Carl Zeiss 50mm Plannar vs Zeiss 55mm Sonnar

[geetee1972]

Hi all - newbie here, nice be part of the forum.

 

I have a question around which there is some information in other past posts here but nothing definitive.

 

I recently moved from an RX1, which I'd had for two years, to an A7rII and to keep the cost down, I picked up some second hand A-Mount primes and relative adapters at very good prices on eBay. My staple lens is the Sony Carl Zeiss 50mm Plannar adapted with the LA-EA3. I also have the 85mm ZA lens with the LA-EA4.

 

I love both but they are big. Yes they're f/1.4 but I rarely use that apperture as I prefer to have all my subject in focus (I focus mostly on street portraiture). I'm not sure why I opted originally for the 50mm Plannar with adapter when effectively the 55mm native Sonnar is the same price; I think I convinced myself at the time that the larger apperture was preferable. Now I'm not so sure and much as I love the way the bigger plannar lens feels, it does lack eye AF (which would be very useful for what I do) and it is still a weighty lens.

 

My question is what value do other people think there is to switching? I have no qualms that the chepaer Sonnar lens is probably still sharper than the Plannar, but does it do all those other wonderful things as well, like skin tone, contrast, micro-contrast, colour etc as well?

 

I would love to read your opinions. Many thanks

Greg

[geetee1972]

I can see plenty of people have viewed this question but there are no responses. I've actually been able to answer my own question by a rash decision to just buy a copy of the FE55, knowing that I could always sell it or the Plannar. The results are interesting.

 

Unquestionably the FE55 is sharper and in that respect a better match for the resolution of the A7rII. It obviously does the eye AF as well as all the other AF functionality that a native lens will do and it's very small and light compared to the Plannar. However, I think it does also lack a little something in character. It's a bit like listening to a super revealling digital front end on a top notch hifi set up and then comparing it to an equivalent high end analgoue source. I was doing just this at a friend's house yesterday (quite an amazing system; £80k for the whole lot with £10k analogue and £13k digital sources).

 

The digital source is cleaner, more crisp and sharp and more technically correct, but it can also be very unforgiving of the source, lacks warmth and intimacy and can be very hard on your ears; it can almost sound brittle. The analogue front end is warm and engaging, easier to listen to and has lots more intimacy, even though it's not quite as well refined or detailed and there is some smearing in the detail.

 

Interesting to use language like that to describe music reproduction because these are pretty much exactly the same adjectives we use in photography. The Plannar is the analogue source and the Sonnar is the digital source. Like the hifi though, I think I will have them both.

[Jainbaby]

I am new also, so no expert advice from me. I am about to buy either the 55f1.8 or the Loxia 50. I have a few manual lenses and am comfortable with manual. What I think I have decided to do is sell my 40 MM voigtlander and buy both. I would like to have one really nice manual and something I can shoot quick with (3 kids-Disney, beach etc).

[CZ-Fotominator]

Hi, geetee,

I switched over from D810 with all the CZ Classic lenses, so the 1,4/50 Planar as well. Now meanwhile I own the 7RM2 with 2,0/25 Batis Distagon, the tiny 2,8/35, the 1,8/55 CZ/Sony Sonnar, the 1,8/85 Batis Planar and finally the 2,8/90 Sony macro. All these CZ/Sony sense are native Lenses and they keep the typical CZ-Character and nature. I love really the 1,8/55, it is in all matters better than the 50 Planar Classic: Clarity, Contrast Edge to Edge, Solution, Distortion, CAs  aso. A 1,4 FStop ist not really helpful, if you see the performance in the far Corners and the edges. You have to stop down at least to 5,6, to get a comparable performance like the Sonnar  55 already at 1,8. But: It is up to you. You have to learn to find out to work very differently with the Aperture and the FocusLevel and the Light. One certain day it will make Bang and you will become a true Zeissonian. Now worries, trust in yourself.

[Guest all8]

I am new also, so no expert advice from me. I am about to buy either the 55f1.8 or the Loxia 50. I have a few manual lenses and am comfortable with manual. What I think I have decided to do is sell my 40 MM voigtlander and buy both. I would like to have one really nice manual and something I can shoot quick with (3 kids-Disney, beach etc).

 

 

I have the Loxia 50, its great, I really enjoy using it. Just last weekend I took it for a walk with the family and got a very good hit rate - photos are both single and group shots, so the focal length worked for both. It as much more enjoyable that the 40MM voigtlander and the results are significantly better (I own one).

