The 3 Multicoated S-Mount Lenses (Internal Mount)

[VinceC]

great thread. On the 10-foot shots, I thought the harsh bokeh was pretty equal in both lenses, proving again how subjective it can be.

 

[jonmanjiro]

Holy cow, a blast of wind and all you get off testing is a mint FM3A falling down that fence !

Nothing to worry about My FM3A has its share of battle scars, so a few more wouldn't matter so much!

 

[jonmanjiro]

I found your test shots very interesting, but without greater cropping it's hard to see much difference in sharpness (softness?) in the Sonnar from it's inherent focus shift compared to the others. It certainly appears less objectional in the S mount than in an M mount, due most likely in how the RF cam system is set up (built-in to the camera).

As per your suggestion, I just changed the minimum focus test shots above to centre crops.

 

[jonmanjiro]

Here's some crops of the wide open bokeh shots shown above. The Millennium Nikkor-S 50/1.4 is shown on the left, and the Zeiss Sonnar is shown on the right.

 

[Palaeoboy]

Jon, Are you sure in the case of the Heliar it was focused spot on. I only ask because the lens is not known for any focus shift and if focused correctly I believe it probably would be the winner at f4. But ultimately I guess centre for all will be close. Without having to trouble yourself posting more samples, how are the edges?

 

[jonmanjiro]

Yes, pretty certain the Heliar was focused spot on. I had my S2 on a tripod, and concentrated on focusing on the right edge of the "N". If focus was off, it couldn't have been by much. More samples to come later today!

 

[jonmanjiro]

Here's some more test shots. The full image taken with the Heliar @ f5.6 (focus on the "P" on the post box 20 feet from the camera) is shown below.

Here's some comparison crops. These crops are the images as they came out of my Coolscan V scanner at full resolution, but reduced to 50% size for viewing. Viewing the images at this magnification is comparable to viewing a slide with a 20x loupe.

Nikkor-S @ f1.4, Zeiss @ f1.5, Nikkor-H @ f2 - centre crop
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2121/2513133788_de70afbea0_o.jpg

Nikkor-S @ f1.4, Zeiss @ f1.5, Nikkor-H @ f2 - bottom right corner crop
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2301/2513133846_c25c0a1e42_o.jpg

Nikkor-S @ f2.8, Zeiss @ f2.8, Nikkor-H @ f2.8, Heliar @ f3.5 - centre crop
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2133/2512306643_b7d7f99463_o.jpg

Nikkor-S @ f2.8, Zeiss @ f2.8, Nikkor-H @ f2.8, Heliar @ f3.5 - bottom right corner crop
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3046/2512306819_070b791352_o.jpg

Nikkor-S @ f5.6, Zeiss @ f5.6, Nikkor-H @ f5.6, Heliar @ f5.6 - centre crop
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2311/2512306889_b78a59d184_o.jpg

Nikkor-S @ f5.6, Zeiss @ f5.6, Nikkor-H @ f5.6, Heliar @ f5.6 - bottom right corner crop
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2058/2512306977_919f9b3394_o.jpg

 

[jonmanjiro]

Yet more test shots. The full image shown below was taken with the Heliar at f5.6 (focus on the padlock 9 feet from the camera).

Links to crops below.Again, these crops are the images as they came out of my Coolscan V scanner at full resolution, but reduced to 50% size for viewing. Viewing the images at this magnification is comparable to viewing a slide with a 20x loupe.

Nikkor-S @ f1.4, Zeiss @ f1.5, Nikkor-H @ f2 - centre crop
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2154/2512305919_e3a060ac23_o.jpg

Nikkor-S @ f1.4, Zeiss @ f1.5, Nikkor-H @ f2 - top left corner crop
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2330/2512306003_462658822d_o.jpg

Nikkor-S @ f2.8, Zeiss @ f2.8, Nikkor-H @ f2.8, Heliar @ f3.5 - centre crop
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2257/2512306095_3a48fda61d_o.jpg

Nikkor-S @ f2.8, Zeiss @ f2.8, Nikkor-H @ f2.8, Heliar @ f3.5 - top left corner crop
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2326/2512306217_8cebd325d7_o.jpg

Nikkor-S @ f5.6, Zeiss @ f5.6, Nikkor-H @ f5.6, Heliar @ f5.6 - centre crop
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2113/2513133630_0289ec7449_o.jpg

Nikkor-S @ f5.6, Zeiss @ f5.6, Nikkor-H @ f5.6, Heliar @ f5.6 - top left corner crop
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3191/2513133728_040a2b62a4_o.jpg

 

[Captain]

the CV Heliar looks to have a bit of focus shift even at f:4 : seems to be rather focused on the 1st forefront beer can inscriptions while the other lenses all look to be, at f:4, well focused on the "N" of "Cabernet" and has a harsher OOF rendition (not unexpected).

I dont think its focus shift as its the sharpest of all when you compare the wine bottle label, its just that the beer can is also the sharpest. If you dont need a fast lens I think the Heliar is the winner here. If you need 1.4 / 1.5 thens its a touch choice!

 

[jonmanjiro]

Yes, I would rate the Heliar as the sharpest lens as well! I'd review the four lenses as follows.

