Alternatives to C-sonnar?

[aleksanderpolo]

I really like the way a Sonnar type draw and the color/contrast of a Zeiss lens. Is C-sonnar the only way to go? Are there other alternatives with perhaps a smaller price-tag? Thanks.

 

[kshapero]

Yoigtlander 50/1.5 is said to be an awesome performer for less money. Caveat: I have never tried it out.

 

[back alley]

the voit is not a sonnar though.

the canon 50/1.5 is a sonnar, the rollei 40/2.8 is a sonnar...there are some nikkor sonnars but i never remember which...

 

[DNG]

The Russian J3 is a Zeiss Sonnar 50mm f/1.5 copy from the 1950's, and about $150.00...
I think there are a few RF members that can do a bit shimming and CLA to have it focus properly on Leica's (LTM or M) (focus is a tad off if you use fast f/stops at short distances.. but not too bad)..(If they are willing at a modest fee) And if you get a 1950-1960 (first 2 numbers in SN), it may be Zeiss Glass inside!

If you want "The Sonnar Look" but not spend $850.00 on a used one...

 

[former member]

If you want a Sonnar in Leica Mount, the Canon 50/1.5, Carl Zeiss Jena 5cm F1.5 in LTM, Nikkor 5cm F2 in LTM will give the smooth Bokeh associated with the "Sonnar Look". Perhaps not as sharp as the modern lens, but sharpness is not everything.

1937 Uncoated CZJ 5cm F1.5 Sonnar, modified for LTM.

 

[former member]

Nikkor 5cm F2 in LTM, Wide-Open on the M8.

 

[Roger Hicks]

The only comparison between the C-Sonnar and the 50/1.5 is the speed. Completely different designs; completely different look.

Quite honestly, I never saw the Sonnar 'magic' until I got the C-Sonnar, and I've had real Sonnars, FSU copy Sonnars, and 'Sonnar types'. Others feel differently, and you might find that a 50/2 Jupiter gives the look you want -- though at the risk of hate mail from its fans, I have to say that the only three FSU 50/1.5 lenses I have tried have all been awful.

Cheers,

R.

 

[wlewisiii]

Here's a list of Sonnar type lenses: http://www.antiquecameras.net/sonnarlens.html

I need to get a 50/2 sonnar type again. Or else a nice Tessar... 😉

 

[former member]

Some sample shots of several Jupiter-3's here:

http://www.ziforums.com/album.php?albumid=97

 

[tbarker13]

Here are few shot with my Nikkor 50/2. I think I paid about $100 for it. Great lens.
These are both film and digital.

 

[former member]

1956 Jupiter-3, wide-open on the Leica M8.

Modified to focus at 0.8m.

Jupiter-3's range from sharp enough to cause aliasing on the M8 when used wide-open (such as my 1953 KMZ J-3) , to horribly soft and fit for parting out- 5 different ones that I have tried from the 1980s.

 

[ampguy]

more J3 photos here

 

[maclaine]

I have a '70s Jupiter-8 and a '50s Jupiter-3 (cleaned and shimmed by Brian Sweeney), and both are great. The J-8 cost $40 and it's the best price to performance ratio of any piece of gear I own, and the J-3 cost $100 on eBay + the cost of shipping and servicing by Brian. It's the second best price to performance ratio of any piece of gear I own.

I don't have any shots up yet from the J-3 (although I've scanned them and they look great), but here are some shots from the J-8. The first is wide open, and the second is stopped down to f/2.8-4. Both on Tri-X @ 400 ISO and developed in HC110, dilution H at 20C.

 

[aleksanderpolo]

Thanks for your response. I shoot color on mirrorless, so it really doesn't matter what mount it is in. But I do prefer a more modern contrast (thus Zeiss caught my eyes) and a shorter close focus distance (0.9m is a bit limiting). Are there some of the suggested lens that fit this criteria better? Thank you all.

 

[aleksanderpolo]

And excellent photos by the way, these are the characters, more than mere sharpness, that really caught my eyes. 🙂

 

[ferider]

You ask specifically about color/contrast. None of the classic or Jupiter lenses mentioned above will provide that, the ZM is unique in that it combines a Sonnar design with high contrast (modern glass and coating).

So you either have to compromise on the contrast side and choose a classic Sonnar (my favorite is my 1950 Nikkor 50/1.4) or a bit on the rendering side and pick a modern lens. The CV 50/1.5 has very nice background rendering, for instance. If speed is not as important I can also recommend the M-Hex 50/2, which renders background beautifully. Lots of examples photos of all lenses mentioned above in the flickr M-mount forum.

Roland.

 

[alexnotalex]

Yay i never miss an opportunity to post a Sonnar pic from my Sweeney-fixed-up Nikkor-HC f2. I'm getting best results at f2.8 and f4, I find the focus shift and f2 softness tricky.

I just got a great deal on a nokton 1.5 I'm keen to put them head to head for shots like this.

 

[Roger Hicks]

You ask specifically about color/contrast. None of the classic or Jupiter lenses mentioned above will provide that, the ZM is unique in that it combines a Sonnar design with high contrast (modern glass and coating).

So you either have to compromise on the contrast side and choose a classic Sonnar (my favorite is my 1950 Nikkor 50/1.4) or a bit on the rendering side and pick a modern lens. The CV 50/1.5 has very nice background rendering, for instance. If speed is not as important I can also recommend the M-Hex 50/2, which renders background beautifully. Lots of examples photos of all lenses mentioned above in the flickr M-mount forum.

Roland.

Dear Roland,

Well, fairly Sonnar, though traditional Sonnars were 3-group lenses, not 4-group. My suspicion is that its much more modern design is what makes it 'magic' for me.

Cheers,

R.

 

[ferider]

Interesting, Roger. I always thought the ZM to be smoother in background than other Sonnars I have tried (including Opton, Canon 50/1.5, ZK 50/1.5, etc.). It shifts more, too. Not sure about the effect of that additional "air element" ....

For good measure a Nikkor 50/1.4 NKT photo ....

 

[ferider]

And one more ....

That specific Nikkor runs less than US 450, in good condition, nowadays.

And focuses (after DIY mod) to 0.7m.

Roland.