 

One great thing about this lens is that you get 3 different characteristics; f2-4 gives nice vignetting; f4-5.6 is most pleasing IMO with contrast, color and bokeh; f8 and onwards gets nice even sharpness.

 

f8.0

 

 

 

f4.0

 

[Jainbaby]

Thanks Timde. Pretty much certain I am buying both Loxia and 55F1.8.

 

I am going to buy one of them tomorrow, which one to get first.....????-that is the question!

[Jainbaby]

Timde, thoughts on keeping the 40mm voigtlander?

 

I like how small and compact it is, but so far I feel it's very quirky. What do you think?

[joshinthecity]

Thanks Timde. Pretty much certain I am buying both Loxia and 55F1.8.

 

I am going to buy one of them tomorrow, which one to get first.....????-that is the question!

 

The 55 f1.8

You might find that you no longer feel you need the Loxia :-)

[Sanddan4u]

The 55 f1.8

You might find that you no longer feel you need the Loxia :-)

 

I agree.

 

The FE55 represented everything I liked about my Sigma 50 1.4 Art when I had my 6D--great contrast, sharpness, great hood, snappy AF and zeiss-like pop.  The deal killer ended up being the S50A's size and heft.

 

The 55 is a fraction of the Sigma's size and weight, and mounted on the A7R, provides a much smaller overall footprint.  It was also the same price as the Sigma, which for an f1.8 lens in the 50mm range is expensive.  But I have to admit, the lens is outstanding and very reliable.  I also use it on my A6000, even for basketball, and the combo really performs.

[joshinthecity]

There's something weird to me about how the lens itself looks. It's not the convex front element. I think it's its proportions generally..

 

But; other than that slight quirk,

I PERSONALLY think, FOR ME, and MY COPY, it qualifies as one of the few "masterpiece" AF lenses. From the most unlikely source.

Along with the 35 f2 on the Sony RX1R. Sony have made a fair amount of glass, some of it is "good". Very little of it is "great" Just those 2 qualify. TO ME.  And yes.. Zeiss. I know.

 

That said, I do have a very good feeling about the upcoming G-Master 85.

I'm thinking that just might be the third. Maybe.

 

Which would give Sony three truly "great" lenses. Conveniently at 35, 55, and 85.

 

I have a lot of other glass, and one of those is also "great",  but I think the FE55 is a lens that could easily be my desert island lens.

It's that good.

And it's an absolute monochrome killer too..

 

I was expecting it to be good when I bought it, but just how good (and versatile) continues to be a surprise and delight.

(and for some context, I shot my A7II with a brand new Leica Summilux 50mm f1.4 ASPH yesterday)

 

buy the 55. Spend a week with it, shoot the whole week at f1.8 if you like, then re-assess.

[activatedfx]

I have the FE 55 and a Contax 50/1.4 MMJ C/Y. The FE 55 is an incredible lens as others have stated. But, as others have also started, it's almost TOO good! No "soul". Other than that, it's hard to find any fault, except a strong propensity to paint bright out of focus edges green. (This doesn't bother me, but some people don't like it.) The Contax 50/1.4 isn't as sharp across the frame as the FE 55, but it is plenty sharp in the center, even wide open, and it has a more "organic", film-like rendering. I'm keeping both for different purposes, but you can't go wrong with either one depending on your tastes and needs.

 

FWIW, the lens that I take out along with the FE 55 is the Contax 85/2.8 Sonnar C/Y. One of the best, and most underrated, Contax lenses. Sharp from f/2.8. Contrasty and, of course, that Zeiss look. Works beautifully on the A7ii.

[PCA]

I personally prefer the rendering of the sonnar design over the plannar.  I wish the Loxia had a sonnar version.  Maybe we will see a 75mm F/2 sonnar soon.

[geetee1972]

Well here are two examples that help illustrate the differences between the FE55 Sonnar and the CZ 50mm Plannar.

 

Richard by Greg Turner, on Flickr

 

This is the 55mm Sonnar - super sharp as you can see and because of the eye autofocus easy to get the right focus.

 

Portrait of Ian by Greg Turner, on Flickr

 

This is the 50mm Plannar. I've not quite nailed the focus (it looks to have locked onto nose) so the eyes are a little soft, but even the in focus areas are a little softer than the Sonnar.

 

They're different pictures of course; would be interested to see if poeple have a preference to the way that they present their story.

[goo0h]

Well, I have the 55 and the 50 Planar (for m-mount.)  I also rented briefly the Loxia 50.  Overall I'm preferring the 55.  I have to admit the auto-focus does come in handy at times.  I've been able to focus on just an eye ball, and never really was able to achieve that with film cameras (SLR, rangefinder, etc) in the past.  Also, I think the OOF area with the 55 is a tad bit smoother than with the Planar/Loxia.  With the latter it can be just a tad bit busy at times.  I guess the question is do you want to rely on manual focus all the time?

