ZM C-Sonnar 50mm shots

[kokoshawnuff]

M3, E100VS


M7, Tri-X

[foolstop]

I share your experiences. :-)
Let me tell you my story.

Here, showing the pictures from three copies of this lovely lens.
This one, over twenty feet away.
Taken with M8, F/1.5 with the factory default copy optimized at 2.8.

Showed front focus. I have already tried some tricks to compensate.




Here, same lens, really close this time, I tried the tricks of leaning forward about four cm.

Pretty close, right?
Focus shift is there and significant.




Don't get me wrong, I am very happy with it.

With some practice, one can shoot butterfly, 15 feet way, here is the cropped picture at F 1.5, M8.




At f 2.8, it is already wonderful.

[foolstop]

Here are the pictures from the second copy.

An "S" version of the Sonnar.
I have tried over a dozen Amedeo Muscelli adapters.
This one does the trick. NO focus shift with F 1.5 nor F 2.8 at any range :-)

Close range, M8 @1.5



Not so close, M8 @ 1.5



Same lens @ 2.8 (focused on the red symbol)

[foolstop]

The third one.
A factory default optimized at 2.8. Sent to Japan and "optimized" to 1.5.

Result?

Film first.
Full frame :P

At 1.5



At 2.8



At 1.5, more than ten feet away.

[foolstop]

Same optimized copy.

Digital.

At 1.5, (the lady on the phone) over twenty feet away.



Another at 1.5, close range

[foolstop]

"Optimized" Copy.

Close range,

@ 1.5




@ 2.8




This one @ 4

[foolstop]

What should I say?

:-)

[chandler_chou]

thanks for all your reply.
it contain lots of knowledge to this lens....

by reviewing all comments here, it seems the person who owned this lens and still owning it right now are all happy with ( or have a way to live with ) it....
why not we discuss the focus shift issue less and post your work with this wonderful lens more to show people the power c-sonnar 50......




上學後每天回家都有大號哦！ by 錢得樂, on Flickr

[mfogiel]

f 2.8

20123655 by mfogiel, on Flickr

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by chandler_chou

why not we discuss the focus shift issue less and post your work with this wonderful lens more to show people the power c-sonnar 50......

Hey, I'm sorry to have stated these things in a image thread, but I felt it needed to be said. Sure, there work arounds, but someone who's not familiar with the lens at all might want to know about the all too real focus shift with the lens.

[horosu]

The C-Sonnar has been one of my favorite lenses. Unfortunately, on my M9 (which I have since sold) it clearly exhibited it's known focus shift. I bought the Summilux 50 ASPH, which was fine but for its quite high contrast. I would have kept this lens were it not for the fact that I managed to grab one copy of the Hexanon 60/1.2 in LTM mount. Now, this lens has no focus shift, has a lower contrast (which works great on digital bodies) and is a very, very sharp lens.

But, enough for the talk, here are my photos taken with the C-Sonnar:

Film f 1.5, 1/60


Another one on film, this one at f8


And one on the M9 at f4, on a f2.8 optimized copy of the lens.


Finally, another one at f4 on the M9 and f 2.8 optimized copy of this lens

[horosu]

Oh, and just one more thing:

The upcoming rumors of the M10 hint at an EVF. This would make ANY focus shift discussion irrelevant.

Cheers, Horea

[furcafe]

C Sonnar shots (all S mount version) on my flickr stream:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/furcafe...narsmount2008/

And 1 taken w/a ZM version borrowed from a friend (to contrast w/the 1937 version I was using that night):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/furcafe/5247677795/

[Nick]

1/30th, wide open, Natura 1600


Fallen asleep, waiting for ferry


Ilford Delta 3200 rated at 1600


Snowy

[BobYIL]

Originally Posted by KM-25

So as long as the RF in my M3 is dead on, 1.5 will be fine...

Digital "accentuates" the optical faults more.. On an M3, especially with hi-spped films like the Tri-X or HP5+ you would hardly notice some of these faults.. (And even after noticing them I believe you'd be able to develop small techniques to eliminate them like we do.. No big issue at all..)

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by horosu

Oh, and just one more thing:

The upcoming rumors of the M10 hint at an EVF. This would make ANY focus shift discussion irrelevant.

Cheers, Horea

Why? Or how?

Cheers,

R..

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by foolstop

[size="3"]Here are the pictures from the second copy.

