Hacker
黑客
ErikFive said:
I wrote to them also some weeks ago. What is not clear is are they ordering from Zeiss all lenses that are calibrated at f1.5 or in general, all lenses are calibrated at f1.5? Other dealers I spoke to do not think so.
summaron
Established
Roger,
Do you have any general observations on how much more contrast and saturation the new Sonnar has over older versions, as well as the new Leica 2.5 Summarits over v.4 and v.3 Summicrons, both 50 and 35. My impression is that Zeiss began to set up the bar regarding these parameters with the G1 and G2 lenses and Leica followed shortly after.
I personally feel that more saturation and contrast is not necessarily a good thing--but we tell ourselves it is. In the 80's and early 90's I remember hearing that photographers who did regular work for Vogue and Interview magazine were going up to Ken Hansen to trade their new Summicrons in for older, more moderate contrast ones. I notice in one of your tests you did a bit of the same thing by desaturating a print of a Summarit-captured photo.
To sum up, I would be interested in any comments you had about the tendency towards higher contrast and saturation as criteria for best lens performance. I know I'm overdramatizing things a bit here.
Anyway thanks for generously posting your reviews on this forum, and apologies in advance for my stick in the mudish questions
cheers,
James
Do you have any general observations on how much more contrast and saturation the new Sonnar has over older versions, as well as the new Leica 2.5 Summarits over v.4 and v.3 Summicrons, both 50 and 35. My impression is that Zeiss began to set up the bar regarding these parameters with the G1 and G2 lenses and Leica followed shortly after.
I personally feel that more saturation and contrast is not necessarily a good thing--but we tell ourselves it is. In the 80's and early 90's I remember hearing that photographers who did regular work for Vogue and Interview magazine were going up to Ken Hansen to trade their new Summicrons in for older, more moderate contrast ones. I notice in one of your tests you did a bit of the same thing by desaturating a print of a Summarit-captured photo.
To sum up, I would be interested in any comments you had about the tendency towards higher contrast and saturation as criteria for best lens performance. I know I'm overdramatizing things a bit here.
Anyway thanks for generously posting your reviews on this forum, and apologies in advance for my stick in the mudish questions
cheers,
James
Hacker
黑客
firebird said:
Krosya posted on 08-28-2007:
"Well, I just got an email from Zeiss and according to them - Sonnar C is still being sold to dealers calibrated to f2.8 focus. They will be happy to readjust it to 1.5 for free as long as lens under warranty and it's done on individual bases."
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45994&page=2
Is Tony Rose from PopFlash specially ordering all his C Sonnars at f1.5 or he is simply mistaken?
Last edited:
faris
Well-known
mfogiel, amazing...simply amazing. my hats off to you sir.
mfogiel said:
Mine is clearly set to 2.8, but not purchased so recently either, about a year ago.
(Sample shot at f/2, 1/60th)
(Sample shot at f/2, 1/60th)
Roger Hicks
Veteran
My understanding is that there is no milling involved: the cam is simply rotated slightly. But again, I could be wrong.Hacker said:Thanks. I have seen many threads--late 2007--on the Sonnar and even recent tests indicate that focus is on f2.8, not f1.5.
Believe me, I would get this in an instant. The thought of sending to Germany and getting the flange milled scares me.
STILL no word from Zeiss about which lenses are sold with what calibration.
Cheers,
Roger
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear James,summaron said:
This question of 'too much contrast' comes up fairly often, and my own view is that it's a red herring.
First, you have to match film and exposure to the lens in use. Underexpose Velvia 50 and you may well get garish, contrasty images: which, astonishingly in my eyes, some people seem to like. Rate Astia 1/3 stop slow and you'll get much less contrast and much gentler colours.
Second, some films are designed to give extra colour and contrast to compensate for low-contrast lenses (especially zooms).
Third, the way that veiling flare fills shadows has long been popular with some users of colour film: in the 50s some photographers apparently preferred uncoated lenses to coated for Kodachrome.
Fourth, the effect of veiling flare is to increase apparent film speed at the same time as reducing contrast. Thus a lens with minimal veiling flare will require more exposure than one with lots, which explains why an uncoated 50/1.5 Summarit (lots of veiling flare) was as fast as a modern 50/1.5 multi-coated lens (very little veiling flare). A lot of light was lost to lack of coating, but some of it ended up in the shadows, boosting toe speed, and besides, you had to over-develop slightly in order to get the contrast back.