[Jainbaby]

I just bought the 55 F 1.8.  Should be here next week

[geetee1972]

 

I guess the question is do you want to rely on manual focus all the time?

Life's too short to miss great pictures with botched focus although that could just as easily be an argument for manual focus as it is autofocus.

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

I used to be into hifi. The better turntable and pressings you get, the more they sound like digital. Of course you can use tubes and such for warmer sound, but that goes for digital too. 80k audio is way past the furthest point of diminishing returns.

 

With that out of the way:

 

I think the 55/1.8 is the one lens all A7 camera owners should have. It's just a perfect match. If you love the IQ of the Planar, keep that one too. Use either lens for what it does best. If money is a factor, just think of it as a lean month and then you'll have great optics for ever.

 

 

I can see plenty of people have viewed this question but there are no responses. I've actually been able to answer my own question by a rash decision to just buy a copy of the FE55, knowing that I could always sell it or the Plannar. The results are interesting.

 

Unquestionably the FE55 is sharper and in that respect a better match for the resolution of the A7rII. It obviously does the eye AF as well as all the other AF functionality that a native lens will do and it's very small and light compared to the Plannar. However, I think it does also lack a little something in character. It's a bit like listening to a super revealling digital front end on a top notch hifi set up and then comparing it to an equivalent high end analgoue source. I was doing just this at a friend's house yesterday (quite an amazing system; £80k for the whole lot with £10k analogue and £13k digital sources).

 

The digital source is cleaner, more crisp and sharp and more technically correct, but it can also be very unforgiving of the source, lacks warmth and intimacy and can be very hard on your ears; it can almost sound brittle. The analogue front end is warm and engaging, easier to listen to and has lots more intimacy, even though it's not quite as well refined or detailed and there is some smearing in the detail.

 

Interesting to use language like that to describe music reproduction because these are pretty much exactly the same adjectives we use in photography. The Plannar is the analogue source and the Sonnar is the digital source. Like the hifi though, I think I will have them both.

[geetee1972]

I dropped round a friends house for a cup of tea (how very English of me). His wife agreed to have her picture taken; the light was just right. I decided to try the Plannar as the last two weeks I've been using the Sonnar. I think this confirms even more strongly my earlier assessment. The Plannar on the A7rII has a more analogue feel; more character but it's not as sharp or detailed. For a window lit portrait though, it's sublime.

 

Michala by Greg Turner, on Flickr

[dmwphoto]

read through this thread and looked at the images. Read the reviews on B&H, ordered lens. Looks like this is a highly regarded lens.

[jaclarkaus]

The only real problem with the 55 is it's an orphan.

 

Would kill for a matching 35 and 90 ...

 

It's simply a stunning small lens, and there should be more of them (like a 28 that is straight...)

[vondauster]

Good discussion. I've used the 55 extensively, and run comparisons with my M mount 50mm F2.0 Planar, and my experiences mirror much of what has been said. The 50mm Planar is a really good lens, with interesting character. But if I had to grab one of them and run, it would be the 55 every time. I agree that this is a lens that will be considered a classic as time goes on.

 

Interesting that my 44 year old, 50mm Zeiss-branded Ultron in 42mm screw mount also has a concave front element, and is also absurdly sharp for its time.

 

Will

[geetee1972]

The only real problem with the 55 is it's an orphan.

 

Would kill for a matching 35 and 90 ...

 

It's simply a stunning small lens, and there should be more of them (like a 28 that is straight...)

 

So the SAR site is showing that Sony will release a number of large aperture primes this year. What's the betting that one of them will be an f/1.4 50mm?

[nomad]

Why should they? With todays camera's sensitivity and the success of the 55mm f1.8, they'll probably focus (pun intended) on other lengths. Hopefully 35mm…

[jaclarkaus]

My point was not for more 1.4 lenses, as they will probably do that anyway (I have a canon 50/1.2 II anyway) but sharp 1.8 light compact lenses, like the 55/1.8

 

Would love a 35 1.8 and maybe 85-90 f2?

[goo0h]

The only real problem with the 55 is it's an orphan.

 

Would kill for a matching 35 and 90 ...

 

It's simply a stunning small lens, and there should be more of them (like a 28 that is straight...)

this is so true! would love a 35mm/1.8.

 

 

 

 

Sent using Tapatalk