looking for a very sharp lens - try a Sonnar 5cm pre war collapsible

[mravigna]

Just got a role back after using this lens on my Contax II and it is very sharp. This is an uncoated lens but with a lens shade the quality is hard to beat. I will try and compare it to the Helios 103 but I think the Sonnar beats it. Anyone else have this lens. Mine was manufactured in 1937 and is collapsible.

 

[FrankS]

I have one of these, but can't help you as I have not tried it out yet. Could you post a picture? I think I've read that the optics are the same in the 50mm f2 Sonnar collapsible and rigid. Perhaps over the winter break I can do a shoot out with my several Contax mount 50mm lenses.

 

[Nikon Bob]

I have a CZJ Sonnar 1.5 from the same year as yours and have no complaints in the sharpness or colour departments. Still waiting to get my CZJ collapsible. also from 37, back from servicing but I would be surprised if it will be any less sharp. It would be interesting if you could post some examp;es take with your lens.

Bob

 

[SCOTFORTHLAD]

I have an F2 version of this lens,which I came to me from Max(darkkavenger)--he has many examples of results from it.
As yet I haven't finished a first roll from it,attached to a Kiev 4a.The lens dates from 1936,and has been coated,apparently they could be returned to Zeiss for coating.

Brian.

 

[Roger Hicks]

A lot depends on how you define 'sharpness'. Contrast: yes. Resolution of fine detail: not really.

Yes, I've tried this lens, on two different cameras, RF and TLR. Although it's brilliant for its vintage, it's a joke to pretend that it compares with later lenses designed after coating became general and the Cooke Triplet-derived Sonnars had to compete with symmetrical designs. It's still a great design -- I love my C-Sonnar -- but objectively it can't hold a candle to a current Summilux or even Noctilux and I'm not sure about the Nokton.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Santafecino]

I'm not sure why this thread is placed under FSU RF. 1937 was before the Russians made Sonnars.

 

[mravigna]

I will see about posting an example in the next few days

I will see about posting an example in the next few days

I will try posting something in the next few days. I have never done this before in this forum but I will try. As for why I am posting this in the FSU forum. Well, I think that we all agree that using a pre-war Contax and its lenses has a lot to do with using a Kiev rangefinder. I own both, they are historically linked, and the lenses fit on both, so what's the problem with comparing? Many of us are interested with these comparisons.

Ruben uses the term Kontax for a reason.

 

[FrankS]

How would you compare the feel and function of your samples of Contax and Kiev? Which Kiev do you have?

 

[mravigna]

The Contax feels more solid

The Contax feels more solid

I have both the Contax II and III and the following Kiev cameras: Kiev II (1954), Kiev III (1957), 2 Kievs 4a type 1 (1968 and 1972), and a Kiev 4 a type 2. The earlier Kiev's feel more solid and the Kiev II has a very whisper sounding shutter, even better than the Contax. I actually enjoy them all.

I have uploaded a picture taken with a Sonnar 5cm collapsible lens. The original file had 70megabytes and this one is a lot smaller and not quite as sharp as the original. It was shot using Kodakcolor 400 and partially cropped with Photoshop to close to a 4/3 ratio. I used just a bit of sharpening but no other alterations. I am not sure that reducing the size of this file will render justice to the quality of this lens.