? re. 50 planar vs. 50 sonnar

I guess a portrait lens doesn't necessarily have good background bokeh then. 😛 My 50mm Summicron tends to render a smoother background than my Sonnar-clone (Jupiter 9) and Ernostars (Contax T2 and 85mm C/Y.)

Summaron: thanks for backing up my theory that the Sonnar's not great in close range.

For a long time, Nikkors have a bad rep in the bokeh department because many of them have over-corrected spherical aberration in order to improve sharpness. The designers probably learned the technique from Bertele . At least they have atoned their past sins with the DC Nikkors. 😉
 
Mazurka said:
I guess a portrait lens doesn't necessarily have good background bokeh then. 😛 My 50mm Summicron tends to render a smoother background than my Sonnar-clone (Jupiter 9) and Ernostars (Contax T2 and 85mm C/Y.)
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're contesting, Mazurka. 😕

The 50 Sonnars were popular as a portrait lens in the '50's & earlier. What version of the 50 Summicron are you using from the '50's that offered a superior combination of sharpness & smooth bokeh to the Sonnars of that era? Nor would a Summicron offer the reduced depth of field available to the f/1.5 Sonnars. The 85 lenses & the T2 lenses are different beasts altogether, different focal lengths. 😉
 
Mazurka said:
My 50mm Summicron tends to render a smoother background than my Sonnar-clone (Jupiter 9) and Ernostars (Contax T2 and 85mm C/Y.)
Click to expand...

The 50 crons (from collapsible to latest) are all outstanding in terms of OOF rendition and pop. This lens really is under-recognized in that department. And it is sharp too ! 😀
 
Huck Finn said:
The 50 Sonnars were popular as a portrait lens in the '50's & earlier. What version of the 50 Summicron are you using from the '50's that offered a superior combination of sharpness & smooth bokeh to the Sonnars of that era? Nor would a Summicron offer the reduced depth of field available to the f/1.5 Sonnars. The 85 lenses & the T2 lenses are different beasts altogether, different focal lengths. 😉
Click to expand...

Huck, I thought we were talking about the C-Sonnar. Why the sudden change to the 1950s version? 😕

Also, people keep mentioning the "Sonnar look." There have been many focal lengths made with this and (mostly) Ernostar constructions. Again, why are we suddenly limited to 50mm? 😕

FYI, my Cron is the tabbed version which, like the 50ZM Planar in the thread title, does not "offer the reduced depth of field available to the f/1.5 Sonnars." Are you saying we shouldn't compare the Planar with the C-Sonnar at all? 😕
 
Mazurka said:
I don't think ANY Sonnar focuses as close as a Planar design with the same focal length. Seems to me the Sonnar/Ernostar formulations are very hard to correct at close range, as least without "floating elements."

It's certainly not a coincidence that most close-focusing and macro lenses have the double-Gauss construction. After all, the Planar got its name for a reason. 😛
Click to expand...

Just read this and was wondering how this fits together with the close-focus 50mm classic Nikkors ... yes, they decouple the RF but they can focus closer than .7m.

Roland.
 
horosu said:
I have just had a look at the MTF of the Nokton (http://www.imx.nl/photosite/technical/highspeedlenses/t003.html) and Sonnar (http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/CSonnar_1.5_50_ZM.EN/$File/CSonnar_1.5_50_ZM.EN.pdf) and to me they are quite similar wide open...

One thing that attracts me to the Sonnar is its beautiful (to my eyes, at least) color and texture rendition...It is sharp without being aggresively so ("clinical"?). It almost looks paint-like.
Click to expand...

That is why I bought the Sonnar. Just got it and will post some pics soon. The 40 f2.8 Rollei has a nice fingerprint too. There are/were some Rollei 40's on the bay NIB for $328. This is a great price.
 
Just thought I would post an update to an earlier post I made. I finally received an answer on the 50mm f1 question I posed to zeiss. I was told that they were not going to tell me either way if they were going to make one but that they would keep it in mind. This of course does not mean that they will but it is interesting considering a previous email I received several months ago in which they flatly said that they would never (unless things greatly change) make a macro adapter for any of their lenses.

-polarcow
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom