Thanks again Fred. I think you saved me $2K (CAD).
After looking at the RAW files you posted, I'm sure this is not an investment I would get much satisfaction out of. In fact, I find the sharpness to be terrible and the bokeh less pleasing than the FE55 in many shots. The f/1.4 aperture is appealing in such a small lens, but that's about it.
Here are some 100% crops...
This bokeh torture test is not flattering for the C-Sonnar IMHO.
If you want sharp in the sonar it's under corrected so you need to add structure and some clarity and it pops more. It's not a general purpose lens by any stretch
GMPhotography wrote:
If you want sharp in the sonar it's under corrected so you need to add structure and some clarity and it pops more. It's not a general purpose lens by any stretch
Just had a look at all the RAW files S Sobrinsky posted on previous page (Thanks btw!) and similar to virtualrain I am glad that I just saved myself $1.5k.
Have to say in each and every single comparison the FE55 comes out on top - noticeably sharper (not even close tbh), smoother bokeh (imo), less vignetting, the list goes on.
There's no amount of structure and clarity that can save the soft C Sonnar...and if I want a not-so-sharp lens with great character I have my $80 Helios 44-2
if you look at the first 4 pages of this thread, you can see where this lens shines - most of those are shot wide open with a centralized subject inside of 5 feet. when people talk about this being a specialized lens, that's what they're using it for. it is not a general purpose lens. if your kit and/or wallet have spare capacity for such a particular use, then enjoy it, otherwise, the 50/1.4 or 55/1.8 would be much better choices.
I have the FE 55 and Sonnar C. A bunch of other 50s too. Past and present. Yes, the FE 55 surpasses the Sonnar on all tech measures. But I look at the photos and a different, more nuanced story emerges. They are lovely pictures. I shoot the FE 55 more, but I probably have more favs taken with the Sonnar. A lens I think you shoot with for a while and then love or hate. Love mine. Was $750 or so well spent in my case...
virtualrain wrote:
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.
I have both the FE55 and ZM50/1.5 and there's definitely room in the bag for both of them, though I haven't been carrying both at the same time. The FE55 is very predictably good throughout the range, but I personally prefer the look of the Sonnar from 1.5-2.8. I was trying to figure out why, as when zoomed in the FE55 bokeh is really smooth compared to the Sonnar, even with the Sonnar at f/1.7 to take the edge off of the rings. For me, it comes down to the round vs. cat's eye shape at the periphery. I'm just not a huge fan of the swirly look, and the Sonnar is one of the few bokeh character lenses I find appealing. Different strokes I guess.
My wife and I spent a couple weeks in Spain, and my kit usually boiled down to either the A7II with a FE16-35 and FE55, or the A7m (Kolari vII) with the ZM25/2.8, ZM35/2.8, and ZM50/1.5. The AF combo is easy to shoot and the lenses have pretty predictable performance across the frame, best at f/5.6-8. The ZM's are tricky even with the mod, but I have to say that at the pixel level, carefully focused, the ZM25/35 combo is visibly better than the zoom, and I have a pretty good 16-35 copy even at 35mm.
I need to do a side-by-side of the ZM50 on A7m and FE55 on A7II, as I wonder if the ZM50 is giving up a bit with the unmodified sensor. However for evening photos, I carried the ZM50 on the A7II to take advantage of the IBIS and keep my shutter speeds up, and I was happy with mid to long distance "moody" shots from f/1.7-2.8 at night as long as I cropped to 4x5. The corners of the frame can indeed get ugly with this lens until well stopped down, and even then it can't touch the FE55.
Hi. I reread your earlier post and it jives with what a lot of others say... that this lens offers a special look. And you also mention how you are surprised at the level of interest in this lens... me too
I'm just not seeing amything special in the comparison shots you posted. I guess it's just me. It seems very similar to the FE55 but softer. Maybe wide open it offers more of a special look.
Either way, its fine... it's just not got any compelling benefits for me.
