sparrow6224
Well-known
I'm seeking sage advice, and where else to turn but to Tom A? Or to whom else, I should say. I have a DR Summicron as my 50mm lens (clean inside but with some serious cleaning marks that keep me from aiming it too often at any bright background) but as I use my 35mm f/1.4 Nokton much more I've grown to desire an f/1.4 or f/1.5 50mm. These things are, we know, largely psychological but when one is happy with the tools in one's hands, the work becomes more joyful I think. And the DR is naggingly heavy....
So -- I don't want a 1950s lens. Again, largely psychological. This eliminates the Sonnars, the Canon and Nikkor 50/1.4's, etc. I've narrowed my choices to the pre-ASPH Summilux (43mm filter size, to match the 35mm Nokton above); the Zeiss ZM Sonnar-C 50mm f/1.5 (which I thought was a 43mm filter but B&H shows as 46?? Did it change??) or the CV 50mm f/1.5 Nokton (with a filter size, it feels like, of about 72mm.....)
Here are my questions in bold italics):
Pre-ASPH Summilux. I think I could find one for ~$1600. Is it, optically speaking, compared to the other two, worth it? Is it smaller/lighter than the DR Summicron by any significant amount?
Zeiss Sonnar-C -- whole different game, I realize. Speak to me not of focus shift -- I'll figure out how to deal with it if I go with this lens. Does it not have a 43mm filter? Is it well built? I think I could score one for somewhere in the $800+ area. This is all very funny because I'm currently unemployed. Speaking of psychological.
Nokton 50mm f/1.5 the LTM can be had occasionally for $350-ish. I had one some years ago. It was too large. But maybe I'm willing to accommodate. For reasons I don't now remember I kept the gigantic hood on it -- perhaps because that was what the cap fit over? -- which now I would not do. I had the chrome version and I assume black is lighter but then I read somewhere that, anomalously, the black is heavier -- is that true?? The M-version is going even used for double the price -- from what I understand a 49mm filter size versus 52mm on the LTM -- is the M version any shorter, lighter, less fat? Are they both close focus to .7m?
Ergonomics matter to me. So of course do the optical qualities. On the other hand, money is very much an object.
Which lens do you recommend? All answers taken with gratitude....
So -- I don't want a 1950s lens. Again, largely psychological. This eliminates the Sonnars, the Canon and Nikkor 50/1.4's, etc. I've narrowed my choices to the pre-ASPH Summilux (43mm filter size, to match the 35mm Nokton above); the Zeiss ZM Sonnar-C 50mm f/1.5 (which I thought was a 43mm filter but B&H shows as 46?? Did it change??) or the CV 50mm f/1.5 Nokton (with a filter size, it feels like, of about 72mm.....)
Here are my questions in bold italics):
Pre-ASPH Summilux. I think I could find one for ~$1600. Is it, optically speaking, compared to the other two, worth it? Is it smaller/lighter than the DR Summicron by any significant amount?
Zeiss Sonnar-C -- whole different game, I realize. Speak to me not of focus shift -- I'll figure out how to deal with it if I go with this lens. Does it not have a 43mm filter? Is it well built? I think I could score one for somewhere in the $800+ area. This is all very funny because I'm currently unemployed. Speaking of psychological.
Nokton 50mm f/1.5 the LTM can be had occasionally for $350-ish. I had one some years ago. It was too large. But maybe I'm willing to accommodate. For reasons I don't now remember I kept the gigantic hood on it -- perhaps because that was what the cap fit over? -- which now I would not do. I had the chrome version and I assume black is lighter but then I read somewhere that, anomalously, the black is heavier -- is that true?? The M-version is going even used for double the price -- from what I understand a 49mm filter size versus 52mm on the LTM -- is the M version any shorter, lighter, less fat? Are they both close focus to .7m?
Ergonomics matter to me. So of course do the optical qualities. On the other hand, money is very much an object.
Which lens do you recommend? All answers taken with gratitude....
yossarian123
Sam I Am
Vince - the Zeiss takes a 46mm filter. Besides that - maybe my all time favorite 50 (I haven't shot with the 'lux). Just loads and loads of character.
sparrow6224
Well-known
Ah yes. Thank you for the info. I meant to ask what "character" means. Everyone uses it for this lens, and for the Zeiss Sonnars of yesteryear. It seems to be, in fact, a word exclusively for 50mm Sonnar lenses (you never hear the 13.5cm Sonnars have character). I realize now my confusion: it's the F2 Planar that has the 43mm filter.
Why by the way, if anyone knows, has the Sonnar-C gone from $1050 retail to over $1200? Shouldn't our strong dollars make it cheaper now than a couple of years ago?
