I'm interested in getting this lens with M9. I would mainly be using it for portraits at f1.5. It seems like one of the biggest draw backs is the focus breathing from f1.5 to f2.8. Is that a big issue for those who have shot with it? When buying the lens it seems like some are optimized for f1.5 but some are optimized for f2.8. Is there anyway to know this before buying?
I think you mean focus shift, not focus breathing, right?
Focus breathing refers to a zoom-in/zoom-out effect that happens with some lenses as you focus.
Focus shift is when you focus at one aperture (e.g., wider open so you can see more clearly) and the lens loses focus when you change aperture (e.g., you stop down).
bjhurley wrote:
I think you mean focus shift, not focus breathing, right?
Focus breathing refers to a zoom-in/zoom-out effect that happens with some lenses as you focus.
Focus shift is when you focus at one aperture (e.g., wider open so you can see more clearly) and the lens loses focus when you change aperture (e.g., you stop down).
Opinions vary regarding the optimization, with the early versions supposedly optimized for f/1.5. It was introduced in late 2004 and I bought one about ten years ago, long before my switch from Sony to Leica M, using it mainly at f/2.8 with the Techart Pro so the focus shift was irrelevant. When I later tested it on a couple of different Leicas, the focus seemed to be most accurate about f/2.2. But frankly, it was so soft at and near wide open that I disposed of it.
Before you commit to the Sonnar 50 ZM, if you haven’t already done so I’d suggest that you read Roger Cicala’s comparison of 50mm Leica M and SLR lenses so that you’re aware of its shockingly low resolution wide open (which may of course be exactly what you’re after).
Then (again, if you’re not familiar with it) you’d do well to read Flavio Bosi’s comprehensive comparison of Leica M lenses, which includes the Sonnar ZM:
The ZM is usually optimized for f/1.5 at mid distance. It is easy and not too expansive adjust it for your camera with a repairmen, you can even make it at home if you have some basic skills, patience and few tools and some shims. Older copies were optimized stopped down cause they were said to be used on film, it is more common stop down on film, you do not have 1/4000, often you got a 400 iso film.
The shift need get used to it, shot wide open, stop down make the shot again, then try to compensate moving body or a little the barrel to get the wanted focus point.
After few try you will know, that a little misalignmen in RF patch or a movement to compensate, it is easier to do than explain writing.
If a photo is not perfectly focused zooming on display, but you find it nice, keep it, Sonnar is about look. People may like it or dislike.
This modern ZM has a more neutral picturing, if you like Sonnar look, in M39 mount you can find some alternatives, both cheaper and expansive (Serenar, Nikkor, Jupiter), obviousely less reliable on focusing.
It is very easy to check to see if it is optimized @ 1.5. Just shoot it at 1.5 - if the image is in focus, there you go!
This is an interesting lens that performs better in use than on MTF graphs.
Here are two pics I took @ 1.5 with my M10-R just to test it out. Full size, then 100% crop. No extra sharpening added - just whatever LR defaults to when you import.
I may get a copy to try. Lately I have been enamored by the M9 look with 28mm Ultron II. I find myself converting everything to B&W. I can't seem to get my Sony shots edited to get the same M9 look.
I'm still not sure Leica is for me, but I'm glad I started with the M9. The intended purpose of the Sonnar 50 seems to achieve that classic 50 look and may pair well with the M9. I can use a light extra light too. I'd prefer to keep ISO under 1000 for that Kodal sensor.
gordec wrote:
I may get a copy to try. Lately I have been enamored by the M9 look with 28mm Ultron II. I find myself converting everything to B&W. I can't seem to get my Sony shots edited to get the same M9 look.
I'm still not sure Leica is for me, but I'm glad I started with the M9. The intended purpose of the Sonnar 50 seems to achieve that classic 50 look and may pair well with the M9. I can use a light extra light too. I'd prefer to keep ISO under 1000 for that Kodal sensor.
You know I started w the M9, and while I enjoyed the results at base ISO I frankly disliked so much about that camera. Mine was horribly unreliable w the sensor issue they all have. If you have the latest sensor then that is not a worry. But I hated the shutter sound and gritty feel to the release. The lcd panel is a joke, as was the need to only use very specific SD cards if you didnt want writing issues and crashing. The fact that it’s high ISO is a joke - I do better pushing Ilford HP5 in my 50 year old M3.
The M240 is light years better, and now the M10 series (you don’t even need to go as far as the 11!) is exactly what we wished for from the very beginning. A digital Leica M the same size as a film one, that in use is pretty much a film M but with a modern sensor.
You’re in Dublin, try and make a trip to SF and the Leica store and try out a 10. Or rent one from lensrentals. You’ll be stunned at the difference.
Desmolicious wrote:
You know I started w the M9, and while I enjoyed the results at base ISO I frankly disliked so much about that camera. Mine was horribly unreliable w the sensor issue they all have. If you have the latest sensor then that is not a worry. But I hated the shutter sound and gritty feel to the release. The lcd panel is a joke, as was the need to only use very specific SD cards if you didnt want writing issues and crashing. The fact that it’s high ISO is a joke - I do better pushing Ilford HP5 in my 50 year old M3.
The M240 is light years better, and now the M10 series (you don’t even need to go as far as the 11!) is exactly what we wished for from the very beginning. A digital Leica M the same size as a film one, that in use is pretty much a film M but with a modern sensor.
You’re in Dublin, try and make a trip to SF and the Leica store and try out a 10. Or rent one from lensrentals. You’ll be stunned at the difference....Show more →
Completely agree with everything you said about the M9. I just dig the files. I went to the Leica store spring this year and played with a M11. I liked it, but the files it made with a Summilux 35 wasn't better than my RX1Rii. It made more sense to start with the M9. That way I'm forced to use RF focus without live view. I'm still on the fence about Leica. One day, I wonder if I should sell the M9 and go to a M10R or M11. The next day I want to go back what I'm used to. I may end up just keep M9 with a good 50 for portraits. RX1Rii for 80% of the walkaround stuff, and A7c for landscape, wildlife, etc. That way I don't have to change lens and get to experience a little of everything.
gordec wrote:
I'm still not sure Leica is for me, but I'm glad I started with the M9. The intended purpose of the Sonnar 50 seems to achieve that classic 50 look and may pair well with the M9. I can use a light extra light too. I'd prefer to keep ISO under 1000 for that Kodal sensor.
