the opposite of every Zeiss lens I have used. This actually accentuates the background blur more than expected for f/1.5. I have owned it twice, both times selling it because of focus shift on my rangefinders. The drawing style is absolutely unique and very much to my liking but it would be best used with an EVF.
I have had 4 copies of this ZM 50 Sonnar C with my M9 and then M240. I absolutely loved this lens but it was a dog to focus. With the focus shift issues there were variations on the calibration of this lens for either f/1.5 or f/2.0 and then you were lucky. Like Joshua, I dismissed this out of frustration and opted then for the 50 Lux.
Fred and Gregg, your shots are awesome, and when you find the right lens you know !!!
Thanks to TechArt this lens is probably one of the best 50mm contenders and in a small package
BrandonSi wrote:
You guys ever compare this with the Planar 50 1.4? I'm about to google the heck out of that, but just curious to hear it from one of you.
very different looks – both are very busy wide open, but the planar has more pop and local contrast both in the area of focus as well as the oof region. the sonnar has a little busier bokeh, but the lower contrast in the background makes it less jarring. the planar produces more blur and is much better corrected across the frame stopped down. the planar is a technically better all round lens, i like the zm better for portraits from wide open to f/2.8 (most of the time).
I preferred the look from ZM 50 C Sonnar to that of the 50 Lux Asph on the M9/M240. I feel the C Sonnar has the look more of the 50 Lux Pre Asph similar to Mandler.
Welcome to my world. I've vowed to sell a canon 17tse, Mitakon dark night, Rokinon 14, canon 135L and more, but haven't got around to it for ages.....but already have paid for the things they were supposed o pay for...
rji2goleez wrote:
Uh-oh . . . this is not good. I'm beginning to lust for a lens before I sell the lenses I vowed to pay for the ones I already bought. Not good at all . . .