Why by the way, if anyone knows, has the Sonnar-C gone from $1050 retail to over $1200? Shouldn't our strong dollars make it cheaper now than a couple of years ago?
ferider
Mentor
Two versions of the Summilux: E43 (1m min Foc), and E46 (0.7m min Foc). The E46 is more expensive than your budget. Both distort quite noticeably.
The LTM Nokton has min Foc 1m, and 52mm filter thread. It is bigger but lighter than the M Nokton, which has min. focus 0.7m. I find the M Nokton to flare less than the LTM version. It has 49mm filter threads.
I used to have the Sonnar, but it's difficult to focus, IMO. Plus, some of them will wobble after a while.
I sold my E43 Summilux after buying the M-Nokton. The M-Nokton is an outstanding, general purpose lens. Super built, too (I have the chrome version), reminds me of the DR Summicron. Photo after photo, it just works.
Check this out, too: http://ferider.smugmug.com/Portfolio/One-Year-with-50mm-Lenses-on-F
The LTM Nokton has min Foc 1m, and 52mm filter thread. It is bigger but lighter than the M Nokton, which has min. focus 0.7m. I find the M Nokton to flare less than the LTM version. It has 49mm filter threads.
I used to have the Sonnar, but it's difficult to focus, IMO. Plus, some of them will wobble after a while.
I sold my E43 Summilux after buying the M-Nokton. The M-Nokton is an outstanding, general purpose lens. Super built, too (I have the chrome version), reminds me of the DR Summicron. Photo after photo, it just works.
Check this out, too: http://ferider.smugmug.com/Portfolio/One-Year-with-50mm-Lenses-on-F
raid
Dad Photographer
I have compared at least 30 50mm lenses, and I assure you that there many excellent options out there.
The Nokton 50/1.5 is a great modern lens.
The Heliar 50/3.5 is amazingly sharp
The Canon 50 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.8 are great 50mm lenses.
The original Zeiss Sonnar 50/1.5 is hard to beat.
The new Zeiss 50/1.5 has great reviews.
The Nikkor Millenium 50/1.4 is ab awesome lens.
The Rollei 40/2.8 is a very special lens.
The Pentax 43/1.9 is awesome.
The (cheap) Summicron-C or Rokkor 40/2 is great.
The Summilux 50/1.4 is praised a lot.
The list goes on and on ....
The Nokton 50/1.5 is a great modern lens.
The Heliar 50/3.5 is amazingly sharp
The Canon 50 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.8 are great 50mm lenses.
The original Zeiss Sonnar 50/1.5 is hard to beat.
The new Zeiss 50/1.5 has great reviews.
The Nikkor Millenium 50/1.4 is ab awesome lens.
The Rollei 40/2.8 is a very special lens.
The Pentax 43/1.9 is awesome.
The (cheap) Summicron-C or Rokkor 40/2 is great.
The Summilux 50/1.4 is praised a lot.
The list goes on and on ....
nikonosguy
Well-known
What about the cv 50 1.1
Beemermark
Mentor
I've had a lot of fast 50's. While no one will agree with me (and I've has at least three) a coke bottle is better than the Canon 50/1.2. The best 50/1.4, bar none, is the Leica ASPH. I don't know why I sold it (pay bills I guess). A lot of 50's like the Summarit, old and new Noktons, are more personal preference as far as optics are concern but they all (to me) have issues with odd ball filters, too huge, coatings too soft and ruined or just plain non-ergonomical. The 1st version Summilux isn't a lot better than the Canon 50/1.2. For lots of fall off and low contrast it gives a great bokeh but for and all around lens it isn't much. The second version up to the ASPH are basically the same optics and are decent lenses but pretty pricey.
The winner, and it's a very inexpensive lens, is the Canon 50/1.4 second version.
The winner, and it's a very inexpensive lens, is the Canon 50/1.4 second version.
raid
Dad Photographer
Many view it as a bargain. It depends if you need such speed
Robert Lai
Well-known
Why I sold everything but the ZM C-Sonnar
Why I sold everything but the ZM C-Sonnar
First of all, if money is tight then don't buy a lens. Pay your rent and other living expenses first. Over a year ago, when I was unemployed, I sold off many of my Leica lenses because they had the most cash value of all of my equipment. Out went the 35 mm Summicron ASPH, and the latest version 50mm Summicron with the pull-out hood. Out went the 135mm Apo Telyt. Even the M7 got sold off. Survive first, get gear later. In fact, if the DR is a problem for you, then sell that too.
What I did keep in M mount was the Zeiss 50mm f/1.5 C-Sonnar. Mine seems optimized for f/2 which means that the focus shift at minimum focus is about 1cm in one direction at f/1.5, and 1cm in the other direction at f/2.8. By f/4 the depth of field covers over any possible focus shift.
