C-sonnar!
p.27 #1C-sonnar!
So, in 2020, what would be the best camera and adapter for this lens (setting aside Leica as it's out of my price range)? I have a Sony A7iii, would it make sense to get the Voigtländer VM – Sony E-Mount Close Focus with Infinity Lock as the adapter, or is that the wrong mount (I'm pretty ignorant about M-mount in general)?
I'm not totally wedded to Sony as I have no native e-mount glass. I've been pondering the new Panasonic S5 which has a somewhat thinner sensor stack; it looks like there are M-mount to L-mount adapters and I can adapt my other lenses to L-mount as well. I would have also considered the Sigma fp, which is L-mount, but the electronic-only shutter and lack of built-in EVF and tilt screen are dealbreakers for me.
I'm not totally wedded to Sony as I have no native e-mount glass. I've been pondering the new Panasonic S5 which has a somewhat thinner sensor stack; it looks like there are M-mount to L-mount adapters and I can adapt my other lenses to L-mount as well. I would have also considered the Sigma fp, which is L-mount, but the electronic-only shutter and lack of built-in EVF and tilt screen are dealbreakers for me.
Sep 26, 2020 at 12:27 PM
p.27 #2C-sonnar!
nehemiahphoto wrote:
I could not agree more.
I often find the most of the modern glass I own does not make the best images to my taste. I find I predominantly use modern glass for some type of optical correction (coma), features (AF) or size. In terms of aesthetics, I am not overly concerned with flare resistance, corner sharpness, flat field or some CA at the expense of rendering.
I have a surprising amount of all time-keepers from a relatively small smattering of lenses: Lux 75/80, ZM 50 1.5, G21, G28, Pentax 31, RX1, CY 35 1.4, Minolta 100/2, Minolta 58 1.2, CY...Show more →
The ZM 50/1.5 definitely captures a special look. It manages to have great contrast at f/2 which translates to beautiful bold colors. Although high frequency detail is not that high, it's a great characteristic for portraits. At f/2, I find it sharp at center and it performs a little better on the Leica M10 off-axis.
On the Sony though, I found it soft at mid-zone, especially wide open... That's where I usually place my subject and it's the only reason I no longer own this lens.
I could not agree more.
I often find the most of the modern glass I own does not make the best images to my taste. I find I predominantly use modern glass for some type of optical correction (coma), features (AF) or size. In terms of aesthetics, I am not overly concerned with flare resistance, corner sharpness, flat field or some CA at the expense of rendering.
I have a surprising amount of all time-keepers from a relatively small smattering of lenses: Lux 75/80, ZM 50 1.5, G21, G28, Pentax 31, RX1, CY 35 1.4, Minolta 100/2, Minolta 58 1.2, CY...Show more →
The ZM 50/1.5 definitely captures a special look. It manages to have great contrast at f/2 which translates to beautiful bold colors. Although high frequency detail is not that high, it's a great characteristic for portraits. At f/2, I find it sharp at center and it performs a little better on the Leica M10 off-axis.
On the Sony though, I found it soft at mid-zone, especially wide open... That's where I usually place my subject and it's the only reason I no longer own this lens.
Sep 26, 2020 at 12:42 PM
p.27 #3C-sonnar!
bjhurley wrote:
So, in 2020, what would be the best camera and adapter for this lens (setting aside Leica as it's out of my price range)? I have a Sony A7iii, would it make sense to get the Voigtländer VM – Sony E-Mount Close Focus with Infinity Lock as the adapter, or is that the wrong mount (I'm pretty ignorant about M-mount in general)?
Ah, I see David B-M answered my question about adapters in his review on philipreeve.net: "The helicoid is of less use because the quality of the lens drops off very quickly when mechanically focussed at close distances (you are much better off using an achromatic diopter to get a little closer) The infinity adjust is less useful than usual because you are not likely to be using this lens for infinity purposes except in an emergency. I found a cheap satin chrome look helicoid adapter for very little on eBay. I wouldn’t use the helicoid regularly, but it’s there if I need it."
