ornate_wrasse
Moderator
Since I bought my M6 a few months ago, I've been using it with the only lens I have for it, the 35mm Summicron, Version 3 pre-asph. I decided that I would like to buy a fast 50mm lens without breaking the bank. I found out that Brian Sweeney converts the Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 5cm f1.5 lens to LTM and the cost of the coverted lens is reasonable, certainly less than a Leica 50mm fast lens. Everything I've read so far indicates that folks are happy with the converted lens.
I would like to hear about the experiences of others who have purchased this lens from Brian. Are you happy using this lens? If you had to do it over again, would you buy the same lens? Finally, how does it compare to other fast 50mm lenses you've used on your Leica.
I will be purchasing an adapter so I can use this lens on my M6.
Thanks for your input.
Ellen
I would like to hear about the experiences of others who have purchased this lens from Brian. Are you happy using this lens? If you had to do it over again, would you buy the same lens? Finally, how does it compare to other fast 50mm lenses you've used on your Leica.
I will be purchasing an adapter so I can use this lens on my M6.
Thanks for your input.
Ellen
bene
Established
Why not the zeiss 50 1.5 ZM? simply solution unless its too much
kzphoto
Well-known
ZM has focus shift, the CZJ does not. Also, Sweeny's lenses are cheaper.
naruto
GASitis.. finally cured?
I have a Brian Sweeney 50/1.5, and I absolutely love it.
The handling of the lens is nice. A bit off a long throw, but I am used to it as it is the same with my other vintage Sonnar, a Nikkor 50/1.4. Else, the lens has the classic Sonnar signature. I would advice using a hood with the lens for those one off moments when you get flare.
I will let the photos speak:
These were shot at a grill-off event between two chefs
The handling of the lens is nice. A bit off a long throw, but I am used to it as it is the same with my other vintage Sonnar, a Nikkor 50/1.4. Else, the lens has the classic Sonnar signature. I would advice using a hood with the lens for those one off moments when you get flare.
I will let the photos speak:
These were shot at a grill-off event between two chefs
raid
Dad Photographer
I use Brian's conversion lens, a CZJ 5cm 1.5 for most of my photography now, while I sometimes switch to a modern look lens just for a change.
The pre-war Sonnars are (in my opinion) still unmatched for an overall pleasing look with color and with B&W.
If I have an important photo trip, I will defintely take with me a CZJ 5cm 1.5.
The pre-war Sonnars are (in my opinion) still unmatched for an overall pleasing look with color and with B&W.
If I have an important photo trip, I will defintely take with me a CZJ 5cm 1.5.
Last edited:
ItsReallyDarren
That's really me
My main lens is a CZJ 50/1,5 converted by Brian. It hasn't left my camera the day I mounted it. That's how much I like it. The most modern lens I own and use is a Nokton 50/1.5. The short focus throw is nice and the barrel turns a little smoother. Physically its much much bigger than the Sonnar. Shows less flare than the Sonnar when shooting directly into a strong light source. The only instance so far for using the Nokton over the Sonnar is at night with lots of strong lights and being very close to them.
The Sonnar gives me exactly the image qualities I like. Sonnar signature, sharp in the center with gradual falloff in the corners adjustable by aperture. Low contrast for b&w and color.
The sharpness of the lens is good but if you compare it against the more modern lenses I would expect the modern lens to be technically sharper. For me its not as important as the other characteristics of the Sonnar for me to favor a more modern lens.
Because the lens is uncoated it sometimes flares in obvious situation where flare could occur such as bright sun hitting the lens at just the right angle or being close to a strong light source. There might be less occurrence with a coated lens but not enough significantly bother me.
The construction of the lens holds its own as a very sturdy user. If I had to pull hairs out in the minuses of the converted lens I would say the Jupiter-3 barrel that was used has one or two rough spots in the focusing.
If I had to do it all over again I would in a heartbeat.
The Sonnar gives me exactly the image qualities I like. Sonnar signature, sharp in the center with gradual falloff in the corners adjustable by aperture. Low contrast for b&w and color.
