Here are some samples, nothing fancy. Again, it\'s not my lens and since we wanted to go out on a photowalk rather than do test shots all day , the selection is not going to be a full range of apertures, subject matter, etc. I primarily concentrated on wide open with a few at f/2.8 as well, to get a feel for the lens and see if there is much difference between it and my 90 Summarit, other than the huge price gap.
There are differences.. At f/2.8 the Sonnar is sharper. It also has a more defined rendition of out of focus areas, and I\'d dare say busier feel too. The more I use Leica lenses, the more it becomes apparent to me that Leica likes smooth background blur. Certainly not a new revelation for those with more experience with the two brands.
Start of with one at f/2.8, because that\'s the widest you can shoot on an M9 at base (not pulled) ISO at 1/4000 without blowing things out. Also, I should add, these were tweaked a bit for more pleasing (to me) contrast, but with no fill light or recovery, no clarity, default LR3 sharpening (25/1.0/25). Also the 1200px web images were not sharpened further to avoid altering edge details, etc.
100% - you can barely see a bit of the purple/blue fringing around \'30 Years\' text.
f/2 (somewhat overexposed and pulled back in post, therefore contrast may not be indicative. LR contrast and curve settings kept the same as the following f/2.8 version, but probably best to judge sharpness here more than difference in contrast):
100%:
f/2.8:
100%:
f/2 with polarizer to avoid overexposure:
100%:
Also f/2 with polarizer:
100%:
Mar 22, 2012 at 06:32 PM
Previous versions of rscheffler's message #10466244 « ZM 85/2 Sonnar? Any experience? »
, the selection is not going to be a full range of apertures, subject matter, etc. I primarily concentrated on wide open with a few at f/2.8 as well, to get a feel for the lens and see if there is much difference between it and my 90 Summarit, other than the huge price gap. 