So that's good news for my wallet at least. Now I just have to decide whether I want to buy the lens; its look seems just about perfect for a project I've been thinking about for a few years but there are other contenders as well that would be simpler and cheaper. I'll ponder it.
So, in 2020, what would be the best camera and adapter for this lens (setting aside Leica as it's out of my price range)? I have a Sony A7iii, would it make sense to get the Voigtländer VM – Sony E-Mount Close Focus with Infinity Lock as the adapter, or is that the wrong mount (I'm pretty ignorant about M-mount in general)?
Ah, I see David B-M answered my question about adapters in his review on philipreeve.net: "The helicoid is of less use because the quality of the lens drops off very quickly when mechanically focussed at close distances (you are much better off using an achromatic diopter to get a little closer) The infinity adjust is less useful than usual because you are not likely to be using this lens for infinity purposes except in an emergency. I found a cheap satin chrome look helicoid adapter for very little on eBay. I wouldn’t use the helicoid regularly, but it’s there if I need it."
So that's good news for my wallet at least. Now I just have to decide whether I want to buy the lens; its look seems just about perfect for a project I've been thinking about for a few years but there are other contenders as well that would be simpler and cheaper. I'll ponder it.
Sep 26, 2020 at 01:31 PM
p.27 #4C-sonnar!
bjhurley wrote:
Ah, I see David B-M answered my question about adapters in his review on philipreeve.net: "The helicoid is of less use because the quality of the lens drops off very quickly when mechanically focussed at close distances (you are much better off using an achromatic diopter to get a little closer) The infinity adjust is less useful than usual because you are not likely to be using this lens for infinity purposes except in an emergency. I found a cheap satin chrome look helicoid adapter for very little on eBay. I wouldn’t use the helicoid regularly, but it’s there if...Show more →
I've owned a number of adapters for my E mount system, from simple cheap ebay adapters, to fancy Novoflex, to cheap helicoid adapters to the fancy Voigtlander helicoid adapter...and the best and only one I have left is actually a Yeenon helicoid adapter. It's made of heavy brass like the Voigtlander and, from my experience, has near perfect tolerances. Quite an impressive piece of kit. It's not 'cheap' per se at about $180 US but it's cheaper than the Voigtlander and about the same price as the Novoflex but with a helicoid. I might consider the Hawks as an alternative but I'm happy with the Yeenon.
Here's a decent look at it from a post on DPReview:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55670011
bjhurley wrote
So, in 2020, what would be the best camera and adapter for this lens (setting aside Leica as it's out of my price range)? I have a Sony A7iii, would it make sense to get the Voigtländer VM – Sony E-Mount Close Focus with Infinity Lock as the adapter, or is that the wrong mount (I'm pretty ignorant about M-mount in general)?I've owned a number of adapters for my E mount system, from simple cheap ebay adapters, to fancy Novoflex, to cheap helicoid adapters to the fancy Voigtlander helicoid adapter...and the best and only one I have left is actually a Yeenon helicoid adapter. It's made of heavy brass like the Voigtlander and, from my experience, has near perfect tolerances. Quite an impressive piece of kit. It's not 'cheap' per se at about $180 US but it's cheaper than the Voigtlander and about the same price as the Novoflex but with a helicoid. I might consider the Hawks as an alternative but I'm happy with the Yeenon.
Here's a decent look at it from a post on DPReview:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55670011
Sep 26, 2020 at 03:06 PM
p.27 #5C-sonnar!
hanay78 wrote:
the flowers look so delicate! nice shots!
I often find the most of the modern glass I own does not make the best images to my taste. I find I predominantly use modern glass for some type of optical correction (coma), features (AF) or size. In terms of aesthetics, I am not overly concerned with flare resistance, corner sharpness, flat field or some CA at the expense of rendering.
I have a surprising amount of all time-keepers from a relatively small smattering of lenses: Lux 75/80, ZM 50 1.5, G21, G28, Pentax 31, RX1, CY 35 1.4, Minolta 100/2, Minolta 58 1.2, CY 50 1.7, Sonnetar 73 1.5 and GM 24 1.4.
Given the amount of lenses I've used and photos I've shot, it's quite a small number of lenses. Most are out of production, and the one in production are more rendering based. Very much against the consensus of FM with CV and Sigma lenses being favored.