An "S" version of the Sonnar.
I have tried over a dozen Amedeo Muscelli adapters.
This one does the trick. NO focus shift with F 1.5 nor F 2.8 at any range :-)

How? The only way to get rid of focus shift would be to couple the aperture to the rangefinder. Otherwise, its an irremovable characteristic of the lens. As you stop down, the plane of optimum focus moves slightly backwards. I can't see how any adapter can negate this.

Incidentally, if anyone cares to go to http://www.rogerandfrances.com/e-books.html and download the free PDF 'taster' of Arles 2011, they'll fnd over 20 pics taken with the C-Sonnar, and when the 2012 version comes out (a week or two, insh'Allah) there'll be more.

Cheers,

R.

[Stuart John]

EVF would let you see through the lens at working aperture. You could focus at working aperture then focus shift would not be a worry unless one were to change the aperture after focusing.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by Stuart John

EVF would let you see through the lens at working aperture. You could focus at working aperture then focus shift would not be a worry unless one were to change the aperture after focusing.

All those why believe they can focus reliably and manually at working aperture can stand on their heads...

You may be right, of course. But I'd be deeply surprised. This may merely reflect how little I know about live view with fast lenses.

Cheers,

R.

[nanthor]

Can someone with the knowledge explain why the focus shift is only an issue at close ranges? Usually if a lens is off by a few cm's up close it is off by several meters farther away. Thanks, Bob.

[KM-25]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

All those why believe they can focus reliably and manually at working aperture can stand on their heads...

You may be right, of course. But I'd be deeply surprised. This may merely reflect how little I know about live view with fast lenses.

You are seeing the taking image, not the viewing only image live with an RF body that has live view. Unlike an SLR lens, the aperture does not stay open when stopped down, so in effect, live view with an RF will be like using depth of field preview with an SLR, DOF, darker image and all...


On another note, I have ran a roll through my new 50 1.5, this is the lens I should have gotten in the first place for the M3, lightweight, no flare, charismatic wide open and far cheaper than a 50 1.4 Asph making it easier to actually use and not be afraid to scratch the barrel.

So far in practice, it is not that hard to pull the focus a bit at 2.8-4.0 to compensate.

[KM-25]

Originally Posted by nanthor

Can someone with the knowledge explain why the focus shift is only an issue at close ranges? Usually if a lens is off by a few cm's up close it is off by several meters farther away. Thanks, Bob.

I am not sure but I always thought it was the other way around, might be a good wiki search.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by KM-25

You are seeing the taking image, not the viewing only image live with an RF body that has live view. Unlike an SLR lens, the aperture does not stay open when stopped down, so in effect, live view with an RF will be like using depth of field preview with an SLR, DOF, darker image and all... . . .
So far in practice, it is not that hard to pull the focus a bit at 2.8-4.0 to compensate.

Para 1: Well, quite. You can't really judge all that well from a stopped down image with an SLR, so I am less than convinced it's a lot better with live view. But, as I say, this may be pure ignorance on my part.

Para 2: Again, quite. It doesn't take long to learn what a lens can and can't do well. Unless, of course, you're forever swapping lenses and don't use any of them very much. This may be why our photographic forebears were better at using Sonnars. They used them more.

Cheers,

R.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by nanthor

Can someone with the knowledge explain why the focus shift is only an issue at close ranges? Usually if a lens is off by a few cm's up close it is off by several meters farther away. Thanks, Bob.

This may be conflating focus shift with rangefinder coupling.

Cheers,

R.

[BobYIL]

Originally Posted by nanthor

Can someone with the knowledge explain why the focus shift is only an issue at close ranges? Usually if a lens is off by a few cm's up close it is off by several meters farther away. Thanks, Bob.

Not really.. let me try to explain..

1. DOF (depth of focus) at f1.5; it's only a few centimeters deep at the closest focusing distances of 50mm or longer lenses, while it is meters long at far distances.

2. DOF generally lies (roughly.. for practical applications) about two-thirds beyond the plane of focus and one-third in front of the same plane. (In other words while focus shift still exists at longer focusing distances however it "remains" within the far deeper DOF caused by the longer distance of focus, so it is not noticed.)

3. The amount of focus shift caused by the residual spherical aberrations of the lens to focus (optimally) on different planes at f1.5 and (for instance) at f2.8 decreases as the incoming rays becomes more parallel to the axis of the lens... that is, the focus shift on the focus plane (film or sensor) is more to observe as the lens try to focus nearer objects than the far ones.

Once you become familiar with the focus shift characteristics of a certain lens, then it's not much an issue. My C-Sonnar shifts, so my 35/1.4 Summilux-pre too however they both are my favorite lenses for film and I have no intention to replace them with any other lens.