The sharpness of the lens is good but if you compare it against the more modern lenses I would expect the modern lens to be technically sharper. For me its not as important as the other characteristics of the Sonnar for me to favor a more modern lens.
Because the lens is uncoated it sometimes flares in obvious situation where flare could occur such as bright sun hitting the lens at just the right angle or being close to a strong light source. There might be less occurrence with a coated lens but not enough significantly bother me.
The construction of the lens holds its own as a very sturdy user. If I had to pull hairs out in the minuses of the converted lens I would say the Jupiter-3 barrel that was used has one or two rough spots in the focusing.
If I had to do it all over again I would in a heartbeat.
jmkelly
rangefinder user
I really like the look of images made with the old Sonnars, including in that group the CZJ and CZO lenses, Jupiter-3, Nikkor S.C and Canon 50/1.5. The CZJ/J-3 hybrid Brian Sweeney built for me is in constant use, as are the ones I built for myself. I am Jupiter-less for the moment as I have sold what I had or cannibalized them for hybrids, but I have another on the way.
I don't hold the same strong opinion I believe some have about the superiority of the older Jupiters. In my experience I have found the optics of old and new to be similar, and much prefer the look and feel of the newer black-anodized mount to some of the sloppy, corroded mounts on I have come across with the older Jupiters. Of course the newer glass is that much less likely to have cleaning marks, scratches, haze, fungus and/or separations.
IMO there is a bigger difference between the uncoated and coated CZJ optics than there is between the coated CZJ and coated Jupiter optics. Then there is another quantum step to the optics of the CZO, Nikon and Canon lenses.
Regarding the LTM focus mount, I prefer the handling and feel of a well-sorted and properly-lubed Jupiter mount to that of the wartime CZJ lens I had, as well as to that of the newer Japanese lenses. I think equally well in feet or meters, so don't have a preference there.
In all honesty I prefer the shorter focus throw of the Nikkor S.C (and of the ZM Sonnar C, though we're discussing LTM here) to the 180° throw of the J-3 and Canon mount. But I sort of ignore the existence of a focus lock and don't miss it on lenses that don't have it. I do wish I could come up with a workable hyper-focus lock
.
If there is one thing I wish all my leses had - which the CZJ, CZO, Jupiter and S-mount Nikkors don't have - is click-stops on the aperture.
I don't hold the same strong opinion I believe some have about the superiority of the older Jupiters. In my experience I have found the optics of old and new to be similar, and much prefer the look and feel of the newer black-anodized mount to some of the sloppy, corroded mounts on I have come across with the older Jupiters. Of course the newer glass is that much less likely to have cleaning marks, scratches, haze, fungus and/or separations.
IMO there is a bigger difference between the uncoated and coated CZJ optics than there is between the coated CZJ and coated Jupiter optics. Then there is another quantum step to the optics of the CZO, Nikon and Canon lenses.
Regarding the LTM focus mount, I prefer the handling and feel of a well-sorted and properly-lubed Jupiter mount to that of the wartime CZJ lens I had, as well as to that of the newer Japanese lenses. I think equally well in feet or meters, so don't have a preference there.
In all honesty I prefer the shorter focus throw of the Nikkor S.C (and of the ZM Sonnar C, though we're discussing LTM here) to the 180° throw of the J-3 and Canon mount. But I sort of ignore the existence of a focus lock and don't miss it on lenses that don't have it. I do wish I could come up with a workable hyper-focus lock
. If there is one thing I wish all my leses had - which the CZJ, CZO, Jupiter and S-mount Nikkors don't have - is click-stops on the aperture.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
I like to find an unmolested pre war f1.5/50mm Zeiss Sonnar to fit my Kiev 4a.
raid
Dad Photographer
Unmolested Sonnars are dime a dozen. "LTM-Molested" Sonnars are rare.
raid
Dad Photographer
Contax mount Sonnars are dime a dozen. LTM Sonnars are rare.
ferider
Veteran
Ellen,
the problem I have with Jupiter lenses and mounts is that they are comparatively fragile. Nice when you just take them out for a walk from home, but banging the aluminum mounts around on a trip including plane flights, etc., I wouldn't feel so confident. For me, reliability is a big part of using Leicas in the first place.