I really appreciate your and others time in posting the comparison shots. Thank you!
virtualrain wrote:
Hi. I reread your earlier post and it jives with what a lot of others say... that this lens offers a special look. And you also mention how you are surprised at the level of interest in this lens... me too
I'm just not seeing amything special in the comparison shots you posted. I guess it's just me. It seems very similar to the FE55 but softer. Maybe wide open it offers more of a special look.
Either way, its fine... it's just not got any compelling benefits for me.
I really appreciate your and others time in posting the comparison shots. Thank you!...Show more →
You're welcome. I'd say they have different rendering. Perhaps the RAW files I posted didn't do a good job differentiating them.
The Sonnar-C has round bokeh balls even towards the edges and the disks are free of inner structures like onion ring patterns. At f/1.7 and f/2, there is almost no outlining around the edges. Out of focus is smooth for both lenses in the center and mid-field but the 55/1.8 remains smooth towards the edges, where the Sonnar-C gets a little harsher. (At least on the stock A7RII). The 55/1.8 OOF is also smoother a mid-distances in comparison. So, it really depends on your application.
As far as resolution, the 55/1.8 wins everywhere in the frame but, imo, the Sonnar-C is sharp enough from f/1.7 for its intended use.
If you already own the 55/1.8ZA, perhaps it does not make sense getting the Sonnar-C, especially if you are not a fan of its rendering.
If you are mainly concerned about lack or aberration, low vignetting and high resolution/contrast across the field, I would not recommend either lenses. Perhaps you should look at the new 50/1.4 ZA.
Fred Miranda wrote:
You're welcome. I'd say they have different rendering. Perhaps the RAW files I posted didn't do a good job differentiating them.
The Sonnar-C has round bokeh balls even towards the edges and the disks are free of inner structures like onion ring patterns. At f/1.7 and f/2, there is almost no outlining around the edges. Out of focus is smooth for both lenses in the center and mid-field but the 55/1.8 remains smooth towards the edges, where the Sonnar-C gets a little harsher. (At least on the stock A7RII). The 55/1.8 OOF is also smoother a mid-distances in comparison. So, it really depends on your application.
As far as resolution, the 55/1.8 wins everywhere in the frame but, imo, the Sonnar-C is sharp enough from f/1.7 for its intended use.
If you already own the 55/1.8ZA, perhaps it does not make sense getting the Sonnar-C, especially if you are not a fan of its rendering.
If you are mainly concerned about lack or aberration, low vignetting and high resolution/contrast across the field, I would not recommend either lenses. Perhaps you should look at the new 50/1.4 ZA....Show more →
Thanks again... perhaps people shots might reveal the differences more readily. I certainly saw your photos earlier in the thread which got me really interested... they are beautiful shots. But without the same shots taken with another lens, you really can't say whether they are special because of the lens or the subject, lighting, etc. I'm not looking for a perfect lens, although to me, the FE55 is damn close to perfect for my needs. In this case, I was looking for something different and this is not sufficiently different, at least to my eyes, with those test shots. It just doesn't warrant the rather hefty expense (at least using Canadian pesos) for me.
GMPhotography wrote:
You want perfect than the 50 1.4 is the lens. No question
Yeah. That's a different mix of trade-offs altogether. Amazing optical performance but not without a price in terms of size and weight. I may go that way one day, but right now, the FE55 offers the best mix of attributes for my needs.
The best part of these forums is the extensive testing and comparisons people do with lenses. It makes buying decisions so easy (sometimes too easy!). .
ecarlino wrote:
if you look at the first 4 pages of this thread, you can see where this lens shines - most of those are shot wide open with a centralized subject inside of 5 feet. when people talk about this being a specialized lens, that's what they're using it for.
Trust me I do like what I see with what others have posted in this thread, but there are 3 issues -
1) They have been downsized
2) They have been processed
3) Skills of the photographer makes a difference
After looking at not just the RAW files from the C Sonnar but with identical shots with the FE55 it's clear that the rendering difference is subtle (tbh I prefer the FE55), sharpness wise the FE55 is miles ahead (everything from the C Sonnar looks like mush).
So there's really no logical reason of buying this lens...