Millennium Nikkor-S 50/1.4 - no noticeable focus shift (except in one photo that may have been a focusing error), excellent corner to edge sharpness even wide open and at all distances, can see some double-line (ni-sen) bokeh wide open, slightly cooler colour rendition compared to Zeiss and Heliar.

Zeiss Sonnar 50/1.5 - slight front focus shift at minimum distance at f1.5 and f2, but pretty much gone by f2.8 (f2 is still fully useable IMO). No noticeable focus shift on test subjects at 9 feet, 10 feet, and 20 feet at any aperture. Excellent center to edge sharpness at minimum focus when the focus is on, and at 9 feet even wide open (did better than I expected and WAY better than a vintage Nikkor-S 5cm f1.4 I used to own), slightly warmer colour rendition compared to the Millennium, no noticeable double-line (ni-sen) bokeh wide open.

Nikkor-H 5cm f2 - slightly softer at f2 than the other lens (to be expected). Excellent centre sharpness when stopped down a little, but the corners aren't as good as the modern lenses. Slightly lower contrast colours, can see some double-line (ni-sen) bokeh wide open. No noticeable focus shift.

Heliar 50/3.5 - best centre to edge sharpness of these lenses at any distance, but the difference isn't huge and would no doubt require good shooting technique to extract the maximum sharpness every shot (I don't normally use a tripod and cable release to shoot ). There may be a little focus shift at minimum focus, but I didn't really notice it. Colour rendition similar to the Zeiss.

Did I miss anything?

 

[Captain]

Colour rendition similar to the Zeiss.

Interesting you say that as I have always referred to its colour rendition as very Zeiss like as will as some of its other renderings. None of my other Voigtlander lenses have that quality though. They seem to have their own distinct look about them.

 

[selma-1]

I noticed that the Zeiss/Cosina 50mm F1.5 Sonnar S Mount Lens New is for sale on e-bay for $1300.00 plus shipping here in the U.S.A., Ouch! Thanks for doing the tests Jon. It would be interesting to compare the Voigtlander 50mm F1.5 S mount Nokton external mount $369.00 and the Voigtlander 50mm F2.5 S mount Skopar external mount $319.00 to these other three just for comparasion and then throw in a earlier Nikon internal mount 50mm f1.4. in just for the heck of it.

 

[awilder]

After a second look, I have to admit to being partial to the ZM Sonnar's performance in the S mount. Sharpness, contrast and color saturation appear better with the 10 ft shots but maybe it's the exposure being a tad darker. On the close focus shots, focus with the ZM was as sharp as one could expect wide open with the modern Sonnar design and while there was some front focus, sharpness on the intended focus wasn't too bad compared to the rest. Stopping down to f/2 or f/2.8 gave tack sharp results. Does this mean it's a better performer in the S mount with the focusing cam built into the body rather than on an M lens version with the cam on the lens' focusing mount?

 

[jsuominen]

I have made some shots with new S-mount C-Sonnar 50/1.5 and the pictures are here on my Flickr stream:
http://flickr.com/search/?q=zeissscsonnar50mmf15 S-mount&w=53094145@N00&m=tags

Some of them are also shot as a comparison with Mill.-Nikkor 50/1.4, vintage Nikkor-S 5cm/1.4 and Zeiss-Opton Sonnar 50/1.5. I'll upload just two of them as a sample. Click the photo in order to see it in large size.

Modern S-mount Zeiss C-Sonnar T* 50/1.5 (on Nikon S2) at wide open:


Vintage Zeiss Opton Sonnar T 50/1.5 (on Contax IIa) at wide open:


Not much difference, or what you think? Modern lens has maybe a slightly better flare control and contrast. Both photos were shot on APX100 film and souped in Rodinal.

 

[noimmunity]

Not much difference, or what you think?

That's funny, I'd say there is quite a noticeable difference between the two.

The vintage Sonnar certainly holds it own, but the modern Sonnar presents a much more dramatic transition (from focus to oof) to my eyes.

Either lens looks like it will be a real performer in your hands!

 

[jsuominen]

The vintage Sonnar certainly holds it own, but the modern Sonnar presents a much more dramatic transition (from focus to oof) to my eyes.

Thanks for comments. You're right, modern version is a bit sharper, too. Here is another pair from a different angle.

Modern S-mount Zeiss C-Sonnar T* 50/1.5 (on Nikon S2) at wide open:


Vintage Zeiss Opton Sonnar T 50/1.5 (on Contax IIa) at wide open:


Somehow I prefer the vintage version more of these two "aerial" photos. I didn't compare any other lenses, because my tea was getting cold.

 

[noimmunity]

Yeah, I'd enjoy being seated at the vintage table, too (the table cloth and roses look softer), but would definitely prefer to be served the modern Sonnar's cup of tea .

 

[goliathus]

I was wondering how much differences exist between modern sonnar and vintage one. jsuominen, your test give clear answer to me

I think ZM sonnar makes more contrasty image (see shaded side of the 1st pic's teakettle) and it shows good sharpness even at wideopen!

But also I love 1950's vintage look of original sonnar's pic.