Sonnar - New and Old

Krosya

Krosya

Konicaze
Local time
7:28 PM
Joined
Feb 15, 2006
Messages
3,550
Hi All,
Here is another question I have. For people that like Zeiss lenses and had a chance to use both - new ZM lenses and old Zeiss lenses - how does a new Sonnar compare to the old ones (screw mount?/contax mount?) as far as it's "fingerprint" goes? I understand that new coatings are different/better, but just overall look? Also, as it's known that some FSU lenses, such as J-3, J-8 were made based on Zeiss designs, how do they compare here? And if J-3 was based on Sonnar 50/1.5, was J-8 based on Planar 50/2 or there was another 50/2 Sonnar? And if so - I mean if there were 2 Sonnars - 1.5 and 2.0, what is the difference between lens formulas other than speed?
 
ferider said:
I can only answer your second question: the 50/1.5 has one more element in the back than the 50/2. This usually means a little less contrast.
Click to expand...
It doesn't means much less contrast if elements are glued together, as is the case with original 1.5 Sonnar.

J-8 is Sonnar 2/50, J-3 is Sonnar 1.5/50. Both can be very good lenses, but there's nothing f/2 Sonnar has over f/1.5 one.
 
The Contax II & IIa sonnars and 'cloned' jupiters were (thick) triplet designs.

Planars are quadruple (double Gauss) derivatives.

I think the tolerances on the sonnars are tighter, the late leitz double Gauss (crons) and 'cloned' Helios derivatives employed high refractive glass to simplify manufacture & reduce production tolerances.

I hope this is correct and helps.

Noel
 
Krosya said:
And if J-3 was based on Sonnar 50/1.5, was J-8 based on Planar 50/2 or there was another 50/2 Sonnar? And if so - I mean if there were 2 Sonnars - 1.5 and 2.0, what is the difference between lens formulas other than speed?
Click to expand...

Bertele's orginal Sonnar, patented in 1931, was f/2 with 6 elements in 3 groups, as already mentioned. The f/1.5 version was introduced a year later with 7 elements in 3 groups. The extra element was added to the rear group (cemented) with the purpose of controlling higher order spherical aberrations which accompany the increased aperture. The design of the front elements remained the same.

The fingerprint is the same except that it is more pronounced at f/1.5 because of the shallower depth of field.
 
I've been reading this, and the other various sonnar threads with much interest lately as I am in the market for another 50. I have pretty much narrowed it down to a 1.5 Sonnar, and have identified two possibilities: a T coated LTM Sonnar (genuine) in nice and very clean condition, or a modern ZM Sonnar. I wondered whether RFFers who have used Sonnars old and new would have any thoughts or pointers they could share on the optical advantages of paying extra for the ZM. I tend to shoot between f5.6 and wide open, and in fact do enjoy shooting wide open. I suppose the ZM will handle flare better and have improved contrast thanks to its modern coatings, but I wondered whether an LTM sonnar is likely to be very significantly softer, particularly wide open. I've seen some lovely shots from both lenses here on RFF, but would appreciate any pointers from people who have used both as I decide whether to buy vintage (and I don't currently really use any modern lenses) or modern Sonnar.
 
The vintage lens will have more 'glow' because of its coating, and it won't be as sharp- at the corners. Both offer beautiful wide-open bokeh.

I have a '38 uncoated and a ZM (but in Nikon mount). The '38 is just as sharp in the center as a modern lens, but it gets a bit soft corners.

The elderly one differs most in contrast. Images can be very flat when there's lots of light bouncing around. I usually like this.

I personally prefer the modern ZM to Summilux. If I could keep one 50, this might be it. Lovely bokeh wide open, strong contrast stopped down. But it does have problems with focus shift. You have to decide whether you want one that's calibrated for best close-distance focus at f1.5, or f2.8. I prefer f1.5, but then you have to skip f2.8-4 for close subjects and go to f5.6. If (as you hinted) you want best average results f1.5 to f5.6, you might want f2.8. See Kent Demas' ad for one in current RFF listings – he's a reliable seller & fine guy.

I recently posted these to show a neighbor who's interested in the vintage version:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thompsonkirk/sets/72157632143292558/

The last one shows the way flare can warp color so PS can't really fix it (lots of reflected light from blue sky; I'm in the sun shooting subjects in the shade). But note that color is fine in 'ordinary' light.

So much for info; as to free advice: Vintage if you shoot mostly BW, ZM if mostly color.

Kirk
 
Less distortion with the new one, nearly zero. The old one has about 3%. There is a dicussion on the two lens when the zm vertion came out. Can't find it on the net at the moment.
 
i've owned a Nikkor-S.C. 5cm/1.4
Sweeney modified Sonnar 50mm f1.5
and a modern ZM C-Sonnar 50mm f1.5

To me the Classic Sonnar I got from Sweeney and the Modern C-Sonnar offer very close renderings. To me it was more about the lens ergonomics than anything.

