Yes to that, expwmbat. It's a fascinating but quirky lens.
I see a very high macro-contrast that was capable of delivering ugly blowouts at the high end of the tone range and the deepest shadows - in the same image! It has the singular achievement of defeating the 'broad as the ocean' dynamic range of the Sony sensors.
The compressed colour range required a lot of post time to get close to fixing. When you work with a lot of close tones, you get the best results from lenses that can separate these subtones to show the scene more as you saw it. Colours from the C-S resisted this in post work. You can see this in my images here of the Nubra Valley people.
Many Himalayan people have difficult skin tones in any case – brown bordering on orange, or sallow yellow-brown tones. It’s a real world test. And it is exacerbated by features that they are surrounded by that are of similar colour, like you see in the rocks and the woman’s face in p. 27 #12 above. It might not bother other people, but it rankles with me.
Also, even powerful post methods that work well with other lenses, like Selective Color and HSB in PS and the Hue controls in ACR don’t work well. See the girl’s jumper below (#1), look at the front and sleeves to see colour error there. I doubt it’s from her washing machine. Hues from the C-S often do not stay constant with changes in tone (brightness). Flat white walls are also prone to unexpected tonal shifts.
Adding to this was the sheer inconsistency of results, which is hard to live with. It’s a fine lens and you get some excellent work from it on occasions, but I am used to lenses where if the results are not good, it’s on me. For comparison, see the close up last in this series, multiple light sources, indoors but IMO a solid result.
poor forehead - hair separation, poor tolerance of skin imperfections
orange tones very close together: faces and wall
.. Contax 100/3.5 .. natural tones, excellent hue control
I like this photo, but let me assure you her face did not go from deep orange forehead and temples to a pale skin-coloured chin when I took it. It looks like someone used polish from the cabinet on her hairline and upper face. eek.
philip_pj wrote:
I like this photo, but let me assure you her face did not go from deep orange forehead and temples to a pale skin-coloured chin when I took it. It looks like someone used polish from the cabinet on her hairline and upper face. eek.
It's probably because a significant portion of directional light came from below her chin. Perhaps reflected off a light colored floor and likely has a blue bias due to the coolness of the whites of her eyes. The catchlights in the eyes suggest a lower light source as does the shading above the tip of her nose. So it would be natural for her chin to be brighter and cooler in color while the forehead and temples are darker because they are angled away from the dominant light source. There could be fill light affecting those areas reflected off warmer colored surfaces that mixed with skin tone and caused an increase in warmth.
I understand the mechanism and the process, light was bouncing around the shop. No light source under here chin. The main source was the door to my right and window to my left, clearly shown in her eyes. My points stand - that this lens is (i) far more susceptible to light contamination of colour, and (ii) is much harder to remediate, and (iii) has poor colour separation for near and adjacent tones and tonal gradation. As explained above. These are some of the better examples..
philip_pj wrote:
I understand the mechanism and the process, light was bouncing around the shop. No light source under here chin. The main source was the door to my right and window to my left, clearly shown in her eyes. My points stand - that this lens is (i) far more susceptible to light contamination of colour, and (ii) is much harder to remediate, and (iii) has poor colour separation for near and adjacent tones and tonal gradation. As explained above. These are some of the better examples..
I have directly experienced significant copy variation—my second copy is absolutely excellent compared to the first. I agree that your point stands; despite my love for the lens it can be difficult. However, I think that not using the lens in high contrast circumstances mitigates those results—indeed, I think it can have fine color separation and tonal gradation, under a narrower set of circumstances. Additionally, under those conditions it can produce wonderful textures.
I can’t upload images, but it’s a “shadows” lens for me when taking environmental portraits.
I'm not sure it is copy related. In my pre-trip images, they were all great, fabulous colour intensity but still you had to work the post controls harder than other legacy or M lenses I have. Here a few more with mixed results. Another thing is that arms and particularly hands look just fine, go figure. The C-Sonnar doesn't like faces!
orange face skin girl, dad looks good.
a great shame, a really lovely girl, tough shadow recovery here.
I kept her low tone as an attempted workaround - less is more obvious!
Yes—I suspect that the light conditions where you make your images are too bright and high contrast for that lens. I recommend the R 60/2.8 as a really interesting and versatile vintage lens. From my experience this year, it excels under high contrast conditions.
You're right, or put a better way, I agree with you.
Forgotten now, but many of the R lenses were terrific, the portrait Summicrons, even their 35-70/4 and the special longer teles and zooms. Great colours and excellent separation were obviously very important in the 90s lenses. Here is another to round off my last contribution here. It's to show how the C-S handles a tough landscape challenge.
After considerable recovery, it's still left with excessive blue contamination in the far mountains (despite the pale sky) and in close by shadows too. The blown prayer flags and rocks on the mani wall are gone, never to return. The nearby mountains have this greasy dull mix of blue shadow and red rock. The chortens (mudbrick) are overly yellow. Sharpness is nothing to be happy about, it is suggested rather than demonstrated. I would have to really do a number on it by basically remaking the image with various edits each tailored for each artefact. You can almost feel the bent field looking around the image.
