ocean2059 wrote:
[
I had my ZM Sonnar 50/1.5 recalibrated by DAG years ago. At the time, he gave me the choice of recalibrating it at either f/1.5 or at f/2.8. I was told that the lens was cerebrated at f/2.8 out of factory when purchased new. So I believe it can be done at f/2.8. At f/4, the focus shit may not have that big of an effect.
Back then they were calibrated at f/2.8 but then Cosina shifted to calibrating them at f2, which is where mine is.
I also have a dual-range Summicron, which doesn't have focus shift and is a nice lens, but doesn't have that Sonnar rendering plus it's a lot heavier than the C-Sonnar. I like 'em both.
mahimihi wrote:
Why not go for the Voigtlander 50f1.5 Nokton II and avoid the focus shift problem?
RustyBug wrote:
Does it draw like the Sonnar?
I had the previous version 50/1.5 Nokton LTM and felt its rendering was quite close to the 50 Lux ASPH, which means not very Sonnar-like, IMO. I have a few 50mm Sonnar variants (Zeiss Opton, Nikkor 5cm/1.4, 7Artisans 50/1.1) and all have focus shift, which appears to be inherent in the design, likely due to SA.
mahimihi wrote:
Why not go for the Voigtlander 50f1.5 Nokton II and avoid the focus shift problem?
RustyBug wrote:
Does it draw like the Sonnar?
rscheffler wrote:
I had the previous version 50/1.5 Nokton LTM.
mahimihi wrote:
that’s not the lens I’m talking about.
My bad. In my mind the LTM was the first version and the first M version after it, which was optically the same, was the second model. If you meant the current VM 50/1.5, Fred reviewed it and you can get a sense of its rendering character from his photos. IMO that one too is more similar to the 50 Lux ASPH than a Sonnar style rendering.
mahimihi wrote:
However it “draws” the focusing issues aren’t worth it.
Well ... it seems that there are some folks who think it IS worth it.
My question isn't the matter of an absolute "deal breaker" for whether or not the Sonnar 1.5 is "worth it" or not. The issue of "worth it" is as subjective for someone's temperament for spending the effort to contend with focus shift issues, as for someone's temperament for spending the money for an APO SUmmilux, or their temperament for toting a larger, heavier lens with more optical correction, as to whether or not it is "worth it". The opinion of whether or not it is "worth it" never was my question.
I'm just trying to understand how close it is vs. isn't to having a similar draw. I figure there's a sliding scale wrt to lens design regarding the way it draws vs. the way the focus shifts. Given the infinite range of lens designs (Sonnar, Planar, Double Gauss, Tessar, Petzal, etc.) through the elemental combinations of design, any two given lenses are going to have some degree of optical properties of similarities and differences.
There are certain aspects of optics that can be diametrically opposed in a quid pro quo kind of way. The matter of draw and focus shift seem to have a certain interdependence for some lenses and lens design approaches. What is being "traded away" in the draw, in order to achieve a lens with absolutely no focus shift, may not be "worth it" to trade away that much of the draw. So, it's my goal to understand what the draw variance vs. focus shift variance is between the Sonnar and the Voigt you've recommended for consideration ... i.e. I'm considering your recommendation, so I'd like to understand more of it (thus the question). From which I'll make my own assessment of whether or not (either) the lens is "worth it" or not. Worth ... is entirely subjective. Optical properties are much more technically objective. Whether or not those technical objectives are desirable or not ... back to highly subjective, and relative to both temperament and application.
So, my question remains ... does it draw like the Sonnar?
RustyBug wrote:
Well ... it seems that there are some folks who think it IS worth it.
My question isn't the matter of an absolute "deal breaker" for whether or not the Sonnar 1.5 is "worth it" or not. The issue of "worth it" is as subjective for someone's temperament for spending the effort to contend with focus shift issues, as for someone's temperament for spending the money for an APO SUmmilux, or their temperament for toting a larger, heavier lens with more optical correction, as to whether or not it is "worth it". The opinion of whether or not it is "worth it" never was my question.
I'm just trying to understand how close it is vs. isn't to having a similar draw. I figure there's a sliding scale wrt to lens design regarding the way it draws vs. the way the focus shifts. Given the infinite range of lens designs (Sonnar, Planar, Double Gauss, Tessar, Petzal, etc.) through the elemental combinations of design, any two given lenses are going to have some degree of optical properties of similarities and differences.
There are certain aspects of optics that can be diametrically opposed in a quid pro quo kind of way. The matter of draw and focus shift seem to have a certain interdependence for some lenses and lens design approaches. What is being "traded away" in the draw, in order to achieve a lens with absolutely no focus shift, may not be "worth it" to trade away that much of the draw. So, it's my goal to understand what the draw variance vs. focus shift variance is between the Sonnar and the Voigt you've recommended for consideration ... i.e. I'm considering your recommendation, so I'd like to understand more of it (thus the question). From which I'll make my own assessment of whether or not (either) the lens is "worth it" or not. Worth ... is entirely subjective. Optical properties are much more technically objective. Whether or not those technical objectives are desirable or not ... back to highly subjective, and relative to both temperament and application.
So, my question remains ... does it draw like the Sonnar? ...Show more →
Some people love the lens. But most of the posts are complaining about the bad focus shift.
If that’s an issue then get the Nokton. Has no focus shift issues. If you shoot en EVF camera then it makes no difference.
I don’t know what you mean by draw. I don’t think 2 different lenses will produce the exact same image. No.
I am not saying that there isn't focus shift. I am saying that I never thought about it, never accounted for it when shooting and never had to throw away a shot because of it.
Maybe I am not picky, maybe it is because I am shooting film and scanning and occasionally printing. Admittedly, I only used wider apertures in low light, but for me, the talk of focus shift overshadows, the gem of a lens this is.
That is also why I shared some recent photos to counter balance the argument against this lens. I bought the lens based on this very thread. The sample photos, tests and discussions from Fred, David and many others convinced me.
The interesting thing on the forum is that the most vociferous critics tend to be those who lack first-hand experience with the equipment. but I suppose that is internet.
