noimmunity
scratch my niche
I just received a Rollei Sonnar 40/2.8 in the mall and put a test roll through an R4A in comparison against a 35/1.4 Nokton SC. The test was handheld, manual shutter speeds (some as low as 1/8 sec), not rigorous, but shows some interesting differences.
The flickr collection is here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/areality4all/sets/72157618774697890/
Most obvious to me are the different color casts of the two lenses. The Nokton is cool and blue while the Sonnar is warm and red. I purchased the Sonnar because of its focal length and also based on reports by other users that it is well-suited to portraits, but these preliminary shots in color suggest that it there is a little too much red cast for my taste in portraiture.
The bokeh on both lenses, what little there is, is very attractive. I think I perceive a slight edge here to the Sonnar.
I didn't test for things like flare, CA, etc, nor sharpness, obviously, which would have required a tripod. I'll be trying black and white later.
The Sonnar is a tiny lens, the smallest one I own. Smaller than the ZM C Biogon 21 and the Nokton 35/1.4 . It is made of brass, construction is sound, but perhaps no better (or worse) than the CV Nokton 35/1.4 .
The flickr collection is here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/areality4all/sets/72157618774697890/
Most obvious to me are the different color casts of the two lenses. The Nokton is cool and blue while the Sonnar is warm and red. I purchased the Sonnar because of its focal length and also based on reports by other users that it is well-suited to portraits, but these preliminary shots in color suggest that it there is a little too much red cast for my taste in portraiture.
The bokeh on both lenses, what little there is, is very attractive. I think I perceive a slight edge here to the Sonnar.
I didn't test for things like flare, CA, etc, nor sharpness, obviously, which would have required a tripod. I'll be trying black and white later.
The Sonnar is a tiny lens, the smallest one I own. Smaller than the ZM C Biogon 21 and the Nokton 35/1.4 . It is made of brass, construction is sound, but perhaps no better (or worse) than the CV Nokton 35/1.4 .
back alley
IMAGES
dibs if you decide to sell 
i'd be interested in the b&w shots more than the colour.
and thanks for that p.m. btw.
joe
i'd be interested in the b&w shots more than the colour.
and thanks for that p.m. btw.
joe
ferider
Veteran
Thanks for doing this test.
I'm surprised by how different they are. If you permit the direct link to your gallery:
Nokton:
Sonnar:
Color difference varies, in the above shots, the Nokton is warmer, IMO.
Cheers,
Roland.
I'm surprised by how different they are. If you permit the direct link to your gallery:
Nokton:
Sonnar:
Color difference varies, in the above shots, the Nokton is warmer, IMO.
Cheers,
Roland.
Last edited:
ZeissFan
Veteran
Cosina increasingly is producing lenses that are faster than comparable Zeiss lenses.
That's a good thing, because it provides users with a lower-cost alternative to high-speed Leica glass.
Zeiss, on the other hand, has never seemed to be concerned with producing ultra high-speed lenses.
I have the 40mm Sonnar, and it's a very nice lens indeed. It makes for a compact package when on the Zeiss Ikon. I wish that it had a focusing ring, but there's not much you can do about that.
The construction of the lens is outstanding -- steel and brass.
That's a good thing, because it provides users with a lower-cost alternative to high-speed Leica glass.
Zeiss, on the other hand, has never seemed to be concerned with producing ultra high-speed lenses.
I have the 40mm Sonnar, and it's a very nice lens indeed. It makes for a compact package when on the Zeiss Ikon. I wish that it had a focusing ring, but there's not much you can do about that.
The construction of the lens is outstanding -- steel and brass.
gavinlg
Veteran
They are pretty different looks coming from those 2 lenses. I think I prefer the cooler look of the Nokton + it's speed advantage. Some images from the sonar definitely have something special though - I can't put my finger on it.
Interested to see more/black and white pics!
Interested to see more/black and white pics!
Denis M.
Denis Muradov
Thanks for doing this test.
I'm surprised by how different they are. If you permit the direct link to your gallery:
Nokton:
Sonnar:
Color difference varies, in the above shots, the Nokton is warmer, IMO.
Cheers,
Roland.