I regret selling the Sweeney Sonnar, it was truly special! modified to focus at f1.5.

Of course I own none of those now :( but have a Nokton 50mm f1.5 holding me at bay.
 
lam, how do you find the Sonnars compared to the Nokton. I did have the 50mm 1.5 but sold it, so I'm familiar with the quality of images.
 
Nokton 50/1.5 is clinical in sharpness, at f1.5 the bokeh is quite nice in the background, anything from f2 to f4 is iffy but I don't mind it, i'm used to a 40 Nokton ;)

I found the Sonnar's bokeh to be nice wide open to about f4 (compromise sharpness for nice image rendering), then the sharpness of say, a Planar would start to appear.

I generally prefer the rendering of the Sonnar but for the price I couldn't resist.....

If I had another chance i'd get a f1.5 optimized Sonnar...
 
Thanks Iam. I sold the Nokton 50 1.5 solely because I found its size a little frustrating at times, though I loved it. I do miss the speed though. Reading your words about the Sonnar in comparison is very helpful. I think I am leaning toward the old LTM Sonnar. I don't really have any modern lenses, so I think I would be happy enough with another vintage lens. I do find flare an issue with my beloved collapsible Summicron, not least because I have a bad habit of contre jour shooting, so I guess the only real reason to go for the newer ZM Sonnar is for its flare resistance compared to the older LTM version. But all told, I think the older one will keep me happy enough. Famous last words from someone frustrated by flare! ;-)
 
The vintage Sonnar that lam regrets selling is, I believe, the one I mentioned above. If you want a vintage one like this, contact Brian Sweeney. He puts Contax lenses in Jupiter mounts and can adjust them for best focus @ f1.5.

I have one of the Noktons on a back shelf, because IMO it's heavy/clumsy, and bokeh isn't very attractive. I regard it as a backup lens to use at the beach or among swarming kids.

You might also consider f1.4 Nikkor in LTM, or with Amadeo adapter (or in a Nikon S2/ S3 body). These are outstanding vintage 'Sonnars.'

Kirk
 
lam said:
Nokton 50/1.5 is clinical in sharpness, at f1.5 the bokeh is quite nice in the background, anything from f2 to f4 is iffy but I don't mind it, i'm used to a 40 Nokton ;)
Click to expand...

I agree, but Noktons aren't Sonnars at all. They own a very modern lens formula. Old Sonnars indeed have a special flair, but i caught me liking older Planars more, e.g. Canon 1.8/50.

Reiner
 
My first f/1.5 Sonnar was a J-3 (sold it), then I used an Opton Sonnar on a Contax IIa for a while (still have it, but not the Contax body), and now I used a modern ZM C-Sonnar adjusted to focus at f/1.5.

First, let me say that I think there is a lot of sample-to-sample variation in lenses, especially the Russian ones and the vintage ones (cleaning marks, internal fogging, coating variations, etc.).

The sample of the J-3 I had was great. It was a chrome KMZ factory one. It was sharp (enough) and medium contrast. Perhaps I should never have sold it. Some of my favorite portraits of my kids were taken with the J-3 on an Epson R-D1.
But the ergonomics of the Modern C-Sonnar are so much better. My ZM Sonnar is definitely more contrasty than the J-3, and it appears sharper, but I never tested them side by side. The vintage Opton Sonnar for the Contax islower in contrast than the J-3, and a tad softer again, but a lens capable of that lovely soft vintage look, a look that I love personally. I have been holding on to it in case I find an adapter so I can use it on an APS-C digital camera one day...

So... They are all great! (Not sure if this answered your question!)
 
Contax IIIA

Contax IIIA

My most recent GAS attack yealded a 1953 Contax IIIA The lens undateable. The ser. nr. 10497xx seems high but what year? The Zeiss-opton a sonnar 1:1.5 f=50mm Contax mount is scratch-free and fungus-less. The focus seems tight probably, old grease maybe they borrowed some of the famous Agfa"lube":rolleyes:. If anyone knows of a lens manufacture list please post.
 
The original Sonnar 50/1.5 gives beautiful images with a film like Reala. The lower contrast and very good sharpness is great for portraits or or fog photos. It is a very special lens.

The ZM seems to be an extraordinary good lens based on what I have seen psted.
 
I bought a ZM C-Sonnar yesterday and I'm really looking forward to it. I'll be using it on a NEX-7 mostly as I like its color rendition. It's my first Zeiss lens.
 
My two favorite 50s are my '74 Jupiter-8 and my brand-new C Sonnar 50/1,5. They have a near-perfect mix of sharpness at point of focus and gorgeous, smooth bokeh.

Jupiter-8, wide open:


Michael, November 25, 2012 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr

C Sonnar, wide open:


Pig Popper, December 24, 2012 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr

Jupiter-8, stopped down:


ML and Emjay, November 11, 2012 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr

C Sonnar, stopped down:


Epic Mikey, November 29, 2012 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom