MFlenses - A new life in a digital age
MFLenses 2026

Manual Focus Lenses Forum

Explore the world of vintage lenses through repair notes, real test shots, and detailed archive threads packed with images.

Explore the world of vintage lenses through repair notes, real test shots, and detailed archive threads packed with images.
logovectorizer.com
Spotlight

Featured partner placement for the forum front page.

Sonnar vs Sonnar on A7
Post new topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  


Post
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 11:08 am
Post subject: Sonnar vs Sonnar on A7
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 11:08 am
Post subject: Sonnar vs Sonnar on A7
Reply
I bought a CZ Sonnar 85mm 2.8 ( QBM) for 90 euros some months ago and recently a used CZ Batis 85mm 1.8 for 1000 euros.
A bokeh comparison : same settings ( WB, sharpness 50 LR) except +9 clarity +9 vibrance and +6 vignette for the QBM at 2.8.
You can see the swirling bobeh of the QBM at 2.8.
Regarding sharpness the lenses seem equal at f4 and the QBM at 2.8 is more or less on par with the Batis at 1.8.

The Batis has a pincushion distortion which is noticable.
Usually I make portraitures of my wife but the Talisker bottle is more patient than she is.

Batis 1.8


Batis 2.8


QBM 2.8


Batis 4
[/url]

QBM 4


Post
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 12:05 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 12:05 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Nice comparison. QBM rulz it Smile


Post
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 2:48 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 2:48 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Whoo Turtle QBM Sonnar is one of the best lens in my experience, I don't think so anybody can make better lens.


Post
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 4:29 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 4:29 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Attila wrote:
Whoo Turtle QBM Sonnar is one of the best lens in my experience, I don't think so anybody can make better lens.


Yes it is a wonderful little lens.


Post
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 6:52 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 6:52 pm
Post subject:
Reply
At f/4 Batis looks worse than it looks at f/2.8.
Probably you missed the focus a little at f/4 with Batis.


Post
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 8:04 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 8:04 pm
Post subject:
Reply
dan_ wrote:
At f/4 Batis looks worse than it looks at f/2.8.
Probably you missed the focus a little at f/4 with Batis.

The camera was held and I used AF with the Batis. You might be right so I'll test it again tomorrow.
The goal was to compare the bokeh as those lenses are sharp enough.


Post
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 9:42 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 9:42 pm
Post subject:
Reply
If the Bokeh is compared, to my eyes Batis looks a bit smoother till f/4. At f/4 the QBM looks smoother.
Probably Batis is a bit sharper at all apertures but a greater pixel count should be necessary to clearly spot the differences.
To my surprise the color looks quite similar for both lenses. I expected a greater difference in color (with QBM being warmer and a bit more saturated) but, probably, it is not so obvious in this light.
The QBM keeps its own very well on an A7, that's for sure.


Post
Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 8:58 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 8:58 am
Post subject:
Reply
dan_ wrote:
If the Bokeh is compared, to my eyes Batis looks a bit smoother till f/4. At f/4 the QBM looks smoother.
Probably Batis is a bit sharper at all apertures but a greater pixel count should be necessary to clearly spot the differences.
To my surprise the color looks quite similar for both lenses. I expected a greater difference in color (with QBM being warmer and a bit more saturated) but, probably, it is not so obvious in this light.
The QBM keeps its own very well on an A7, that's for sure.


Teh QBM is really sharp and contrasty. It gives also a nice rendition of skins.
I agree with your comments regarding the bokeh of those lenses.

Today I tested the Batis at f4 again, it is very sharp . There was a problem on my yesterday's shot.


Post
Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 10:46 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 10:46 am
Post subject:
Reply
memetph wrote:
dan_ wrote:
At f/4 Batis looks worse than it looks at f/2.8.
Probably you missed the focus a little at f/4 with Batis.

The camera was held and I used AF with the Batis. You might be right so I'll test it again tomorrow.
The goal was to compare the bokeh as those lenses are sharp enough.


I noticed right from the beginning that this "test" was not made as it should.

I know you can do it better!!

Greez Wink Stephan


Post
Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 1:32 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 1:32 pm
Post subject:
Reply
[quote="stevemark"][quote="memetph"]
dan_ wrote:


I know you can do it better!!

Greez Wink Stephan


Merci vielmals .
Gruezi


Post
Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 1:41 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 1:41 pm
Post subject:
Reply
[quote="memetph"][quote="stevemark"]
memetph wrote:
dan_ wrote:


I know you can do it better!!

Greez Wink Stephan


Merci vielmals .
Gruezi


Please don't take it as an offense - i've been writing it with a broad smile on my face Wink

But, hélas, these lenses (and todays sensors!!) are so good that differences between them are to be found reliably only if one works really carefully. Even then, the adapters make my frown very often; I really suspect them to cause some irregularities when testing MF lenses. But that's another topic ....

Stephan


Post
Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 2:15 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2016 2:15 pm
Post subject:
Reply
[quote="stevemark"][quote="memetph"]
stevemark wrote:
memetph wrote:
dan_ wrote:


I know you can do it better!!

Greez Wink Stephan


Merci vielmals .
Gruezi


Please don't take it as an offense - i've been writing it with a broad smile on my face Wink

But, hélas, these lenses (and todays sensors!!) are so good that differences between them are to be found reliably only if one works really carefully. Even then, the adapters make my frown very often; I really suspect them to cause some irregularities when testing MF lenses. But that's another topic ....

Stephan


It was humour from my side ....I wanted to improvise some schwietzerduetsch for you ! Laugh 1


Post
Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2016 11:34 pm
Post subject: Re: Sonnar vs Sonnar on A7
Reply
Post
Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2016 11:34 pm
Post subject: Re: Sonnar vs Sonnar on A7
Reply
[quote="memetph"]I bought a CZ Sonnar 85mm 2.8 ( QBM) for 90 euros some months ago and recently a used CZ Batis 85mm 1.8 for 1000 euros.
A bokeh comparison : same settings ( WB, sharpness 50 LR) except +9 clarity +9 vibrance and +6 vignette for the QBM at 2.8.
You can see the swirling bobeh of the QBM at 2.8.
Regarding sharpness the lenses seem equal at f4 and the QBM at 2.8 is more or less on par with the Batis at 1.8.

[The Batis has a pincushion distortion which is noticable.
Usually I make portraitures of my wife but the Talisker bottle is more patient than she is.]


Outer field bokeh on the QBM is "active" versus the Batis. Gives the image some dynamic appeal, IMO.
Post new topic Reply to topic
Page 1 of 1