I really enjoy your analysis and explanation. That image might look closer to good in black and white, but it’s a great example regardless of why having different lenses for different situations makes sense.
Thank you. As you gather, I am a lover of controversy. It's only through the expression of varying viewpoints that we escape the scourge of groupthink. You might enjoy this one if you have not seen it before:
I've just purchased the C-Sonnar again. I've owned it many years ago (samples on the first pages of this thread) and was using it adapted to Sony. It will be interesting to see how it performs on the M-10R and I will probably compare it to the new Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5C...It will be the batter of the 50mm Classic designs.
It may not be the sharpest lens, especially off-axis but I remember it having fantastic contrast and unique rendering.
My 50/1.5C is coming tomorrow and perhaps someone can answer this question.
I remember reading that when this lens came out, due to focus shift, Zeiss was optimizing it for RF focus at f/2.8. After the initial feedback, they decided to optimize focus for wide open (f/1.5) which was also not ideal for many shooters. As far as I understand, most recently Zeiss is calibrating the 50/1.5 Classic to f/2 so we can get the best compromise between wide open and f/2.8 with perfect focus at f/2.
Has anyone who purchase it recently being able to calibrate it for f/1.5 by removing an internal shim?
Fred Miranda wrote:
My 50/1.5C is coming tomorrow and perhaps someone can answer this question.
I remember reading that when this lens came out, due to focus shift, Zeiss was optimizing it for RF focus at f/2.8. After the initial feedback, they decided to optimize focus for wide open (f/1.5) which was also not ideal for many shooters. As far as I understand, most recently Zeiss is calibrating the 50/1.5 Classic to f/2 so we can get the best compromise between wide open and f/2.8 with perfect focus at f/2.
Has anyone who purchase it recently being able to calibrate it for f/1.5 by removing an internal shim?...Show more →
Fred, I’m skeptical not so much about these C Sonnar calibration stories but rather in which order the recalibration(s) occurred because I’ve read various contradictory theories about this issue. I bought my C Sonnar 50/1.5 new in 2012 and used it for a number of years on a variety of Sony mirrorless cameras in which case focus shift was irrelevant. I got my Leica M10-P at the beginning of 2019 and, when I got around to testing carefully for focus shift, I found that rangefinder focusing was most accurate at f/2. This would appear to contradict the f/2.8 —> f/1.5 —> f/2 scenario you’ve outlined because mine is not a recent copy but, on the other hand, a single data point proves nothing. I’ll be interested to hear what aperture your C Sonnar is optimised for. Did you buy it new?
Fred Miranda wrote:
My 50/1.5C is coming tomorrow and perhaps someone can answer this question.
I remember reading that when this lens came out, due to focus shift, Zeiss was optimizing it for RF focus at f/2.8. After the initial feedback, they decided to optimize focus for wide open (f/1.5) which was also not ideal for many shooters. As far as I understand, most recently Zeiss is calibrating the 50/1.5 Classic to f/2 so we can get the best compromise between wide open and f/2.8 with perfect focus at f/2.
Has anyone who purchase it recently being able to calibrate it for f/1.5 by removing an internal shim?...Show more →
This is something you should reach Zeiss. I'm sure they will gladly describe the optimization and it's history, as long as you reach the right person.
genji wrote:
Fred, I’m skeptical not so much about these C Sonnar calibration stories but rather in which order the recalibration(s) occurred because I’ve read various contradictory theories about this issue. I bought my C Sonnar 50/1.5 new in 2012 and used it for a number of years on a variety of Sony mirrorless cameras in which case focus shift was irrelevant. I got my Leica M10-P at the beginning of 2019 and, when I got around to testing carefully for focus shift, I found that rangefinder focusing was most accurate at f/2. This would appear to contradict the f/2.8 —> f/1.5 —> f/2 scenario you’ve outlined because mine is not a recent copy but, on the other hand, a single data point proves nothing. I’ll be interested to hear what aperture your C Sonnar is optimised for. Did you buy it new? ...Show more →
---------------------------------------------
Kalainen wrote:
This is something you should reach Zeiss. I'm sure they will gladly describe the optimization and it's history, as long as you reach the right person.
Thanks for the info. If Zeiss offers a change in calibration service, I'm sure it this can be done by the user since it's just a shim adjustment.
This is from Zeiss:
"The ZEISS C-Sonnar always comes with an adjustment of its flange focal distance (FFD) with the best compromise regarding its focus shift at all f-stops and taking distances. For most applications, this is the perfect adjustment for 95% of our users. If you intend to use the C-Sonnar only at f/1.5 and closer working distances, a different adjustment of its FFD could be considered.
