New S-mount Sonnar 50/1.5 from Zeiss

Tom A said:
We should also remember that what today is a mundane non-Nikon lens could easily become a prized collectible later as the production of these new lenses is much smaller than the equivalent Nikon lenses! The 50f1.5 Sonnar S-mount will most likely have a run of 500 or maybe at the most 1000 lenses. A small run even by the standards of the more esoteric Nikon lenses.
Click to expand...

Hmm, if I have one LTM RF-lens made only 50 pieces (a black version of it) in co-operation by Zeiss/Rollei/Cosina few years ago, then it is not so common as this one would be... ;) My lens was not called 'Limited edition' and it's still available for example from B&H. I use it regularly for shooting, because I bought it just for that. :)
---
Edit: the black lens, which I was referring, is a Rollei HFT Sonnar 40/2.8 in LTM/M. So, it's not a 50/1.5.

Jari
 
Last edited:
Back to the lens... I just received e-mail from Zeiss Camera Lens Division, International Sales, Customer Support when I asked about the lens price in Europe:

--------
- the new C Sonnar T*1,5/50 lens for Nikon S-mount will be produced per order only
- Zeiss will collect orders for these special lens until the end of this year
- those who would like to place an order should provide all necessary data (name, address, quantity)
- the lenses will be delivered in spring, 2008
- the price for this product will be the same than for the C Sonnar T* 1,5/50 ZM lens
--------

The last sentence is interesting, because the price of ZM C Sonnar 50/1.5 is in Zeiss own webshop ( https://photo-shop.zeiss.com/Welcome ) 999.00 € incl. 19% German VAT, without forwarding costs.
 
Are all of you having some problem with your Nikon lenses? I'm not!!

Or is there a problem getting them? Seems to me there are a lot of lenses out there, at great prices.

I just never understand all this talk about non-nikon equipment on a Nikon forum. But each to his own I guess, but you are beginning to sound like collectors.
Click to expand...

I have had Nikon Rangefinders for 20years now and I have never even seen a Nikon 21mm RF lens. Given I worked in retail photographics for 10 years and still never saw one its fair to say they are pretty rare. I love the 21mm focal length and thanks to a forum member, as of today, I have a Voigtlander SC 21mm lens. Most Leica M2 and M3 users dont stick 100% to lenses made in the 50's they often get more modern lenses for their cameras. Yet by your logic if a Nikon RF user does they same (and modern lens offerings in S mount are few and far between) there is somehow something wrong with them? To accuse people of collector mentality for using other lenses on the Nikon RF is simply not the case. Some like the optical qualities of a modern lenses or others get focal lengths they have been unable to get. Even when Nikon finally does make a couple of modern lenses they are incredibly hard to get without having to buy the camera bodies they come with. I think any new S mount lenses are nothing but a good thing.
 
When I get my ZEISS SONNAR in NIKON mount, I'm going to post a detailed comparison of the Milenium 50/1.4 and it .... just for Fred ;)
 
20 years is not long Nikon RF wise, the 21 was released in 59.
Click to expand...

Yes Captain, you are far too hasty, you should wait at least 30 years before getting another brand of lens in a focal length you like! LOL
 
thanks for this discussion, now i know that i'll never want to get a nikon RF. my impression is, 'nikon' stands for "narrowminded ikon".

so, you do your stuff, i'll do mine -
 
This has been an interesting debate. The problem with Nikon Rf's is in Europe they were rare (and there are few around for sale). Of course you can peruse E-bay, but that is not the same as fondling one at a swap meet table or in a store. The possibility of adapting non Nikon lenses to the bodies opens up more of a choice, particularly in the Zeiss/Kiev lens line as these lenses are relatively plentiful and often reasonably priced.
As for the price of the new S mount Sonnar 50mm f1.5, it is not low, if you compare with used 50mm f1.4 Nikkors (with the exception of original Olymoic lenses and the Millenium 50f1.4), but compared to Leica it is a bargain (the list price of the new 50f2.5 Summarit M - the "low cost" alternative in the M-range is around $1200!).
The VC line of lenses for Nikon's allowed me to get a useful range, from 21/25/28 and onward without spending an outrageous amount. I have only shot with the 21 Nikkor RF in the 60's and those negs are long gone (moving and living in 7 different countries on three continents takes its toll!). The lens was probably adequate. but it left no deep memories. I did have the 25f4, but I had problem with flare and gave it away and I did have the 28/3,5, but I liked the 28 S mount VC better and sold it.
I came from an era of photography were occasionally you found a lens that worked well for certain purposes, but was incompatible with your regular cameras - so you added a dedicated body instead. It was not uncommon to find shooters working with Nikon F's and also carrying a Spotmatic for a Macro or 100 mm lens. I used to carry an old Contax II with the 21mm f4,5 Biogon as a complement to the Leica M's, before the Super Angulon 21/3,4 came out.
The difference is that today most Nikon Rf's and a substantial amount of M's aare used by enthusiasts rather than pro's. The mixing and matching allows us to "play" with both past legendary lenses and cameras as well as enjoying new glass, without breaking the bank!
I am not a golfer, but it seems to me that they are hitting their little white balls without regard for the brand of ball or club! Shame on them!
Having said all that, I will now venture out and shoot some stuff with my Zeiss Ikon from Japan and an Orion 28f6 and a Jupiter 85f2 and possibly a Jupiter 35f2.8, the latter one on a M2!
Heresy or not, I am having a ball doing it!
 