The 50 Summicron was clinically sharp at all apertures. But, it was very sterile and perfect, in my view. My older lenses wide open tend to have lower contrast with a veiling flare over the entire field. Some of the faster lenses also have a bit of barrel distortion.
The C-Sonnar is distortion free. Wide open, the center is high contrast and sharp. The surrounding field dissolves into great bokeh. There is no sense of a veiling flare. If you've ever shot the Nikon 35mm f/1.4 AIS wide open, you'll know what I'm talking about with veiling flare. As you stop down the C-Sonnar, you get greater and greater depth of field. This lens is very flattering to people.
That's the impression that I get from the C-Sonnar. I like the look it gives. Mine focuses smoothly, without any wobble. The hood bayonets on, and a 62mm generic center pinch cap fits nicely on the mounted hood. You never have to remove the hood.
My lens in chrome is not overly heavy. My Canon 50 1.4 seems heavier. The 35mm Summicron ASPH in chrome was one heavy beast for such a small lens.
BTW - I did keep the collapsible Summicron 50 and the Canon 50 1.4 in LTM.
Now I only need an M mount camera to use the C-Sonnar on.
Why I sold everything but the ZM C-Sonnar
First of all, if money is tight then don't buy a lens. Pay your rent and other living expenses first. Over a year ago, when I was unemployed, I sold off many of my Leica lenses because they had the most cash value of all of my equipment. Out went the 35 mm Summicron ASPH, and the latest version 50mm Summicron with the pull-out hood. Out went the 135mm Apo Telyt. Even the M7 got sold off. Survive first, get gear later. In fact, if the DR is a problem for you, then sell that too.
What I did keep in M mount was the Zeiss 50mm f/1.5 C-Sonnar. Mine seems optimized for f/2 which means that the focus shift at minimum focus is about 1cm in one direction at f/1.5, and 1cm in the other direction at f/2.8. By f/4 the depth of field covers over any possible focus shift.
The 50 Summicron was clinically sharp at all apertures. But, it was very sterile and perfect, in my view. My older lenses wide open tend to have lower contrast with a veiling flare over the entire field. Some of the faster lenses also have a bit of barrel distortion.
The C-Sonnar is distortion free. Wide open, the center is high contrast and sharp. The surrounding field dissolves into great bokeh. There is no sense of a veiling flare. If you've ever shot the Nikon 35mm f/1.4 AIS wide open, you'll know what I'm talking about with veiling flare. As you stop down the C-Sonnar, you get greater and greater depth of field. This lens is very flattering to people.
That's the impression that I get from the C-Sonnar. I like the look it gives. Mine focuses smoothly, without any wobble. The hood bayonets on, and a 62mm generic center pinch cap fits nicely on the mounted hood. You never have to remove the hood.
My lens in chrome is not overly heavy. My Canon 50 1.4 seems heavier. The 35mm Summicron ASPH in chrome was one heavy beast for such a small lens.
BTW - I did keep the collapsible Summicron 50 and the Canon 50 1.4 in LTM.
Now I only need an M mount camera to use the C-Sonnar on.
YYV_146
Well-known
The 50lux is a decent performer at moderate apertures, rather soft wide open but I feel that it is a nice lens overall. The E46 version is slightly more expensive but I would prefer it for the close focus.
The 50mm Sonnar Compact is one of the nicer offerings from Zeiss. I really like its bokeh, but even without focus shift the lens is pretty soft wide open. But then again that might be what you're looking for. Build quality feels fine but I have seen three copies of this lens develop the Zeiss "wobble". In fact both ZMs I have ever owned personally - the 18mm and the supposedly "German" 15mm Distagon - have developed the "wobble". The 15 is still in Germany for repairs...
I agree that if you can handle the budget the 50mm Summilux ASPH is the best call. It is IMO as close to perfect a 50mm lens as one can hope for. Used ones are going for less than $3k now and for new copies there are the $250 Leica discounts.
The 50mm Sonnar Compact is one of the nicer offerings from Zeiss. I really like its bokeh, but even without focus shift the lens is pretty soft wide open. But then again that might be what you're looking for. Build quality feels fine but I have seen three copies of this lens develop the Zeiss "wobble". In fact both ZMs I have ever owned personally - the 18mm and the supposedly "German" 15mm Distagon - have developed the "wobble". The 15 is still in Germany for repairs...
I agree that if you can handle the budget the 50mm Summilux ASPH is the best call. It is IMO as close to perfect a 50mm lens as one can hope for. Used ones are going for less than $3k now and for new copies there are the $250 Leica discounts.
sparrow6224
Well-known
nikonos-- If the 50 f/1.5 Nokton feels too big for my everyday use, the f1.1 is right out. Tom A. loves the f/1.1 Nokton as I recall and has posted some superb photographs taken with it. But I don't need that fast a lens and it's too big.
