Thank you William. My Sonnar collection includes both the Nikkor 50s (2.0 and 1.4) in LTM, and the Nikkor-SC 5cm 1.4 in S mount (in fact, I have two copies of the latter lens, including one recently CLA’d by DAG and that’s available for sale). Plus the Canon 50/1.5. And four Zeiss Sonnars, ranging from a 1943 5cm f1.5 in the 272***** serial number range Brian mentions above, the two Opton Sonnars mentioned above, and the modern C-Sonnar 50/1.5. I’ve also got several 85mm Sonnar formula lenses (two by Nikkor and a pre-war Zeiss Jena Sonnar 8.5cm f2.0). I love shooting these lenses, especially on my Leica camera bodies.
The Canon 50/1.5 is a very good lens (assuming you find a good sample). Canon optimized it for f.4 and that’s where I shoot it most often. I’ve got an album over on my Flickr devoted to photos made w/ this lens, if you want to check it out.
The two are very close. The coated Nikkor has more contrast, the Sonnar is better at preserving shadow detail. The color rendition of the Sonnar gives a deeper color in the absence of flare, maybe less transmission? I found a test with the two lenses done years ago. I need to repeat it. I have a series of tests to do, been extremely busy the last couple of months. August sees things clearing up. I'll start a "Pictures from any Sonnar lens" thread.
You will find no argument from me. Long form for, "I agree." ;o) The Sonnar is a brilliant design. To crib from Newton, "if I have seen further [than others], it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." And while the quote refers to dwarves on the shoulders on the shoulders of giants this does not apply here. Herr Doktor Bertele was giant able to design a lens, based on earlier lenses, which still influences lens design today and has been copied in toto or in part for almost as long as it has been around. If you are going to steal, steal from the best.
You have the unique and distinct advantage of knowing what you are doing. I cry foul. ;o)
I have been incredibly lucky to have this lens fall into my hands. And just a few days after the CZJ 272 5cm f/1.5 fell into my hands. I really may buy a raft of lottery tickets. But I doubt it. I may very well have used up my luck for a long while.
Is your Zeiss quite a bit sharper than the Nikkor as it appears here or might the differences have been the result of something like a bit of camera shake or missed focus with the Nikkor? I wouldn't have predicted this much difference.
The Zeiss lens, a 272 series- is that much sharper and has better flatness of field than the Nikkor. Zeiss reformulated the Sonnar sometime between the 255 batch, 267 batch, and 272 batch. The 255- marked "T" appears with uncoated lenses, I have a pair. 267- stop down to F22, and a bit sharper. 272 batch: Every one I've seen, Zeiss original, ZK, and J-3: noticeably sharper. After that- 285 batch, same formula but quality is spottier. I have a 285 batch J-3 with perfect glass, assembled in USSR as practice. I had to change the spacing of the rear triplet- the barrel was too short. Sharp as the 272.
Very interesting. I'm not usually concerned with achieving the nth degree of sharpness, but the Zeiss definitely conveys the FEEL of cut stone on the headstone in the foreground better than the Nikkor. It might have something to do with the cooler white balance of the Zeiss image but it just feels more real to me than the Nikkor image, which gives me more of the feeling of a representation. Nice!Nikkor 5cm F1.5, wide-open, on Tripod- Leica M9.
272 series CZJ Sonnar 5cm F1.5, wide-open, tripod, Leica M9.
Click on link, and load full resolution JPEGs. Taken a couple of minutes apart, as soon as I could change lenses.
The Nikkor- "Lifetime Bucket List Lens" for me. Would not trade it for anything. But- the Zeiss lens is better. Would not trade it for anything. The Jupiter-3 focus mount is better designed than the Zeiss LTM, more robust. The best of both worlds- a 272 Sonnar custom mounted in a Jupiter-3 focus mount. A lens like that deserves a lot of use.
