Sonnar followup

[ferider]

Out of curiosity, I decided to review the previous Sonnar threads to see what cameras were being used by those who were complaining about the front focus issue. In every case but one - including the test report from Luminous Landscape - the camera being used was something other than a ZI.

: : :

Huck

See my post of Jan 31, Huck:

: : :
Since the Zeiss 85/2 is not available yet, the C-Sonnar is the ZM lens with most shallow depth of field. All resolution tests with wide angles that I have seen were done at large distance. I keep wondering if there might be a very slight difference in registration distance, film pressure or RF calibration when comparing ZI to Leica bodies.

Has anybody used fast non-ZI lenses, say a 50/1.4 Summilux, 90/2 or 90/2.8 lens wide open and close up on a ZI body ?

Thanks,

Roland.

I am still wondering if somebody has tried a Summilux or 90/2 Summicron on a ZI
and what the result is. Or tried to reproduce 400 l/mm with a 25mm ZI lens on
a Leica. The Sonnar close focus problems just seem too much to be explainable by
lens design only, even if amplified by the internet

Roland.

 

[lns]

For what it's worth, I have used a 50 f/1.4 summilux asph on a ZI and found no problems wide and close. Nor at any other aperture or distance. I still use it all the time.

I didn't shoot test charts or newspapers on the wall, but because I was trying to verify the camera's rangefinder alignment I did take a lot of test shots of Christmas tree ornaments and people's faces, wide and close. It was spot on.

I don't have a Sonnar, and so can't compare.

-Laura

 

[Mazurka]

Huck should have mentioned that he's one of those who found the C-Sonnar unacceptable on the ZI body.

 

[ljsegil]

But clearly not all the Sonnars have issues. It seems the issue is to find out why some lenses are adversely affected and others perform perfectly. A properly functioning 50mm f/1.5 Sonnar is a delight to use, so why shouldn't everyone get a lens that is satisfying? Perhaps it is time for Zeiss to revisit this problem.
As an aside, the 21mm f/2.8 Biogon is likewise a delight, razor sharp, excellent contrast, and can be zone focused from here to forever. I can't wait to see what the new 21mm f/4.5 will be able to do, or for that matter, the 18mm mystery lens.
Best to all
ljsegil

 

[FanMan]

The one case in which a Zeiss Ikon owner found front focus issues was in the case of the test by FanMan, but while he documented the front focus in his test, it didn't seem to be an issue for him prior to the test & he just didn't seem to be complaining about in such a strong way as were the others.

Huck

Hm - it it is an issue for me. I find it difficult to handle the lens wide open and I would definitely prefer a lens without that issue. Shall I buy the Planar? Two 50mm lenses - I think thats a little bit overdone, since I have to keep in mind that photography is only a hobby for me. And I definitely want to have the 85mm lens. And the 85mm + the Planar will exceed my budget. No, two 50mm lenses is not a solution. Perhaps I will sell the Sonnar and buy the Planar. Have not decided that yet, since I like the results of the Sonnar (except for that front focus thing) very much.

 

[jaffa_777]

I have an interest in this lens and find this topic an interesting read.

What I find interesting is that Zeiss advertise this as the photojournalists/reporter lens. And then they release a statement after that the lens is designed for attaining artisic affects and dreamy qualities or something to that affect.

Is it just me, or does that sound like a complete condradiciton? Are they making excuses, and what photojournalist uses a lens at only 2 mts and for dreamy affects?

 

[rxmd]

I see no contradiction. Photojournalists nowadays don't use rangefinders anyway. Nowadays the Sonnar is a special effect lens for its "look" and bokeh. In the good old days the Sonnar was the reporter's lens, and people just managed to put up with whatever focus shift it has. Zeiss just talks about different uses at different points in time.

 

[40oz]

it's fast, hence the photojournalist angle. People don't typically take shots at 3 feet way or less if they are merely observing, a la photojournalism. On the other hand, the character wide open is what this lens is valued for, and it delivers. As has been said, any fast 50 is a hit or miss operation wide open and up close, especially in low light.

There's a ton of cameras out there this lens fits one, and not all are ideally suited to perfect focus wide open at 1.5. My CL is tough for me to focus accurately in low light, while my Kiev is a dream. With my J-3's on each, I am much more confident with the Kiev with the wide base then with the CL and the short base and low magnification. But that doesn't stop me from using the J-3 on my CL. I'll take all the missed focus shots for every one that hits the mark happily.