Planar vs Sonnar "Looks"

<p>Hi, for those of us who love vintage 50's, why not post some shots that are characteristic of the "Sonnar Look" and the "Planar Look"?</p>

<p>'</p><div></div>

<p>''</p><div></div>

Yeah, what is the Sonnar look?

 

What would be the Planar look?

<p>My question exactly. Let's post some pics and see ...</p>

<p>Frederick-<br>

Are the Canon and Nikkor examples of the Planar & Sonnar? (Types)<br>

Which Leica lenses correspond?<br>

The Sonnar I had on my Rollei 35S was exceptionally good. My Summicron 50-M was also terrific. My current 50 Elmar-M is quite good, but differs from either the Sonnar or Summicron.</p>

<p>The Canon is a Planar (Double-Gauss). The Nikkor is a copy of the Sonnar. You're right; the Elmar is good, but I think it is more of a Tessar design, and a bit like the current 45mm Nikkor P. The Summicrons and Summiluxes are Planars. I do not think Leica has a current Sonnar type in production, though Cosina Zeiss makes a modern 50mm f1.5 Sonnar.</p>

<p>Samples from ZM 50/2.0 Planar.</p>

<p><img src="http://magnum.zenfolio.com/img/v7/p93692380-3.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<img src="http://magnum.zenfolio.com/img/v0/p378843959-3.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<img src="http://magnum.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p81220576-3.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<img src="http://magnum.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p82039017-3.jpg" alt="" /></p>

 

<p>Nice shots. The 50mm f2 ZM Planar has a deservedly good reputation. From everything I've read, it seems that Planars in general are clinically superior to Sonnars - if the measurement criterion is edge-to-edge sharpness. But Sonnars are supposed to have a distinctive character and have their adherents. The Planar designs seem to have dominated most manufacturers' lineups since the seventies. </p>

<p>'''</p><div></div>

<p>''''</p><div></div>

<p>Well, venturing a bit further in the format...<br>

150mm Sonnar</p>

<p><img src="http://www.stuartrichardson.com/sinclair-fedora2.jpg" alt="" /><br>

And this is the 110/2 planar at a little further distance, in the same yard, a little more wide open.<br>

<img src="http://www.stuartrichardson.com/dad-lulu-walk.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Okay, but can anyone describe with words the Planar look and the Sonnar look and the differences between them?<br>

Is there more than Planar = edge to edge sharpness and even exposure, while Sonnar = sharp center with darker, fuzzy corners?</p>

<p>bessa r; jupiter 8 50mm f/2 sonnar clone; fomapan 100 in perceptol</p><div></div>

<p>canon VL; canon 50mm f/1.2 (planar optical formula); fomapan 100 in perceptol</p><div></div>

<p>That's a helluva nice bridge, Brian ... and what are those blocks? Granite? ;^)</p>

<p>One lens formula seems to yield nice tonal qualities whilst the other has nice contrast ... until I saw the last picture with the Canon F1.2 (Planar) ... sigh. Thought I had something there ... </p>

<p>Any other observations or generalizations people want to apply?</p>

<p>yup that's granite alright. leftover nineteenth century construction rubble. i'm not sure that the canon 50/1.2 is a fair representation of the planar look. most agree canon tried to push the formula too far with that lens. it is rather soft in the corners but that's one reason i use it; i think it gives a nice look for portraits and nudes. </p>