Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Carl Zeiss C Sonnar 1.5/50 ZM bokeh comparison
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Jun 26, 2013 7:54 am    Post subject: Carl Zeiss C Sonnar 1.5/50 ZM bokeh comparison Reply with quote






PostPosted: Wed Jun 26, 2013 7:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
very nice it is! Surprising, as Zeiss never paid much attention to bokeh....


PostPosted: Wed Jun 26, 2013 8:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
kds315* wrote:
very nice it is! Surprising, as Zeiss never paid much attention to bokeh....


True!
I also hope that this series will finally prove a popular myth wrong: that one gets the most "3D" wide open.


PostPosted: Wed Jun 26, 2013 8:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
That's indeed a very pleasant one.


PostPosted: Wed Jun 26, 2013 8:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
f5.6 looks amazing.
A sweet spot for many lenses.
OH


PostPosted: Wed Jun 26, 2013 8:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
kds315* wrote:
very nice it is! Surprising, as Zeiss never paid much attention to bokeh....


True!
I also hope that this series will finally prove a popular myth wrong: that one gets the most "3D" wide open.



I think that this "myth" comes from the fact that many for 3D mean "subject separation from background", instead of "plasticity" (that I understand is what you (and I) mean with it).
Actually, even separation gives some perception of the 3D space (i.e., distance between subject and background), and I think this is where confusion starts from.
Anyway, I think this discussion must have been had on these pages thousands of times, so I'll stop.

Beautiful samples, that was my main intention in answering this topic.


PostPosted: Wed Jun 26, 2013 9:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
In the 70s, Japan offered everyone the highest quality at affordable price. I mean the double gauss design "planar type". Detail, sharpness, contrast maximum abundance. So now it is nice to look at the results of other designs like the sonnar, less evolved but with exclusive results of its design... thanks for it!

Last edited by anktonio on Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:04 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Jun 26, 2013 9:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Aanything wrote:
"I think that this "myth" comes from the fact that many for 3D mean"...


Certainly it is amazing the number of pages that refer to the famous 3D effect making it depend almost metaphysical causes to its conversion into something mythical. It all depends on the separation between lens, subject and background, and optical lens design. Almost identical lens designs produced almost identical results... I think and I could check it Smile

Happy shots!


PostPosted: Wed Jun 26, 2013 9:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
f/2.8 has the most "pop" for my eyes!


PostPosted: Wed Jun 26, 2013 12:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Very nice, especially at f5.6 This is a lens with several personalities.


PostPosted: Wed Jun 26, 2013 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
damn, I wish I had a mirrorless cam, I have a J3 that I'm dying to use on digital....
Shots like this just make me jealous.

-Ben


PostPosted: Wed Jun 26, 2013 6:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Wow! All of these shots are really beautiful to me. Such nice colors.


PostPosted: Wed Jun 26, 2013 9:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Pontus wrote:
....several personalities.

My thoughts exactly. Those pictures are all beauties, but in your honest opinion, does have the corresponding bang for that almost obscene amount of buck?


PostPosted: Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
randreev wrote:
but in your honest opinion, does have the corresponding bang for that almost obscene amount of buck?


I never know what to answer to this question Smile

The cheapest alternative in the same focal lenght and speed it's the Voigtländer Nokton F 1,5 / 50 mm Asph., which costs 400 Euros less than the Zeiss.
Note that if the Sonnar price (1050 Eur) is obscene, the Nokton price (648 Eur) is not cheap either. Confused That's the painful side of rangefinder lenses.
I am sure that, performance wise, the Nokton is excellent just the same, will take pictures succesfully just the same, and in many cases (say, 7-8 cases out of 10)
you will not be able to tell the one from the other with a honest guess (i.e. not answering casually).

Of course, in spite of the identical focal lenght/speed figures, the two lenses are different. Zeiss is a Sonnar scheme, while Voigtländer is a double gauss (planar type).
Technically, a Sonnar f/1.5 is more remarkable than a Planar f/1.5. In fact, f/1.5 is the fastest Sonnar ever made (that I know of), while
Planar-types have been made even as fast as a f/0.7 (for NASA), or more commonly available, as the Noctilux f/0.95 that Leica released some months ago.
So this scores a point for the Sonnar price-wise, because it's certainly more challenging to make.
On the other hand, the Nokton features an aspherical element, which is normally more expensive than a normal element, so it balances the thing a bit.
The fact that the lenses are so different in optical scheme, will also probably result (I have not seen pictures taken with the Nokton, so mine is an educated guess based
on existing similar lenses) in different image quality. Where "different" does not mean that one is better and the other is worse - it simply means "different".
For instance, the smooth bokeh that some of you have noticed in these images, is not present in the other 50mm lens of the ZM catalogue,
the Planar 2/50, whose bokeh looks "busier" as in well known double gauss tradition. But some people prefers the busier bokeh
of Planar because it goes with "snappier" images.

Now this ultimately goes to the point: do you like the Sonnar's images more enough than the Nokton's to justify the 400 Eur price difference?
If yes, then it's worth - if not, then it's not Rolling Eyes Laughing

I personally am of the opinion that when you are on a short budget (like I am now, for instance), money should only go to where it's indispensable: so for instance,
better a less expensive lens and a flash unit with a softbox, than a more expensive lens and no lighting tools.
But then there is always the individual preference element: if the images of the more expensive lens have caught you completely, so that
you are totally sure that this is what you want or need, then go for it.
Whatever the choice, the good photos will always be determined by: A) your choices B) your subjects C) the lighting
Camera/lens equipment can influence, but not more than a 10% (unless you use a piece of junk Smile )
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1