Ferider. Thank you for the rundown. Love your 50mm page -- that Hexanon is something else, same with the Pentax and the Zuiko f/1.2. And the Summicron shot of the dog almost convinces me to shut up and use my DR with good grace. How'd you get that close?
Ferider. Thank you for the rundown. Love your 50mm page -- that Hexanon is something else, same with the Pentax and the Zuiko f/1.2. And the Summicron shot of the dog almost convinces me to shut up and use my DR with good grace. How'd you get that close?
sparrow6224
Well-known
Robert Lai -- I should have said that whatever I buy I'm going to have to pay for by selling other stuff. I have the Summicron DR, a fairly hard to find Nikkor AIS 25-50mm f/4 zoom, an F2 Photomic, and just possibly, though I doubt I'd go through with it, a beloved Summicron C 40mm. And a few other things. So have no fear I'm not eating into the rent money.
I'm leaning strongly toward the ZM Sonnar but that whole "wobble" thing is nerve wracking to consider. How much does it cost to fix?
I'm leaning strongly toward the ZM Sonnar but that whole "wobble" thing is nerve wracking to consider. How much does it cost to fix?
uhoh7
Mentor
Like many, I have a bunch of fast 50s, from 1937 to 2014 in manufacture date.
I don't have the best one, as noted above, the Lux asph. Someday.
Instead I've been splitting frontline daylight/lowlight between the cron v4 and nokton 1.1, both really fine lenses. With the M9 in lowlight, I believe you want to have an option faster than f/1.4, though i may be mistaken in this. At any rate, my copy of the CV 50/1.1 is perfect and can easily focus wide open on the M9: more easy than A7. But of course it is heavy, and you almost never reach for it in daylight.
Mike Hughes by unoh7, on Flickr
But recently the lens many of you already know about, a very light 1.1 sonnar, came to my attention:
http://www.japanexposures.com/shop/camera-lens/ms-optical-sonnetar-50-1.1.html
Of course this will have some quirks, but I am a fan of the wild sonnar bokeh---I have the nikkor 50/1.4 SC, and a CZJ, so with the yen down a bit I could not resist placing an order for one of these
I also have the Canon 1.2 and 1.4, and here's a question for Canon lovers: is there really a difference in optical formula between 1.4 v1 an v2?
I don't have the best one, as noted above, the Lux asph. Someday.
Instead I've been splitting frontline daylight/lowlight between the cron v4 and nokton 1.1, both really fine lenses. With the M9 in lowlight, I believe you want to have an option faster than f/1.4, though i may be mistaken in this. At any rate, my copy of the CV 50/1.1 is perfect and can easily focus wide open on the M9: more easy than A7. But of course it is heavy, and you almost never reach for it in daylight.
Mike Hughes by unoh7, on Flickr
But recently the lens many of you already know about, a very light 1.1 sonnar, came to my attention:
http://www.japanexposures.com/shop/camera-lens/ms-optical-sonnetar-50-1.1.html
Of course this will have some quirks, but I am a fan of the wild sonnar bokeh---I have the nikkor 50/1.4 SC, and a CZJ, so with the yen down a bit I could not resist placing an order for one of these
I also have the Canon 1.2 and 1.4, and here's a question for Canon lovers: is there really a difference in optical formula between 1.4 v1 an v2?
maggieo
More Deadly
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Over the years, I've had the 1950s collapsible Summicron 50 and the 1990s Summicron 50. Both were excellent. The Summilux was always just that little bit more expensive than I wanted to go for.
When I re-vested myself with Leica gear in 2011/2012, I went for a Nokton 50/1.5 ASPH (LTM). It's been my most used lens on the M9. The rendering is just barely a little busier than what I see out of pre-ASPH 'Luxes.
The 'Crons are a bit more accurate and consistent...
G
When I re-vested myself with Leica gear in 2011/2012, I went for a Nokton 50/1.5 ASPH (LTM). It's been my most used lens on the M9. The rendering is just barely a little busier than what I see out of pre-ASPH 'Luxes.
The 'Crons are a bit more accurate and consistent...
G
raid
Dad Photographer
The Rigid Summicron is a wonderful lens too, and is like the DR. I often use the CV 50/1.5 ltm. These are my most used 50mm lenses these days.
sparrow6224
Well-known
I also should have said I shoot b/w film -- almost entirely Tri-X. I shoot the city at night a lot; and in late afternoon and dusk. Thus I don't think I need the f/1.1 -- though they are going for $700 on certain auction sites right now.....
mcfingon
Western Australia
I recommend the C Sonnar. It's my favourite lens on B&W film on my M3, and on digital with the Sony A7S. At f1.5, edges are softer and backgrounds dreamy, but contrast is still high enough to appear good for portraits. Mine hasn't had the wobbles. I read more recent ones don't. Mine is a 2013 model.