A few decades ago, it was widely reckoned that Leica lenses were the equivalent of a paper grade harder than most SLR lenses, i.e. if you exposed half a roll in an M-series and half a roll in an SLR, of similar subjects, you'd need grade 2 for the Leica negs and grade 3 for the SLR.
No, I can't really compare the old and new Sonnars, because I never really liked old Sonnars, my my impression is that the new Sonnar is MUCH more contrasty.
Research by both Zeiss and Ilford, independently, indicates that 'sparkle' corresponds to a very high MTF at quite low frequencies, and more and more lenses are, I think, being designed this way.
My own view is that today's lenses are the best there have ever been BUT that there are times when you nay prefer the look of an older lens: if I could afford one, I'd have a Thambar like a shot. When you get above the 'quality threshold' it's a question of signature and personal preference, not quality. By many objective standards, the Sonnar is no match for most of the other fast 50mm lenses available today -- but I love the look it gives.
Thus my dream outfit might consist of the following: the lenses I have are asterisked, and the nearest equivalent I have is in brackets, and the 'core outfit' is the 35/1.4 and the 75/2.
12/5.6 Voigtländer
15/2.8 Zeiss (15/4.5 Voigtländer)
16-18-21 Tri-Elmar
24/2.8 Leica (21/4 Voigtländer + 21/2.8 Kobalux)
35/1.4 pre-aspheric Summilux*
50/1.5 Sonnar*
50/1 Noctilux
75/2 Summicron*
90/2 Summicron*
90/2.2 Thambar
135/2.8 Elmarit-M*
For my wife it's the Tri-Elmar again and then the 35, 50 and 90 Summarits, plus, for a fast lens, her 28/1.9 Ultron or (if we could afford it) a 28/2 from Leica. She values compactness and light weight even more than I do.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
Hacker
黑客
Roger Hicks said:
You are right about the milling--I was referring to sending it to John for the pits to be added on the flange.
summaron
Established
Roger,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
I guess I wanted give voice to a minority view on behalf of moderate contrast lenses.
I shoot at night under extreme situations and like a color palette that is very muted, so that colors have similar grey values but are differentiated by small changes of hue and temperature. I like this effect in Paul Klee paintings or in old Autochrome photos. Irving Penn in the early days favored this sort of nudge/nudge push pull.
I used to shot with Agfachrome 1000 and now I use Portra 400NC and Fuji Sensia/Press 1600. They're pretty good. (Agfa C-41 chemistry, now gone of course, used to keep contrast and saturation down even more.)
Regarding your comments on veiling flare, I was reminded that motion picture film labs long ago used to offer us film students pre fogging services, which cut down contrast a bit and gave you a little more speed.
My own lenses are pretty good:
35mm 2.8 Summaron
40mm Sonnar
50mm Rigid Summicron (lovely lens but a little cumbersome)
My dream lens would be a pre-asph 50mm Summilux or one of the 50mm Sonnars, maybe the single-coated ZM Zeiss may offer some day!
thanks again,
James
ps The new Sonnar is supposed to be slightly wider, 49mm or so. Do you sense a hint of this wide angleness in practice?
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
I guess I wanted give voice to a minority view on behalf of moderate contrast lenses.
I shoot at night under extreme situations and like a color palette that is very muted, so that colors have similar grey values but are differentiated by small changes of hue and temperature. I like this effect in Paul Klee paintings or in old Autochrome photos. Irving Penn in the early days favored this sort of nudge/nudge push pull.
I used to shot with Agfachrome 1000 and now I use Portra 400NC and Fuji Sensia/Press 1600. They're pretty good. (Agfa C-41 chemistry, now gone of course, used to keep contrast and saturation down even more.)
Regarding your comments on veiling flare, I was reminded that motion picture film labs long ago used to offer us film students pre fogging services, which cut down contrast a bit and gave you a little more speed.
My own lenses are pretty good:
35mm 2.8 Summaron
40mm Sonnar
50mm Rigid Summicron (lovely lens but a little cumbersome)
My dream lens would be a pre-asph 50mm Summilux or one of the 50mm Sonnars, maybe the single-coated ZM Zeiss may offer some day!
thanks again,
James
ps The new Sonnar is supposed to be slightly wider, 49mm or so. Do you sense a hint of this wide angleness in practice?
marbrink
Established
I'm thinking of getting the Sonnar. But just how soft and dreamy is it? The only 50mm lenses I've used for rangefinders are different versions of the 50mm Summicron and a SM Canon 50/1.4. The Canon lens is dreamy wide open and has low contrast. Anyone compared the Canon and the Sonnar?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
summaron said:
Dear James,
I couldn't agree more about muted colours. Check the availability of Tiffen Ultra Contrast Filters in the size you need (39mm presumably). They reduce contrast without significantly reducing resolution; I think they were the filters that won Tiffen an Oscar. They are hellish expensive.
