cam
the need for speed
oh my!
i don't think i could last that long without my baby!
i go through major withdrawal if i've neglected to take it with me for a few hours. a week or two would leave me rabid!
i don't think i could last that long without my baby!
i go through major withdrawal if i've neglected to take it with me for a few hours. a week or two would leave me rabid!
noimmunity
scratch my niche
I understand. The RF is a kind of defining moment. If I weren't half way around the world, I'd loan you a Bessa T.
back alley
IMAGES
time to buy a back up body perhaps?
cam
the need for speed
thank you for the offer
i got it bad!it probably is, but i can't quite decide what that would be -- an M8.2 if i could afford it (though i still prefer the R-D1's handling) or getting a film camera....
money is the problem, obviously. and my lust for lenses. i have a chance to get a mint Thambar and recently fell in love with the 75mm Summilux. i am obsessed by both, probably, because i have yet to find a wide angle (the one i need) that floats my boat *and* is fast enough.
mirrored
Established
There might be a focus shift visible too.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=742050&postcount=17
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=742050&postcount=17
B
bedaberger
Guest
your test is very usefull, thank you!
Another thing is the thing with curvature of field.
As you focus on the eyes and then recompose the camera,
you get into another focus plane, because best focus point is not plane over the field, but slightly curved.
it would be interesting if this situation decreases or increases the focus shift symptom on the two different optimised lenses.
i hope you understand my words, as its not easy two right this stuff in "another" language! ;-)
peter
Another thing is the thing with curvature of field.
As you focus on the eyes and then recompose the camera,
you get into another focus plane, because best focus point is not plane over the field, but slightly curved.
it would be interesting if this situation decreases or increases the focus shift symptom on the two different optimised lenses.
i hope you understand my words, as its not easy two right this stuff in "another" language! ;-)
peter
mfogiel
Mentor
If you focus wide open with the f2.8 version, and then recompose tilting the camera a bit forward, this should compensate the front focus of the lens, but you have to work out the correct distance to make it work well.
fixbones
.......sometimes i thinks
Thank you all !!
Thank you all !!
Hi ppl,
Would like to thank all of you for your input.
Just completed an order for a silver ZI and also a silver 50mm f1,5 C Sonnar optimized for 2.8 !!!!
Can't wait to get my hands on them !!
Thank you all !!
Hi ppl,
Would like to thank all of you for your input.
Just completed an order for a silver ZI and also a silver 50mm f1,5 C Sonnar optimized for 2.8 !!!!
Can't wait to get my hands on them !!
fadeawaybfa
Rookie
AhtoT
Member
Got new Sonnar and it is not f1,5 optimised
Got new Sonnar and it is not f1,5 optimised
Thanks very much for the comparison and interesting discussion. I last week bought this lens (new) and it seems my sample is not optimised for f1,5. At f1,5 and 90cm distance I get front focus of about 1,5 cm, but at 5m distance front focus is already about 25 cm. I tested with both ZI and M6 bodies and get about the same results.
Serial number of my lens is 15602820. I'm not sure if that is old stock or new samples are not f1,5 optimised. Has anyone bought this lens recently and received f1,5 optimised version or this talk that new samples are f1,5 optimised from factory is just an urban legend based on "someone at B&H told me they are"?
Besides tests with focus target I have done some real world shots and most show front focus. When I focus on eyes then actual focus is on nose.
Thanks!
Ahto
Got new Sonnar and it is not f1,5 optimised
Thanks very much for the comparison and interesting discussion. I last week bought this lens (new) and it seems my sample is not optimised for f1,5. At f1,5 and 90cm distance I get front focus of about 1,5 cm, but at 5m distance front focus is already about 25 cm. I tested with both ZI and M6 bodies and get about the same results.
Serial number of my lens is 15602820. I'm not sure if that is old stock or new samples are not f1,5 optimised. Has anyone bought this lens recently and received f1,5 optimised version or this talk that new samples are f1,5 optimised from factory is just an urban legend based on "someone at B&H told me they are"?
Besides tests with focus target I have done some real world shots and most show front focus. When I focus on eyes then actual focus is on nose.
Thanks!
Ahto
ampguy
Mentor
Thanks Mike, great tests. For my preferences, they both front focus too much. But I can see why folks like them, it's like automatic soft-focus on the subject, whichever lens you pick.
Richard G
Mentor
Just one photo taken at the end or the roll, not yet developed. Some testing this weekend with a 1.5 optimized version. Interesting point of Dante Stella's on page 2 of this thread. My Celestron telescope manual recommends a similar technique of moving the motor drive from one direction only if possible for accurate alignment of the celestial drive, again because of play inherent in the mechanism. I still expect to have focus shift issues that will be noticeable at close distances at f2.8-5.6 based especially on these very helpful tests of Marek's, but I assume it will be easier to find a work around than it would have been for the shallower DOF at 1.5 with the 2.8 optimized version. I am hoping to do this by feel: focus and then just shift the lens focus closer by a few degrees of rotation. It will be very interesting to see if focussing from close out to the distance of the first RF alignment will be sufficient to compensate for the 3-4cm posterior focus shift in Marek's tests. We'll see....at moderate distances this may well work.
Last edited:
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
The Sonnar design at fault?
The Sonnar design at fault?
After reading through this whole thread, I am still stuck with one question.
Is the focus shift inherent to the Sonnar lens design?
Why am I wondering about this? A number of reasons, combined:
So, question: does anyone have any accurate data on the Canon 50mm f1.5 Sonnar and the Steinheil Quinon 50mm 2.0 Sonnar? In short, does any of these two lenses consistently focus correctly wide open from MFD to say, three meters distance? I'd like to focus eyes, not ears!
The Sonnar design at fault?
After reading through this whole thread, I am still stuck with one question.
Is the focus shift inherent to the Sonnar lens design?
Why am I wondering about this? A number of reasons, combined:
- The Zeiss quote states the design of the current C-Sonnar goes back to the 1930 design. The lens since then apparently has not shed its front focusing issue.
- The Sonnar-clone Jupiter lenses all front focus at MFD.
- In a post from LeicaTom on the wartime Sonnars I have read these lenses also front focus when not adjusted by Brian.
So, question: does anyone have any accurate data on the Canon 50mm f1.5 Sonnar and the Steinheil Quinon 50mm 2.0 Sonnar? In short, does any of these two lenses consistently focus correctly wide open from MFD to say, three meters distance? I'd like to focus eyes, not ears!
back alley
IMAGES
i have never had a problem with this focus shift. i rarely focus at minimum distance but prefer to be at least 4 or more feet away from my subject.
check my flickr account for the 50 set.
check my flickr account for the 50 set.
ferider
Mentor
Try a Nikkor 50/1.4. Here it is wide open:
here at f2:
here at f2.8:
QA with those lenses was very good. If clean, you can expect it to behave like this. Plus it can be modified to 0.7m min. focus.
Roland.
>So, question: does anyone have any accurate data on the Canon 50mm f1.5 Sonnar and
>the Steinheil Quinon 50mm 2.0 Sonnar? In short, does any of these two lenses
>consistently focus correctly wide open from MFD to say, three meters distance? I'd like to
>focus eyes, not ears!
I optimized my Canon 50/1.5 for best focus at F1.5. My lens was spot-on at F2.8. My Nikkor is spot-on at F1.4. So I made the Canon focus perfectly at F1.5 by changing the main shim. It is a 51.6mm lens, designed to the Leica Spec. It is in best focus at F1.5 across the range. Stopping down to F4 covers any focus shift. My Nikkor is spot-on at F1.4 across the range as it is also designed to the Leica spec.