We recommend running some practical tests with your M-mount camera body before considering an individual adjustment of your lens. If you determine an adjustment of the focus is necessary at f/1.5, then the lens can be sent to ZEISS for adjustment.
If the lens is under warranty, this work is completed at no charge. If the lens is out of warranty, then a service charge is applicable."
So, my 50/1.5 Classic arrived today and it's indeed optimized at f/2 just as Zeiss described. It has a very late serial number starting at "517".
I've checked if there were 'shims' behind the lens mount and there were none. That's surprising since most of the ZM lenses I've tested had shims for RF adjustment. Oh well...
It does not bother me as I usually shoot this lens at f/1.7 where it's still optimal and if I want to shoot wide open, I just have to adjust focus ring a tad counter-clockwise from perfect rangefinder focus.
Fred Miranda wrote:
So, my 50/1.5 Classic arrived today and it's indeed optimized at f/2 just as Zeiss described. It has a very late serial number starting at "517".
'veI checked if there were 'shims' behind the lens mount and there were none. That's surprising since most of the ZM lenses I've tested had shims for RF adjustment. Oh well...
It does not bother me as I usually shoot this lens at f/1.7 where it's still optimal and if I want to shoot wide open, I just have to adjust focus ring a tad counter-clockwise from perfect rangefinder focus.
@fredmiranda and @genji. I have owned 3 copies of the ZM 50/1.5 over the years, not one has been optimized for 1.5 (though the seller said it had been, but then again could offer not service record of the adjustment). My conclusion from inconclusive/contradictory reports from research online is this: originally, the ZM 50/1.5 came shipped with f2.8 optimization. Later, Zeiss shifted it to f2 from the factory. However, at any point, you could send your ZM 50/1.5 to have it optimized at either 1.5, 2 or 2.8, though 1.5 seems to be the most common.
Given that a lens could be altered at any time in the production run, serial numbers do not indicate precisely the focus shift optimization.
I have tried to get 2 different copies optimized. It's about $180 US and the lens has to be sent to Germany with about a 6 week wait window in the US, but with COVID, there was no saying how long it would take, so I opted not to. My current copy is optimized at f2.8 on the m240 (now sold) and Ikon (still shooting). Even at f2 at most distances, OOF ruins the photo unless I am at f2.8. My serial ends in --5913.
I also have an MS Optics Sonnetar (another fast classic 1.5 Sonnar design with shift till f2.8) which has a "coma" adjustment setting, which modifies the focal shift given a constant aperture (it also decreases or increases SA, which makes the bokeh softer or harsher). You screw the barrel which engirdles the rear element, no shims involved. I think you are effectively changing the spacing between elements. Perhaps this is what Zeiss does with their Sonnar too, though I've not heard reports of bokeh or SA being altered following a ZM 50/1.5 modification, so perhaps not.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
@fredmiranda@ and @genji. I have owned 3 copies of the ZM 50/1.5 over the years, not one has been optimized for 1.5 (though the seller said it had been, but then again could offer not service record of the adjustment). My conclusion from inconclusive/contradictory reports from research online is this: originally, the ZM 50/1.5 came shipped with f2.8 optimization. Later, Zeiss shifted it to f2 from the factory. However, at any point, you could send your ZM 50/1.5 to have it optimized at either 1.5, 2 or 2.8, though 1.5 seems to be the most common.
Given that a lens could be altered at any time in the production run, serial numbers do not indicate precisely the focus shift optimization.
I have tried to get 2 different copies optimized. It's about $180 US and the lens has to be sent to Germany with about a 6 week wait window in the US, but with COVID, there was no saying how long it would take, so I opted not to. My current copy is optimized at f2.8 on the m240 (now sold) and Ikon (still shooting). Even at f2 at most distances, OOF ruins the photo unless I am at f2.8. My serial ends in --5913.
I also have an MS Optics Sonnetar (another fast classic 1.5 Sonnar design with shift till f2.8) which has a "coma" adjustment setting, which modifies the focal shift given a constant aperture (it also decreases or increases SA, which makes the bokeh softer or harsher). You screw the barrel which engirdles the rear element, no shims involved. I think you are effectively changing the spacing between elements. Perhaps this is what Zeiss does with their Sonnar too, though I've not heard reports of bokeh or SA being altered following a ZM 50/1.5 modification, so perhaps not. ...Show more →
And my nine year old C Sonnar, bought new, is optimised for f/2 too. Go figure.
My Sonnar C is optimized at f/2 and I learned to do what Fred is describing above to refocus it a bit at f/1.5. I found I could do that (by knowing how far off the "rangefinder perfect" needed to look) more consistently than the lean-forward-a-bit method. My Sonnar 50mm in Nikon rangefinder mount version is optimized at who knows what? The arguments about whether it was ever really made for Nikon mount or Contax mount confuse the issue too.
This lens in either mount is a major reason that I switched to Sony mirrorless years ago. Now there is no focus shift at all! .