I don't think that's due to the lens. Take a look in the gallery and you'll see an example were the opposite is true.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/areality4all/3562280885/in/set-72157618774697890/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/areality4all/3563101928/in/set-72157618774697890/
ferider
Veteran
I don't think that's due to the lens. Take a look in the gallery and you'll see an example were the opposite is true.[/IMG]
Inlining the two pictures for easier discussion, with Jon's permission, I hope:
Nokton:
Sonnar:
You are right, Dennis, don't completely know what to make of it. In this case the colors are actually very similar, but the pics are slightly differently exposed due to the shadow on the left that the 35mm lens captures.
Roland.
Krosya
Konicaze
Interesting test - I cant say which I like better - some pics look better with one and some - with the other. Assuming photos of the same scenes were taken from the same spot - there is a good difference between 35 and 40mm lenses as far as angle of view. Which it should be, but I always assumed that these two FLs would be more close in that respect.
Thanks for posting! I wonder if you could post pics of both lenses side by side to compare the actual size?
Thanks for posting! I wonder if you could post pics of both lenses side by side to compare the actual size?
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
I like both versions, if I prefer one over the other, it'd simply be the case because they are side-by-side.
The Sonnar seems to have a built in UV filter of some sort, see the fruits shot comparison in the set (in the shade). The Nokton seems to render the scene as it is.
The Sonnar seems to have a built in UV filter of some sort, see the fruits shot comparison in the set (in the shade). The Nokton seems to render the scene as it is.
noimmunity
scratch my niche
The shots inside the temple to which Roland linked are the exceptions in the bunch, I think. I don't quite understand what produced such a pronounced difference between the two lenses (and different from the results in other shots), but I believe it is due to veiling flare on the Nokton. The lighting inside the temple was very difficult and the shot was taken at 1/8 sec hand held at f/2.8 (200 ISO fuji color film).
The Sonnar definitely has something. I'm eager to see how it does in black and white.
The Sonnar definitely has something. I'm eager to see how it does in black and white.
noimmunity
scratch my niche
I wonder if that's not excatly the difference between coatings? The Nokton being SC, while the Sonnar has the Rollei HFT coating...
noimmunity
scratch my niche
The Sonnar with hood vs Nokton w/out hood. (Both were shot without hood). The Sonnar takes a 39mm filter; the Nokton a 43mm.
The Sonnar is an appreciably smaller lens all around.
Krosya
Konicaze
That is one small lens. Does Sonnar have a tab like CV and Leicas lens (with a dip for a finger) or more like M-rokkors do - without a dip?
Palaeoboy
Joel Matherson
Sorry but I dont see any veiling flare in either shot, are you sure exposure time was identical? The difference appears to be greater exposure in the Nokton shot to me.
ferider
Veteran
How do you compare the color rendition of 40 SC and 40 Sonnar, Joel ?
Thanks !
Thanks !
jdvf
Established
noimmunity
scratch my niche
I agree, it looks like exposure differences to me and that's what I thought at first, but that doesn't quite make sense if I was shooting manual at same speed. But perhaps I got distracted...
If you look in the upper right corner of the Nokton shot you will see flare from a point light source. There were actually a number of exposed light sources all around the edges of the shot, including late afternoon daylight and light bulbs located both up and down.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
In addition to exposure differences (and who knows if the shutter speeds are REALLY consistent at that speed?), the angle of view means slightly different lighting. Look in the Nokton temple shot. The bright reflection at bottom centre changes the lighting significantly. I'll bet it is reflecting enough light from something/somewhere that it is creating the tint.
Personally, I prefer the Sonnar look, but would love it to have the speed of the Nokton ... 'cept then it wouldn't be so small and cute.
Personally, I prefer the Sonnar look, but would love it to have the speed of the Nokton ... 'cept then it wouldn't be so small and cute.
A word of warning on the Sonnars: do NOT store them in the original case. It would appear that a substance from the case makes it into the the lenses and causes clouding. I have seen a bunch of them yesterday sold cheaply because of this. The clouding is not excessive, but it is there, so take care when buying one.
I will do a comparison between the 40 Sonnar and the 45 G Planar shortly.
UPDATE: perhaps it is not the case itself that causes this, just general storage, but the lenses I saw all were in the original box and case. The one I bought came without anything and is clear... go figure.
I will do a comparison between the 40 Sonnar and the 45 G Planar shortly.
UPDATE: perhaps it is not the case itself that causes this, just general storage, but the lenses I saw all were in the original box and case. The one I bought came without anything and is clear... go figure.
Last edited:
noimmunity
scratch my niche
These Sonnars seem to have more in common with old lenses than just a nostalgic design brief!