Anyway, I just simply love the ZM 50 1.5. I recently swapped out my silver copy for a black copy optimized for f1.5. I really like it from f1.5 to f2.8 at MFD within 10 feet especially. I wish people would post more Sonnar photos on here too.They were--and thank you!
@bjhurley I use mine with a close-focus helicoid often. The lens does get softer with the closer focusing, but I often bump it down to f2-f2.8 to even that out while still getting the beautiful rendering at closer than MFD. All 3 below are shot below MFD.
@FredMiranda Yeah, honestly, to me, it's a special use lens. I do shoot it at f1.5 as I like the look, and at f2 it becomes much punchier and feels more modern. It's a classic dual character lens. I don't even like it for landscape stopped down to f8-f11, which is rare. And I too find the midzone blows before about f2.4-2.8. But even working within the limitations, I do find the images singularly gorgeous. And it's so small.
Do you have crops showing the difference from 1.5 to 2.8 on a Sony versus a Leica? I’ve only shot it on stock Sony.
f1.7 or 1.5
f2 (I think)
f1.5
the flowers look so delicate! nice shots!
nehemiahphoto wrote
I could not agree more.I often find the most of the modern glass I own does not make the best images to my taste. I find I predominantly use modern glass for some type of optical correction (coma), features (AF) or size. In terms of aesthetics, I am not overly concerned with flare resistance, corner sharpness, flat field or some CA at the expense of rendering.
I have a surprising amount of all time-keepers from a relatively small smattering of lenses: Lux 75/80, ZM 50 1.5, G21, G28, Pentax 31, RX1, CY 35 1.4, Minolta 100/2, Minolta 58 1.2, CY 50 1.7, Sonnetar 73 1.5 and GM 24 1.4.
Given the amount of lenses I've used and photos I've shot, it's quite a small number of lenses. Most are out of production, and the one in production are more rendering based. Very much against the consensus of FM with CV and Sigma lenses being favored.
Anyway, I just simply love the ZM 50 1.5. I recently swapped out my silver copy for a black copy optimized for f1.5. I really like it from f1.5 to f2.8 at MFD within 10 feet especially. I wish people would post more Sonnar photos on here too.
@bjhurley I use mine with a close-focus helicoid often. The lens does get softer with the closer focusing, but I often bump it down to f2-f2.8 to even that out while still getting the beautiful rendering at closer than MFD. All 3 below are shot below MFD.
@FredMiranda Yeah, honestly, to me, it's a special use lens. I do shoot it at f1.5 as I like the look, and at f2 it becomes much punchier and feels more modern. It's a classic dual character lens. I don't even like it for landscape stopped down to f8-f11, which is rare. And I too find the midzone blows before about f2.4-2.8. But even working within the limitations, I do find the images singularly gorgeous. And it's so small.
Do you have crops showing the difference from 1.5 to 2.8 on a Sony versus a Leica? I’ve only shot it on stock Sony.
f1.7 or 1.5
f2 (I think)
f1.5
Sep 27, 2020 at 01:06 AM
p.27 #6C-sonnar!
I also like using it with the helicoid—if you look through the pictures on the Flickr ZM C-Sonnar page you’ll see many I have made doing so, most between f1.5 and f2 (where the sharpness is excellent on my copy). While I rarely make images that aim for “everything sharp”, I have also used the camera for a fair number of more infinity-range landscapes. It can be quite good on some of these, but also merely adequate to mediocre. I find the outcome has more to do with my care in focus and composition than the lens, as they are nearly never images that would have been improved by merely being sharper.
I took a trip out to the Oregon coast in January to visit family, and many of my images are from this lens—almost all are some sort of landscape/nature. Some are on the Flickr page. Frankly, I don’t think this lens limits my ability to do the kind of landscape photography I like, and the rendering actually facilitates and makes it possible. The textures in particular are really lovely.
I use the Fotodiox Pro close focus/helicoid adapter for a long while—it’s very smooth and works well with a tab. I recently picked up a used Voigtlander close focus, which is a bit tight (just needs to be used more, I think) but smooth and slightly more compact. Definitely heavier. Both work just fine.