No, I see no difference between new and old Sonnars in focal length but as I'm away from home I can't check the instriction book as to exact focal length.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Martin,marbrink said:
The Canon f/1.2 (which I also have -- and it was cleaned and serviced by Balham, so it's sparkling) is infinitely softer and dreamier, though I don't know about the f/1.4. The Sonnar isn't really soft and dreamy at all, just 'vintage'.
Cheers,
R.
kshapero
South Florida Man
On a scale of 1 to 10: I give the dreamy and soft thing a 4. It's there but it is not overwhelming.marbrink said:
marbrink
Established
Thanks! Sounds like a very tempting lens! I also like the combination of size and speed.
Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
Soft and dreamy?.....you should meet my wife!! (fifties vintage too!!))
Tuolumne
Veteran
Dave Wilkinson said:
On a scale of 1-10?
/T
Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
Tuolumne said:On a scale of 1-10?
Definitely an 8......but slight pincushion distortion!
Tuolumne
Veteran
Tony Rose gets a response from Zeiss Germany on Calibration
Tony Rose gets a response from Zeiss Germany on Calibration
I sent Tony Rose a link to this thread, asking about calibration of the lens. He, in turn, asked Zeiss US who got the following answer from Zeiss Germany today:
“The factory informs us that production changed in the Spring of 2007 and the latest lenses are calibrated at f/1.5. There is no way to check by serial number if the lens is calibrated to f/1.5 or f/2.8. Depending how long the lens has been in the distribution pipeline between the distributor and dealer, there is still a likelihood of having a mix of products in new inventory. To be 100% sure, the customer can send their lens to the factory in Germany for a n/c examination and re-calibration (if requested). Please note, the recalibration of the lens does not change the focus shift characteristics. This is inherent in the lens, which is a classical design from the 1930's. A review of this lens and its features can be found at:
http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photoschool/ps%20firstlook%20sonnar%2050.html”
(Posted with permission)
/T
Tony Rose gets a response from Zeiss Germany on Calibration
I sent Tony Rose a link to this thread, asking about calibration of the lens. He, in turn, asked Zeiss US who got the following answer from Zeiss Germany today:
“The factory informs us that production changed in the Spring of 2007 and the latest lenses are calibrated at f/1.5. There is no way to check by serial number if the lens is calibrated to f/1.5 or f/2.8. Depending how long the lens has been in the distribution pipeline between the distributor and dealer, there is still a likelihood of having a mix of products in new inventory. To be 100% sure, the customer can send their lens to the factory in Germany for a n/c examination and re-calibration (if requested). Please note, the recalibration of the lens does not change the focus shift characteristics. This is inherent in the lens, which is a classical design from the 1930's. A review of this lens and its features can be found at:
http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photoschool/ps%20firstlook%20sonnar%2050.html”
(Posted with permission)
/T
Last edited:
peterleyenaar
Member
Thanks for the informative review Roger, I ordered the 1.5f2 50mm Sonnar from Tony at Popflash yesterday, (before I read you review), I initially ordered the planar,
but after looking at a lot of images, I changed my order to the Sonnar, I hope I didn't
make a mistake.
I am familiar with the G planar 45 mm (Like that lens a lot) and that is why I ordered
the Planar initially, I now realize after reading your review that they are entirely different lenses , however, i'll now get to work with that lens, I also have the Zeiss
25mm 2.8 which I think is an absolutely fantastic lens, (shot a whole wedding with
that lens, at lovely Moraine Lake near Banff .
Thanks again Roger
Best Regards
Peter
but after looking at a lot of images, I changed my order to the Sonnar, I hope I didn't
make a mistake.
I am familiar with the G planar 45 mm (Like that lens a lot) and that is why I ordered
the Planar initially, I now realize after reading your review that they are entirely different lenses , however, i'll now get to work with that lens, I also have the Zeiss
25mm 2.8 which I think is an absolutely fantastic lens, (shot a whole wedding with
that lens, at lovely Moraine Lake near Banff .
Thanks again Roger
Best Regards
Peter
Hacker
黑客
peterleyenaar said:
I do not think you will make a mistake with either, and my feeling is that you may get both
. I cancelled on the C sonnar at the last minute as I was not sure about the newer lenses as I was ordering other stuff from Tony as well a few days ago.Oh well, maybe in 6 months' time when I'm sure it is calibrated at f1.5 and all older lenses have been cleared.