The J-3 and Zeiss Sonnars are designed to the Contax spec. The focal length is ~52.4mm. I set them for best focus wide-open and up-close. They maintain that best focus to about 5m. After that, I like top stop down a little.
>the Steinheil Quinon 50mm 2.0 Sonnar? In short, does any of these two lenses
>consistently focus correctly wide open from MFD to say, three meters distance? I'd like to
>focus eyes, not ears!
I optimized my Canon 50/1.5 for best focus at F1.5. My lens was spot-on at F2.8. My Nikkor is spot-on at F1.4. So I made the Canon focus perfectly at F1.5 by changing the main shim. It is a 51.6mm lens, designed to the Leica Spec. It is in best focus at F1.5 across the range. Stopping down to F4 covers any focus shift. My Nikkor is spot-on at F1.4 across the range as it is also designed to the Leica spec.
The J-3 and Zeiss Sonnars are designed to the Contax spec. The focal length is ~52.4mm. I set them for best focus wide-open and up-close. They maintain that best focus to about 5m. After that, I like top stop down a little.
Last edited:
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Brian,
I read the other thread with your shots as well, before taking in all the wonderful info on this one.
I did not realise that my question was already answered in the first thread, the vast amount of info on Sonnars must have blinded me... Oops.
Roland, thanks for showing these shots, I find them very impressive! Pretty sure this is the lens I will be looking for to use as a main portrait lens.
From looking at your test shots, I'm positive the Nikkor will be spot on when shot wide open.
I read the other thread with your shots as well, before taking in all the wonderful info on this one.
I did not realise that my question was already answered in the first thread, the vast amount of info on Sonnars must have blinded me... Oops.
Roland, thanks for showing these shots, I find them very impressive! Pretty sure this is the lens I will be looking for to use as a main portrait lens.
From looking at your test shots, I'm positive the Nikkor will be spot on when shot wide open.
ferider
Mentor
Have no fear, Johan, this is the Nikkor very close:
Krosya and Naruto/Ashwin can show you similar photos ...
Cheers,
Roland.
Krosya and Naruto/Ashwin can show you similar photos ...
Cheers,
Roland.
Huck Finn
Well-known
I just acquired a used ZM 50/1.5 C-Sonnar, optimized at f/2.8. I'm looking forward to seeing what I can do with it.
The seller was a professional photographer who takes far better photographs than I ever will who was selling off his film equipment because of the move to digital. He was kind enough to share his impressions of the lens, so I thought I would post them here for the benefit of anyone who is considering this lens:
Please note that I used the lens with a new Zeiss Ikon M body. I always used a hood (only to protect the lens) and I never used a filter.
The lens has 2 distinct personalities.
At apertures smaller than f/4 it is a very sharp lens. But it never gives photos with a clinical look. The contrast is well balanced in my opinion In fact it handles high contrast & sharp lighting extremely well. I never noticed any flare. The lens focuses reliably near the minimum focus distance. I typically used f/5.6-f/8 in bright conditions.
At apertures below f/4 the lens behaves very differently. The way it draws is unique & lovely. The bokeh is pleasant & subtle. The color rendition and black & white tonality is mellow. At f/1.5 the vignetting is not trivial, but as you stop down it's less noticeable. The vignetting is the C-Sonnar's only flaw.
At f/1.5 the lens gives clear well-defined photos, but they are not sharp. The term soft exaggerates the lack of sharpness; the softness wide open is unlike any other fast lens I've used. I really don't know how to describe this with words. I would think to myself:this isn't sharp, but it looks good.
By f/2, the lens' characteristics change. As you know there is a focus shift below f/2.8. In my experience unless you are near the minimum focus distance, the focus shift is more accurately described as a very asymmetrical depth of field. The 1/3 rule of thumb for DOF does not apply. The DOF extends in front of the focus point.
Now we all know focusing at small distances at f/1.5 using a rangifinder is problematic. The rangefinder alignment, how the focus cam mates to the lens, & just the smallest amount of body lean between the time the focus is set and the shutter is pushed can lead to inconsistent results.
When I used the lens wide open at distances shorter than 8 feet, my success rate was good . . . but certainly not perfect. I was never more frustrated focusing this lens than I was with any other fast lens I've owned.
After reading dozens of posts about this lens over the years, I have come to believe that some Leica M focus cams do not mate well with this lens & the focus error at relatively close distances can be large. I don't know how else to explain the difference between my experience with the C-Sonnar and those who ended up being frustrated with the lens.
My advice for subjects 6 feet and further, shooting wide open in low light situations is straightforward: I simply focused a bit behind the intended focus point as the subject distance approached 6 feet. The further away the subject was, the less I even thought about focusing.
For subjects closer than 6 feet, I would bracket focusing behind the intended focus point.
The bokeh at f/2-f/4 is very pleasant to my eye. Never hesitate to use the lens in bright' harsh light. I liked how the lens worked with Kodak Porta film.
I hope that any readers here find this description of the characteristics of the ZM 50/1.5 C-Sonnar lens as helpful as I did.
The seller was a professional photographer who takes far better photographs than I ever will who was selling off his film equipment because of the move to digital. He was kind enough to share his impressions of the lens, so I thought I would post them here for the benefit of anyone who is considering this lens:
Please note that I used the lens with a new Zeiss Ikon M body. I always used a hood (only to protect the lens) and I never used a filter.
The lens has 2 distinct personalities.
At apertures smaller than f/4 it is a very sharp lens. But it never gives photos with a clinical look. The contrast is well balanced in my opinion In fact it handles high contrast & sharp lighting extremely well. I never noticed any flare. The lens focuses reliably near the minimum focus distance. I typically used f/5.6-f/8 in bright conditions.
At apertures below f/4 the lens behaves very differently. The way it draws is unique & lovely. The bokeh is pleasant & subtle. The color rendition and black & white tonality is mellow. At f/1.5 the vignetting is not trivial, but as you stop down it's less noticeable. The vignetting is the C-Sonnar's only flaw.
At f/1.5 the lens gives clear well-defined photos, but they are not sharp. The term soft exaggerates the lack of sharpness; the softness wide open is unlike any other fast lens I've used. I really don't know how to describe this with words. I would think to myself:this isn't sharp, but it looks good.
By f/2, the lens' characteristics change. As you know there is a focus shift below f/2.8. In my experience unless you are near the minimum focus distance, the focus shift is more accurately described as a very asymmetrical depth of field. The 1/3 rule of thumb for DOF does not apply. The DOF extends in front of the focus point.
Now we all know focusing at small distances at f/1.5 using a rangifinder is problematic. The rangefinder alignment, how the focus cam mates to the lens, & just the smallest amount of body lean between the time the focus is set and the shutter is pushed can lead to inconsistent results.
When I used the lens wide open at distances shorter than 8 feet, my success rate was good . . . but certainly not perfect. I was never more frustrated focusing this lens than I was with any other fast lens I've owned.
After reading dozens of posts about this lens over the years, I have come to believe that some Leica M focus cams do not mate well with this lens & the focus error at relatively close distances can be large. I don't know how else to explain the difference between my experience with the C-Sonnar and those who ended up being frustrated with the lens.
My advice for subjects 6 feet and further, shooting wide open in low light situations is straightforward: I simply focused a bit behind the intended focus point as the subject distance approached 6 feet. The further away the subject was, the less I even thought about focusing.
For subjects closer than 6 feet, I would bracket focusing behind the intended focus point.
The bokeh at f/2-f/4 is very pleasant to my eye. Never hesitate to use the lens in bright' harsh light. I liked how the lens worked with Kodak Porta film.
I hope that any readers here find this description of the characteristics of the ZM 50/1.5 C-Sonnar lens as helpful as I did.
MCTuomey
Mentor
thanks, huck. practical and useful info which i appreciate.