I still highly recommend this lens. It’s staying in my collection for sure. I rarely use it beyond f4, and mostly enjoy it between f1.5 and f2.
Cheers,
Daniel
I took a trip out to the Oregon coast in January to visit family, and many of my images are from this lens—almost all are some sort of landscape/nature. Some are on the Flickr page. Frankly, I don’t think this lens limits my ability to do the kind of landscape photography I like, and the rendering actually facilitates and makes it possible. The textures in particular are really lovely.
I use the Fotodiox Pro close focus/helicoid adapter for a long while—it’s very smooth and works well with a tab. I recently picked up a used Voigtlander close focus, which is a bit tight (just needs to be used more, I think) but smooth and slightly more compact. Definitely heavier. Both work just fine.
I still highly recommend this lens. It’s staying in my collection for sure. I rarely use it beyond f4, and mostly enjoy it between f1.5 and f2.
Cheers,
Daniel
Sep 27, 2020 at 07:32 AM
p.27 #7C-sonnar!
bjhurley wrote:
Ah, I see David B-M answered my question about adapters in his review on philipreeve.net: "The helicoid is of less use because the quality of the lens drops off very quickly when mechanically focussed at close distances (you are much better off using an achromatic diopter to get a little closer) The infinity adjust is less useful than usual because you are not likely to be using this lens for infinity purposes except in an emergency. I found a cheap satin chrome look helicoid adapter for very little on eBay. I wouldn’t use the helicoid regularly, but it’s there if...Show more →
i'm gonna respectfully disagree with David here. yes, performance is degraded breaking the mfd with a helicoid adapter, but if that bothers you, you should buy a different lens. the sonnar is not about maximizing image quality it is about getting a particular look and you can definitely get that look at closer in than the very limiting 0.9m mfd.
here's a few shots taken closer than the mfd:
Ah, I see David B-M answered my question about adapters in his review on philipreeve.net: "The helicoid is of less use because the quality of the lens drops off very quickly when mechanically focussed at close distances (you are much better off using an achromatic diopter to get a little closer) The infinity adjust is less useful than usual because you are not likely to be using this lens for infinity purposes except in an emergency. I found a cheap satin chrome look helicoid adapter for very little on eBay. I wouldn’t use the helicoid regularly, but it’s there if...Show more →
i'm gonna respectfully disagree with David here. yes, performance is degraded breaking the mfd with a helicoid adapter, but if that bothers you, you should buy a different lens. the sonnar is not about maximizing image quality it is about getting a particular look and you can definitely get that look at closer in than the very limiting 0.9m mfd.
here's a few shots taken closer than the mfd:
Sep 28, 2020 at 01:20 AM
p.27 #8C-sonnar!
sebboh wrote:
i'm gonna respectfully disagree with David here. yes, performance is degraded breaking the mfd with a helicoid adapter, but if that bothers you, you should buy a different lens. the sonnar is not about maximizing image quality it is about getting a particular look and you can definitely get that look at closer in than the very limiting 0.9m mfd
Thanks @sebboh! Yes, it's the look I'm after, not performance. I have a particular project in mind for this lens, but I think I'd end up using it a lot in daily photography.
My main hesitation is that I'm currently all-in on Rokkors: I have the 28/2, the 35/1.8 (which I am finding pretty magical), the 55/1.7, the 85/1.7, and the 100/2.5, all of them MC except the 28/2 which is an MD. I appreciate the consistency in colors across these lenses, which was one of Minolta's hallmarks as they made their own glass and were very focused on consistency across focal lengths. It makes them especially useful for cinematography, which is something I've been doing for the past 3 years. The rendering is also pretty similar across the shorter focal lengths; the longer lenses (in my case 85 and 100mm) have amazing bokeh but seem a bit more conventional to me in terms of their overall look. Apart from an Angénieux-inspired Tokina 28-70 2.6/2.8 zoom that I use mainly on cinema cameras, the Rokkors are the only full-frame lenses I own.
My cheap 55/1.7 has a lot of the character of the 58/1.2 but I feel it doesn't have quite the same magic, so the practical choice for me to get the 58/1.2 even though it's big and heavy compared with either the 55/1.7 that I already have or the C-Sonnar that I'm contemplating. The other option is to wait and see what the new Voigtländer 50 has to offer before making a decision.
The C-Sonnar has its own unique look and the Rokkor 58/1.2 has its own unique look; they are both compelling and I could get both but I'm trying to avoid lens proliferation. I think it takes time to understand character lenses like this and learn how to get the best out of them, and I don't want to spread myself too thin.
i'm gonna respectfully disagree with David here. yes, performance is degraded breaking the mfd with a helicoid adapter, but if that bothers you, you should buy a different lens. the sonnar is not about maximizing image quality it is about getting a particular look and you can definitely get that look at closer in than the very limiting 0.9m mfd
Thanks @sebboh! Yes, it's the look I'm after, not performance. I have a particular project in mind for this lens, but I think I'd end up using it a lot in daily photography.
My main hesitation is that I'm currently all-in on Rokkors: I have the 28/2, the 35/1.8 (which I am finding pretty magical), the 55/1.7, the 85/1.7, and the 100/2.5, all of them MC except the 28/2 which is an MD. I appreciate the consistency in colors across these lenses, which was one of Minolta's hallmarks as they made their own glass and were very focused on consistency across focal lengths. It makes them especially useful for cinematography, which is something I've been doing for the past 3 years. The rendering is also pretty similar across the shorter focal lengths; the longer lenses (in my case 85 and 100mm) have amazing bokeh but seem a bit more conventional to me in terms of their overall look. Apart from an Angénieux-inspired Tokina 28-70 2.6/2.8 zoom that I use mainly on cinema cameras, the Rokkors are the only full-frame lenses I own.
My cheap 55/1.7 has a lot of the character of the 58/1.2 but I feel it doesn't have quite the same magic, so the practical choice for me to get the 58/1.2 even though it's big and heavy compared with either the 55/1.7 that I already have or the C-Sonnar that I'm contemplating. The other option is to wait and see what the new Voigtländer 50 has to offer before making a decision.
The C-Sonnar has its own unique look and the Rokkor 58/1.2 has its own unique look; they are both compelling and I could get both but I'm trying to avoid lens proliferation. I think it takes time to understand character lenses like this and learn how to get the best out of them, and I don't want to spread myself too thin.
Sep 28, 2020 at 04:34 AM
p.27 #9C-sonnar!
I wrote a short take on this now-sold lens. But the last thing people need right now is more negativity, and everyone has his own opinion on it in any case. So here are a few images from my best efforts at recovery from the (utterly abominable) OOC RAWs.
C Sonnar
C Sonnar
C Sonnar (two minutes later!)
C Sonnar
C Sonnar
C Sonnar (two minutes later!)
Aug 15, 2021 at 06:58 PM
|
p.27 #11C-sonnar!
I have a disproportionate number of keepers from my formerly owned ZM Sonnar 50. I look on buy and sell sometimes, hoping the price comes down. Doesn’t seem to have moved for years, so obviously many others appreciate its qualities.
Aug 15, 2021 at 09:42 PM
p.27 #12C-sonnar!
darrellc wrote:
I have a disproportionate number of keepers from my formerly owned ZM Sonnar 50. I look on buy and sell sometimes, hoping the price comes down. Doesn’t seem to have moved for years, so obviously many others appreciate its qualities.
Great pics! Love the first one of the kid with the ice cream. How did you get so close? Mine doesn't focus that close.
I have a disproportionate number of keepers from my formerly owned ZM Sonnar 50. I look on buy and sell sometimes, hoping the price comes down. Doesn’t seem to have moved for years, so obviously many others appreciate its qualities.
Great pics! Love the first one of the kid with the ice cream. How did you get so close? Mine doesn't focus that close.
Aug 15, 2021 at 10:19 PM
p.27 #13C-sonnar!
Thx! Believe that was with the Hawk’s factory close focus helicoid adapter. I also had the voigtlander and tech art but preferred the hawks when I was adapting such lenses to Sony.
Desmolicious wrote:
Great pics! Love the first one of the kid with the ice cream. How did you get so close? Mine doesn't focus that close.
Desmolicious wrote:
darrellc wrote
I have a disproportionate number of keepers from my formerly owned ZM Sonnar 50. I look on buy and sell sometimes, hoping the price comes down. Doesn’t seem to have moved for years, so obviously many others appreciate its qualities.Aug 15, 2021 at 10:31 PM
p.27 #14C-sonnar!
sebboh wrote:
i'm gonna respectfully disagree with David here. yes, performance is degraded breaking the mfd with a helicoid adapter, but if that bothers you, you should buy a different lens. the sonnar is not about maximizing image quality it is about getting a particular look and you can definitely get that look at closer in than the very limiting 0.9m mfd.
here's a few shots taken closer than the mfd:
http://live.staticflickr.com/930/26653062997_428cfc1201_h.jpg
http://live.staticflickr.com/4493/37585258340_c8934f21d6_h.jpg
http://live.staticflickr.com/2869/33290878900_b5a7382792_b.jpg
http://live.staticflickr.com/4471/37133031684_66bd71753b_h.jpg
I don’t really disagree, if someone is good with even less resolution and more FC at closer distances using a helicoid, that’s a perfectly valid option, to get the look.
I think in my review I said you might occasionally want to do that: but you can keep the look but with much less performance loss using an achromatic diopter for closer focus. Of course more hassle.
bjhurley wrote
Ah, I see David B-M answered my question about adapters in his review on philipreeve.net: "The helicoid is of less use because the quality of the lens drops off very quickly when mechanically focussed at close distances (you are much better off using an achromatic diopter to get a little closer) The infinity adjust is less useful than usual because you are not likely to be using this lens for infinity purposes except in an emergency. I found a cheap satin chrome look helicoid adapter for very little on eBay. I wouldn’t use the helicoid regularly, but it’s there if I need it."here's a few shots taken closer than the mfd:
http://live.staticflickr.com/930/26653062997_428cfc1201_h.jpg
http://live.staticflickr.com/4493/37585258340_c8934f21d6_h.jpg
http://live.staticflickr.com/2869/33290878900_b5a7382792_b.jpg
http://live.staticflickr.com/4471/37133031684_66bd71753b_h.jpg
I don’t really disagree, if someone is good with even less resolution and more FC at closer distances using a helicoid, that’s a perfectly valid option, to get the look.
I think in my review I said you might occasionally want to do that: but you can keep the look but with much less performance loss using an achromatic diopter for closer focus. Of course more hassle.
Aug 16, 2021 at 02:37 AM
p.27 #15C-sonnar!
darrellc wrote:
Thx! Believe that was with the Hawk’s factory close focus helicoid adapter. I also had the voigtlander and tech art but preferred the hawks when I was adapting such lenses to Sony.
Great pics! Love the first one of the kid with the ice cream. How did you get so close? Mine doesn't focus that close.
Gotcha! Yeah, using it on a film M Leica you can't do that!
Now excuse me for bringing this up but... that's why I also use a 7Artisans 50 1.1. Sonnar design and it also lets you focus down to .7m, not 1m like the Zeiss. A big deal on a rangefinder camera.
Another thing that is so good on the ZM is the lens coating.
Thx! Believe that was with the Hawk’s factory close focus helicoid adapter. I also had the voigtlander and tech art but preferred the hawks when I was adapting such lenses to Sony.
Desmolicious wrote
darrellc wrote
I have a disproportionate number of keepers from my formerly owned ZM Sonnar 50. I look on buy and sell sometimes, hoping the price comes down. Doesn’t seem to have moved for years, so obviously many others appreciate its qualities.Gotcha! Yeah, using it on a film M Leica you can't do that!
Now excuse me for bringing this up but... that's why I also use a 7Artisans 50 1.1. Sonnar design and it also lets you focus down to .7m, not 1m like the Zeiss. A big deal on a rangefinder camera.
Another thing that is so good on the ZM is the lens coating.
Aug 16, 2021 at 10:36 AM
p.27 #17C-sonnar!
philip_pj wrote:
I wrote a short take on this now-sold lens. But the last thing people need right now is more negativity, and everyone has his own opinion on it in any case. So here are a few images from my best efforts at recovery from the (utterly abominable) OOC RAWs.
Can you like me to these thoughts—I’d be curious to hear your thoughts.
I wrote a short take on this now-sold lens. But the last thing people need right now is more negativity, and everyone has his own opinion on it in any case. So here are a few images from my best efforts at recovery from the (utterly abominable) OOC RAWs.
Can you like me to these thoughts—I’d be curious to hear your thoughts.
Aug 23, 2021 at 05:42 PM
p.27 #18C-sonnar!
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Can you like me to these thoughts—I’d be curious to hear your thoughts.
Ah, I read your post on the other Manual Lens thread about the C-Sonnar. It’s a lens that doesn’t work well (in my opinion) under high contrast circumstances—the colors go wrong. When it isn’t bright and high contrast, however, it can work magic. For my mid-length “normal” lenses, I found the Leica R 60/2.8 to be absolutely great under those high contrast conditions, so I swap it out depending on the light.
DJK
philip_pj wrote
I wrote a short take on this now-sold lens. But the last thing people need right now is more negativity, and everyone has his own opinion on it in any case. So here are a few images from my best efforts at recovery from the (utterly abominable) OOC RAWs.Ah, I read your post on the other Manual Lens thread about the C-Sonnar. It’s a lens that doesn’t work well (in my opinion) under high contrast circumstances—the colors go wrong. When it isn’t bright and high contrast, however, it can work magic. For my mid-length “normal” lenses, I found the Leica R 60/2.8 to be absolutely great under those high contrast conditions, so I swap it out depending on the light.
DJK
Aug 23, 2021 at 06:36 PM
p.27 #19C-sonnar!
https://www.dearsusan.net/2015/06/14/365-zeiss-c-sonnar-1-550-zm-on-sony-a7r-moody-modern-retro/
I’m reminded of this excellent review of this lens on Dear Susan… which nails the strengths and weaknesses of this lens quite well. It was a great moody, rainy Pacific Northwest lens lens that delivered a crazy number of keepers here in Seattle. But definitely not a versatile, general purpose 50.
I’m reminded of this excellent review of this lens on Dear Susan… which nails the strengths and weaknesses of this lens quite well. It was a great moody, rainy Pacific Northwest lens lens that delivered a crazy number of keepers here in Seattle. But definitely not a versatile, general purpose 50.
Aug 23, 2021 at 06:45 PM
p.27 #20C-sonnar!
expwmbat wrote:
Can you like me to these thoughts—I’d be curious to hear your thoughts.Ah, I read your post on the other Manual Lens thread about the C-Sonnar. It’s a lens that doesn’t work well (in my opinion) under high contrast circumstances—the colors go wrong. When it isn’t bright and high contrast, however, it can work magic. For my mid-length “normal” lenses, I found the Leica R 60/2.8 to be absolutely great under those high contrast conditions, so I swap it out depending on the light.
DJK
For sure. As a general 50mm's it's poor IMO. Even at F11 on a Sony stock sensor, I am not satisfied with it for landscapes or such. But to my mind, many character lenses are not great as generalist, including harsh lighting as well with flare or resolution or such. And the ones that are, like a GM 24 or Pentax 31, have character, but not near the likes of a ZM 50 or some older LTM glasses or pre-ash Summiluxes and such. Good to have options
nehemiahphoto wrote
philip_pj wrote
I wrote a short take on this now-sold lens. But the last thing people need right now is more negativity, and everyone has his own opinion on it in any case. So here are a few images from my best efforts at recovery from the (utterly abominable) OOC RAWs.DJK
For sure. As a general 50mm's it's poor IMO. Even at F11 on a Sony stock sensor, I am not satisfied with it for landscapes or such. But to my mind, many character lenses are not great as generalist, including harsh lighting as well with flare or resolution or such. And the ones that are, like a GM 24 or Pentax 31, have character, but not near the likes of a ZM 50 or some older LTM glasses or pre-ash Summiluxes and such. Good to have options
Aug 23, 2021 at 07:14 PM