What amazed me about this thread is the number of people piling on to what I expected to be a specialised thread about the nice look this lens has at close distances and fairly wide apertures and with particular backgrounds, where the field curvature and residual SA create a nice look with a fairly sharp centre. You ay a lot for these features, and you don't get a general purpose lens. (you can also get a similar look from a sonnar copy with the Jupiter-3, though with less contrast though a lot less money)
I'm guessing people were hoping that somehow a 1937 design had done what can't be done now: design an f1.4 class 50mm lens with high resolution across the field at all apertures jn a tiny body! Sorry no.
It does render differently from the FE 55 in a way I really enjoy, but only noticeably in specific conditions of background, distance and aperture.
It's not a lens to consider unless you are in the market for an extra lens on top of your basic kit that has this look. And if you want to experiment with older designs with interesting looks, you would be better off starting with a Helios 40-2 or a Jupiter-3 both of which will give interesting looks in these cirumstances fora lot less money (and a Helios will be sharper stopped down, or at least a late Helios-7 will be...)
Who said the Art of Photography is logical. This is a Visual ART. A different paintbrush
kin2son wrote:
Trust me I do like what I see with what others have posted in this thread, but there are 3 issues -
1) They have been downsized
2) They have been processed
3) Skills of the photographer makes a difference
After looking at not just the RAW files from the C Sonnar but with identical shots with the FE55 it's clear that the rendering difference is subtle (tbh I prefer the FE55), sharpness wise the FE55 is miles ahead (everything from the C Sonnar looks like mush).
So there's really no logical reason of buying this lens...
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!)
no, definitely not. the zm is one of those lenses where you have to be careful about your background and stop down a fair bit to not have ugly distracting bokeh as well as always being a bit weak towards the edges. the lux has some character but is doesn't ever really surprise you with weakness imo.
honestly, even ignoring price, size, and focus method i would choose the lux (on a leica sensor) over the otus, sigma art, ZA FE 50/1.4, and the new cron AA (though i haven't shot with all of those).
Hi, I have the C-sonnar and I really like it. I also have the Loxia 50 and feel this combo is really nice. I use the C-sonnar for travel, night shots, portraits and things where perfect corners and sharpness is not the most important. It is a lot less bulky than the FE55 and it works really good with the TAP. I use the Loxia 50 when I need sharp corners and more controlled performance. Both lenses can delivery very good 3D pop.
How do you guys test these lenses (M-lenses etc.) on your A7? I usually use the decentring method. But the corners on this lens is not very sharp before you hit F11. Is it enough just to compere if the corners are equal at F11?
ecarlino wrote:
if you look at the first 4 pages of this thread, you can see where this lens shines - most of those are shot wide open with a centralized subject inside of 5 feet. when people talk about this being a specialized lens, that's what they're using it for.
kin2son wrote:
So there's really no logical reason of buying this lens...
i think you're actually in agreement with me (whether you realize it or not) and yet you're missing my point:
Within a narrow set of circumstances (which is actually a frequent use-case for some) this lens has very special qualities.
Outside of that, the lens will perform similarly or worse than other options.
To repeat myself: if your bag or wallet can handle an 'extra' lens for those special (or regular, depending on what your normally shoot) situations, it's a great option. Otherwise, you're be better off with a more 'general' lens. To be clear, so you understand me, i think the lens, within its mandate, is beautiful, but it's not for me.
and i agree with Guy - since when did logic get involved?
sebboh wrote:
no, definitely not. the zm is one of those lenses where you have to be careful about your background and stop down a fair bit to not have ugly distracting bokeh as well as always being a bit weak towards the edges. the lux has some character but is doesn't ever really surprise you with weakness imo.
honestly, even ignoring price, size, and focus method i would choose the lux (on a leica sensor) over the otus, sigma art, ZA FE 50/1.4, and the new cron AA (though i haven't shot with all of those).
I would not mind trying which I had before in the past is a Leica 50mm 1.4 lux pre-asph. I wonder how it would be on our Sonys. Yuk price is stupid high at least 2k
.