Cale Arthur said:
Fred, assuming you're also speaking of the 'standard' 50/f1.4 or 50/f2, and not just the 50/f1.1, would you mind elaborating on this a bit (i.e.: long term negative effects on the camera)? As an S2 user w/a 50/f1.4 Nikkor-SC as my only lens, when should i start to be concerned about this as a potential problem? Thanks in advance..

--c--
Click to expand...

if the S2 has worked well with the 50/1.4 these last 50 years it will work well for another 50 years.
the internal mount helical was only a problem for the first Nikkor 50mm f1.1 with the internal mount because of its size and weight.

the idea of a light 50mm lens using an external helical like the VC Nokton,defeats the Contax/ Nikon concept of the built -in the body focus helical for the 50mm lens.
why the focus helical duplication, the VC Nokton is not that heavy.
if this was a real problem maybe the early Nikon should have went the LTM route like Canon , Leotax, Nicca, Tanack and the rest did, I heard it was actually considered at the planning stage.
bravo for Zeiss to make the New Sonnar in the classic internal mount.
 
jsuominen said:
I have the LTM/M-mount version of it and it's indeed a very good lens for the price I payed for it! My only complaint is a bit loose aperture ring and aperture can change by accident... I wonder, has S-mount version of Nokton any better aperture ring? Maybe not, because it a bit different: it rotates when you focus the lens and so do all other S-mount aperture rings.
Click to expand...

I used to have the Nokton. It's a well designed and well built lens. The aperture wasn't loose on mine. Unlike other S-mount 50mm lenses, the front of the lens and the aperture ring do not rotate when you focus. The aperture is very easy to change because the focus is well dampened. But because the focus is so well dampened, you cannot use the focus wheel to focus the lens. You have to focus the lens by rotating the lens barrel. The Nokton is a very comfortable lens to use, but is quite bulky in comparison to the internal mount lenses.
 
Fred,

Unlike other sites RFF has a broad range us members who come with vastly diverse range of expertise, drive, knowledge, goals and economic status. I have seen opinions that sometimes make me think that they belong to the flat earth society, others are insightful and make me reevaluate myself. I started out trying the FSU thing but after hitting my head up against the wall several times I quit. It was very to get into FSU stuff, the price point is very appealing. But at the end of the day the pictures were not of the look, the quality that I wanted. There is a look to great lenses. The way they capture colour, the way the render out of focus areas, their sharpness or in some cases, the lack there of. There is not one look that is perfect for everyone all the time. The glass is but part of the total solution, the camera is another important part, as is processing and printing. Some people look at the camera as the most important part. For them, there is no issue with using a good FSU 35/2.8 rather than a Nikkor 35/2.5. Others say it’s the lenses and use ZI lenses on a Bessa R2 and are quite happy. For me, it’s the camera and the lens that are important. Someday I will rebuild my darkroom or a dry-room and then it will be the total solution, but for now, it’s what I carry.

I am just now about to fund a 50/1.4 Mil for my S3 2000 and I’m very excited about it. I am very happy with the 25/4 and 35/2.5 CV lenses. While I would love to have a 35/1.8, the matching 50 is more important to me. My new to me 35 CV cost 1/3 of a used 35/1.8 so it will do very well. On my Leica kit I do not carry any of my Leica lenses, it’s all CV or Nikkor. Why, because the price/performance ratio is right. Performance includes speed, size, colour rendition, flare resistance, sharpness and others. In the case of the 105, there is nothing even close. In the case of the 15 and the 40, the speed of ZI or price of the Leica glass is way out of my range.

I believe that the vast majority of people with Nikon Rangefinders would prefer to have Nikkor glass. Finding good stuff is hard work some times and the amount of work it takes find factors into what people use.

B2 (;->
 
Thanks to this thread I am about as turned off by Nikon as I am about Leica and it has nothing to do with the equipment.