I do recommend that you also consider Japanese Sonnar variants, the Canon 50/1.5 or the Nikkor 50/1.4 & 50/2. The built quality is amazing, and the signature of my Nikkor 50/1.4 Tokyo is really nice.
Roland.
the problem I have with Jupiter lenses and mounts is that they are comparatively fragile. Nice when you just take them out for a walk from home, but banging the aluminum mounts around on a trip including plane flights, etc., I wouldn't feel so confident. For me, reliability is a big part of using Leicas in the first place.
I do recommend that you also consider Japanese Sonnar variants, the Canon 50/1.5 or the Nikkor 50/1.4 & 50/2. The built quality is amazing, and the signature of my Nikkor 50/1.4 Tokyo is really nice.
Roland.
chris00nj
Young Luddite
So what's difference in quality and price between a converted LTM Sonnar and a Nikkor 50/1.4?
ferider
Veteran
Nikkor runs between 300 and 400 US for the f1.4 and around US 200 or so for the f2 version. In build quality nothing short of classic Leica lenses, like the rigid Summicron, etc.
Brian doesn't charge you what he's worth. Then you have to buy the Sonnar (US 150-200 ?) and the mount (US 50? Or more ?).
Brian doesn't charge you what he's worth. Then you have to buy the Sonnar (US 150-200 ?) and the mount (US 50? Or more ?).
Last edited:
jmkelly
rangefinder user
Chris & Roland: Prices for these lenses are going up. IMO the days of the $300-$400 Nikkor S.C are behind us, unless you are willing to take a lens with a corroded mount and damaged glass. A pristine "5005" or "Tokyo" 5cm/f1.4 Nikkor S.C in LTM seems to be going for well north of $500 and maybe even over $600 - if you could find one.
Reasonably pristine examples of the Contax-mount CZJ 5cm/f1.5 Sonnars (with serial numbers sub-3,000,000 - what you need to hack into a J-3 LTM) are selling for $120-$180 depending on how stupid the bidding gets. For me the shock has been the price escalation on the 5cm/f1.5 Jupiter-3. The are not as numerous as they were even a year ago, and on average what's on offer looks a lot rougher. Rarely you will see a J-3 auction close for under $100 but most BIN prices are around $140 with shipping around $15.
Brian does not charge what his work is worth, but he has said to me before he's not in it for the money. Maybe that will change. The cool thing is that if you want you start with two lenses and end with two lenses: the CZJ optics in the J-3 LTM and the J-3 optics in the CZJ Contax-mount. Nice, if you perhaps have an Amadeo Contax-to-M-mount adapter.
Or you could do what I did: I bought a non-working Contax II with a CZJ 5/1.5 on it for $114 (and yes I still see deals like this - buying a lens on a non-working body can be cheaper than buying the lens alone) and a nice new J-3 for $140. I followed Brian's instructions and hacked the lenses myself, and sent the body to Eddy Smolov for repair. For about $350 total (2 lenses, body & repair) plus shipping I ended up with a very nice CZJ Sonnar in LTM for my IIIf, and a very fun working Contax II plus a J-3 in the CZJ mounting shell.
Reasonably pristine examples of the Contax-mount CZJ 5cm/f1.5 Sonnars (with serial numbers sub-3,000,000 - what you need to hack into a J-3 LTM) are selling for $120-$180 depending on how stupid the bidding gets. For me the shock has been the price escalation on the 5cm/f1.5 Jupiter-3. The are not as numerous as they were even a year ago, and on average what's on offer looks a lot rougher. Rarely you will see a J-3 auction close for under $100 but most BIN prices are around $140 with shipping around $15.
Brian does not charge what his work is worth, but he has said to me before he's not in it for the money. Maybe that will change
. The cool thing is that if you want you start with two lenses and end with two lenses: the CZJ optics in the J-3 LTM and the J-3 optics in the CZJ Contax-mount. Nice, if you perhaps have an Amadeo Contax-to-M-mount adapter. Or you could do what I did: I bought a non-working Contax II with a CZJ 5/1.5 on it for $114 (and yes I still see deals like this - buying a lens on a non-working body can be cheaper than buying the lens alone) and a nice new J-3 for $140. I followed Brian's instructions and hacked the lenses myself, and sent the body to Eddy Smolov for repair. For about $350 total (2 lenses, body & repair) plus shipping I ended up with a very nice CZJ Sonnar in LTM for my IIIf, and a very fun working Contax II plus a J-3 in the CZJ mounting shell.
Last edited:
ferider
Veteran
Reg. prices, most of the time, John, but, in my experience, if you wait a few weeks, you can find Canon or Nikkor lenses for better prices. For example: 290388871179 & 200422529394 (have to use cashback and sell the camera).
The Nikkor 50/2 is the unsung hero, often goes below US 200 (got mine for less on RFF last year), and an outstanding performer.
I do believe we on RFF have driven the prices up in threads like this
The Nikkor 50/2 is the unsung hero, often goes below US 200 (got mine for less on RFF last year), and an outstanding performer.
I do believe we on RFF have driven the prices up in threads like this
raid
Dad Photographer
I got a non-working Contax III with a CZJ 5cm 1.5 for $150 in the mail today. I will mail off the III to Eddy.
I will one day get a Nikkor 50 2.0LTM. It would be my thrid, since I sold off two such lenses.
I will one day get a Nikkor 50 2.0LTM. It would be my thrid, since I sold off two such lenses.
I've had inquiries on the converted Sonnar. It is not a hard job, the most difficult part is getting the original lenses, getting the optics shimmed, and working with those tiny set screws. With the exception of the shims, no additional machining is required. The first Carl Zeiss Sonnar 5cm F1.5 that I bought was not shimmed correctly for the Contax. So- I shimmed it for S-Mount, then decided to see if it would fit in a J-3 LTM mount. It did, and I decided I liked the rendition of the lens. It felt quite good on a Canon P. I did a few conversions for RFF members, picked up some lenses, converted them, and sold a couple. I own more than I have sold.
First thing: the lens is optimized for F1.5 and close-up work. It's great for portraits. The focal length is longer than the Leica standard, so it does not focus to infinity. You have to stop down to F4. The Sonnar focus shift pushes the focus backwards.
Now, as for "why" would anyone want a 75 year old uncoated lens on their 21st century camera? It's not logical, it's purely aesthetics. You just have to like the Sonnar look with all of its optical flaws. Field curvature is high, definition is good but "not a Summicron", contrast is medium, and flare can kick-in. Use a hood.
But I'll let the pictures do the talking.
First thing: the lens is optimized for F1.5 and close-up work. It's great for portraits. The focal length is longer than the Leica standard, so it does not focus to infinity. You have to stop down to F4. The Sonnar focus shift pushes the focus backwards.
Now, as for "why" would anyone want a 75 year old uncoated lens on their 21st century camera? It's not logical, it's purely aesthetics. You just have to like the Sonnar look with all of its optical flaws. Field curvature is high, definition is good but "not a Summicron", contrast is medium, and flare can kick-in. Use a hood.
But I'll let the pictures do the talking.
Last edited:
At F1.5, close-up
Not bad for an uncoated lens with the Sun in the field-of-view.
At F4:
Flare:
These are on the M3 with Kodacolor-400
Not bad for an uncoated lens with the Sun in the field-of-view.
At F4:
Flare:
These are on the M3 with Kodacolor-400
On my New M8, in-camera JPEG, reduced resolution for the screen.
Color: F1.5
Color at F4:
Shadow Detail:
F1.5
F4:
Extreme Backlighting, saturated the M8 Sensor.
F1.5
Color: F1.5
Color at F4:
Shadow Detail:
F1.5
F4:
Extreme Backlighting, saturated the M8 Sensor.
F1.5
Focus Error:
You have to optimize for close-up and wide open, let infinity focus suffer.
At F1.5
100% crop with my New M8.
Middle Distance at F1,5:
Focus is still in complete agreement with the RF of the M8 and M3.
You have to optimize for close-up and wide open, let infinity focus suffer.
At F1.5
100% crop with my New M8.
Middle Distance at F1,5:
Focus is still in complete agreement with the RF of the M8 and M3.