Agree with philip_pj here... Just buy both and shoot. At this point in their lifecycle you won't lose much buying and selling. Then you can shoot for a few weeks and make an informed decision. Perhaps rent if you want less hassle.
I learn a bit looking at images online - sometimes a lens will really stand out in images and I know I'll love the IQ, examples include the ZM 35/1.4, Batis 25 or Zeiss 100's. But most of the time I have to shoot a while to get a sense of how the lens will work for me.
philip_pj wrote:
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!!!
Thanks... looking forward to checking them out... much appreciated!
Thanks for making those files available. Were all the shots taken wide open? In any event, the difference in sharpness between the two lenses is striking.
robgo2 wrote:
Thanks for making those files available. Were all the shots taken wide open? In any event, the difference in sharpness between the two lenses is striking.
Both lenses were wide open for all shots. Camera was A7II, aperture priority, auto-ISO. Techart Pro (TAP) used to mount ZM. Camera was hand held (when I started discovered the TAP would not allow mounting to any of my tripod heads, and I don't have a 'dumb' M adapter; so I planted myself not moving my feet and swapped lenses; ideally I would have preferred to shoot all from a tripod with ISO set to 100; for the purposes of the virtualrain's request, "...to see how the rendering compares...", I didn't think this would be a critical flaw, but realize it's not as precise as I would have liked it to be). Focused on the same point with each lens.
I took several shots of a scene with both lenses, and chose the best one. All FE shots were using AF; for the ZM shot both MF and AF with the TAP, the selected shots a mix of what was best ('best' being no camera shake, closest framing between lenses, etc.).
GMPhotography wrote:
I'm not st computer can we post a sample of each here
Sorry, but working today, then dealing with family issues over the weekend, so I don't know when I'd get to this. If anyone else wants to covert and post any of the images, feel free to share!
Update:
Duhhh - just remembered I was shooting raw+jpg; I'll rename the in-camera jpgs to match the raws, then upload somewhere later today
Stephen, thank you for your effort and the time you took to put together this comparison.
For me this is a great comparison and shows the limited use of the C-Sonnar (and why i've decided to not pursue it).
The 50 has a very exaggerated (i know this is a loaded word that may rub some the wrong way) focus transition or field curvature or something. If your subject is very close and you are shooting wide open, it can have a very appealing effect.
However, that's it (again, only IMHO). It's really a one trick pony and worse, outside of that limited use, strange things can happen, as in the shot i linked below (note how the background building is out of focus -- until the top edge and upper-left-corner where it starts to come back into focus!).
I personally prefer the Zony 50/1.4 but I'd take the Zony 55/1.8 over the 50 C-Sonnar for anything other than close-subject shallow DoF fun.
In the other examples, where the subject distance is at least a 10-15 meters away, i can hardly tell a difference between the 55 and 50, other than (to a lesser extent than this example) strange regions of background sharpness vs blur.
So, here are some rendering comparison from the RAW files I posted above. 55/1.8 @1.8 and 50/1.5C @1.7.
I didn't write which lens is which. Can you guess? (Without looking at the RAWs of course. )
Once you get used to these lenses, it's fairly easy to spot them.
As far as resolution, they are both sharp at f/1.8 but the 55/1.8 is noticeably shaper at 1:1, especially outside of the center area. They both suffer from LoCA and the 55/1.8 out of focus rending is smoother, especially towards the edges. (Much less astigmatism)
Where the 50/1.5C wins with its more rounded and cleaner bokeh balls with no traces of onion ring patterns. (No aspherical in optical design)
I'm on my phone, would want to look at them on a larger screen... but even so, the first one is obvious even on a tiny screen. Thanks for sharing them, Fred!
Fred Miranda wrote:
Love the Sonnar 50/1.5C. I am currently using it exclusively for everything except landscapes which my choice is the Loxia 50.
It's so tiny even with its hood and works very well with TAP.
Micro contrast, smooth rendering and 3D are all there but this lens is under corrected for SA. (Which adds to its character)
I will post some samples when I get back from Hawaii.
I think your mentioning of this lens in the TAP thread is why many people are tying to look for one. Including myself haha
Thanks Fred. I have to say, the differences seem very subtle to me at web resolutions. I haven't got to the RAW files yet. There is a tiny difference in contrast and specular highlight bokeh, but very subtle differences.
arduluth wrote:
I'm on my phone, would want to look at them on a larger screen... but even so, the first one is obvious even on a tiny screen. Thanks for sharing them, Fred!
I'm curious what you're seeing? I see a touch more contrast in the lower picture of the tree and the green disk in the bottom seems a bit sharper, but they look pretty similar to me.
Arka wrote:
Anyone compare CZ 50mm f/1.5 Sonnar to the Leica Summilux 50mm f/1.4 (latest version?)
the lux has better contrast and less SA at large aperture, it also has much less busy bokeh at full aperture. the lux also has better corners stopped down (at least on a leica, not sure on an unmodded a7).
Thanks. So you wouldn't consider replacing a lux with a Sonnar. Sounds like the lux brings a lot of performance advantages to the table (which it should, given the price!) sebboh wrote:
the lux has better contrast and less SA at large aperture, it also has much less busy bokeh at full aperture. the lux also has better corners stopped down (at least on a leica, not sure on an unmodded a7).
Arka wrote:
Thanks. So you wouldn't consider replacing a lux with a Sonnar. Sounds like the lux brings a lot of performance advantages to the table (which it should, given the price!)
The lux is a good if expensive modern fast fifty; not quite as good as the ZA 1.4 or the Sigma Art but way more compact.
But there's no point comparing it to a c-sonnar; you get the c-sonnar if you like the distinctive bokeh and the under corrected SA unusually in a relatively high contrast optic, and you are prepared to deal with the peripheral resolution. It's not an all purpose fifty.
) 