Bob
 
Eh not my point... he said he never saw any Nikkor 21s from 1997 to 2007, I was just mentioning he was looking about 30 years too late. I would not expect to see any myself.
Click to expand...

No I think you missed the point of Captains original post as it was addressing your comments questioning those who use non Nikon lenses on their Nikon Rangefinders and referring to them as collectors. Captains posts was pointing out that in 20 years (1997 to 2007 is only 10 by the way but guessing that was a typo) he hadn't seen a Nikkor 21mm lens in that time, which you also point out is rare, so there was no other choice for him in a focal length that he liked. It's as bit harsh to tar someone with the collector brush when they buy a lens that's not yet a collectible to actually use it.

I so too agree with his comments that Leica owners haven't given up the soul of their photography when they use more modern lenses on their early M's. They have the fortune of lenses being available since the 50's.

I do agree partially with your point about experiencing the original lenses on their Nikon Rangefinders. I have with my own and thats great in itself however, I also wanted more modern multi coated lenses and larger variety of focal lengths (readily available) and brands for everyday use and at that time was forced to add an M mount system. Had their been new Nikkors, Voitlander or Zeiss offerings then I would have stuck purely with Nikon RF. These alternatives promote more and more Nikon RF users through greater choice and versatility rather than detract from the spirit of them. I can appreciate your dedication to the brand though, its almost Leica like! LOL They are great cameras and lenses.
 
>>I am not suggesting that anyone do all their photography -- forever -- with Nikon RFs. <<
Click to expand...

Err, I guess that might be me.

My non-Nikkor lenses include the CV 25/4, which nicely matches the modern crispness of the 50/1.4 Millenneum; and an original Zeiss Biogon 21/4.5 because back when I was shooting film for work, I needed something that wide and wanted to stop carrying an SLR. One of the reasons I never developed a real fondness for the Biogon was that its high contrast never matched the mood of the classic Nikkors.

For me, the Soviet Kiev served as an entry point into the Nikon RF system. I bought a Kiev II for something like $70 when there still was a Soviet Union. This Contax II clone was enjoyable to use. As I researched it and learned about the Nikon system, I got a Nikon S2. My first non-50 RF lens was a Jupiter 35/2.8. I still recall my amazement in the darkroom when I discovered that the Jupiter 35mm lens was sharp enough for my daily newspaper work, with deep rich tones as well. I think my photo editor would have choked if he'd known I was using Kievs and Jupiters and then-35-year-old Nikons to do my assignments. Fortunately, I was in a remote bureau and just shipping prints via an electric-eye drum or overnight express mail, and the editors always raved about the prints. I soon put together a full compliment of Nikkors because they were just better lenses than the FSU stuff. In particular, they were sharper, with no flare issues, and with dynamite coatings. As I've mentioned before, I shot the Nikon RFs for newspaper work up through the late 1990s, initially out of rebellion against automated SLR overkill, but eventually out of a deep love of the way they handled and of course the images they took.
 
Reading this whole discussion, I doubt that Zeiss/ Cosina will sell more than 100 of this lenses in Nikon S mount. Probably they could sell more in Contax mount.

My kind of NIKON RF users/collectors who owns a single S2 with a Nikkor 50/1.4 is no market: I simply like this combo that I probably never will buy anything else for it.

"Real" Nikonians (with no LTM or M rangefinder cameras at all) will hardly accept anything "Cosina" except if they cannot grant 9,500 USD, feel in need of a a 21mm lens, and solidly refuse glass of a company who sued Nikon in the 50's at international courts for patent and name violation. So unfortunatly for Zeiss and Cosina, a Nikkor-S 50/1.4 is much cheaper to have, is 1/6 stop faster than the C-Sonnar, and additionally, there are no stories about focus-shift with the 55+ year old Nikkor-S (for whatever reason). ;)
 
Last edited:
Frank, you can always put this lens in an equally collectible Orion adapter and use it on a Leica ;)

Otherwise the economic feasibility of such a lens could indeed be questioned. Did Nikon actually make a profit on their SP and S3 new editions?
 
I always found it strange that a forum be more dedicated to a body/mount
instead of a lens type/brand.

I love my Nikkors, but like many other RFF members, I use a different
lens mount. Shouldn't matter for the pictures, should it ?

Roland.
 
Nikon Bob said:
Thanks to this thread I am about as turned off by Nikon as I am about Leica and it has nothing to do with the equipment.

Bob
Click to expand...

Nikon Bob is a turned off by Nikon idiots showing their loyalty??

HAHAHAHAHAHAH:D ROFL

Are you buying the new lens?


Kiu
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom