50/1.1 MS-Sonnetar: the next cult lens?

[Dante_Stella]

Prediction: the MS-Sonnetar, once people figure out what the "coma" adjuster does, will become the next cult lens. It's tiny, it's light, and it is very, very sharp.

These are both shot at f/1.1 (sorry if the corners look too bright - I had this manually miscoded as an Elmar). Note how much more looks like it is in focus than it should be. The coma adjuster actually influences field curvature, and at the setting where the lens is sharp at f/1.1-1.6 at all distances, the focus plane is parabolic in a way that works well for faces.

It is actually very beneficial to have a LensAlign for setting this lens up.

Dante

 

[mfogiel]

Frankly, this just looks like a soft focus lens with an average bokeh. I much prefer the C Sonnar I bought from you.
20135127 by marek fogiel, on Flickr

201212824 by marek fogiel, on Flickr

 

[IdealCamera]

Meh

Meh

I too had a Sonnetar and sold it after shooting it side by side with the C-Sonnar.

C-Sonnar wide open (ignore metadata, had a ND filter on):


SF_092715_160.jpg by -IdealCamera-

Sonnetar wide open:


HMB_010215_298.jpg by -IdealCamera-

And Sonnetar in color:


OC_021514_005.jpg by -IdealCamera-

 

[filmtwit]

I liked my 50mm f1.4 nikkor-sc a wee bit more the Sonnetar, but I kept the Sonnetar as my go to low light lens when shooting 35mm B&W (usually 400@1600) on my M3. Oh and have been pretty happy with it despite the odd tab situation.

It's really rare for me to shoot at f1.1 and I've found it's not as fun to shoot it on M240 either.

 

[Noserider]

See my coma position tests at
http://four-silver-atoms.com/2013/08/10/ms-optical-sonnetar-50mm-f1-1-bokeh-test/

I like the lens very much and I think it is a thoughtful (if slow) solution to the challenge of a fast normal Sonnar.

 

[Pete B]

Is this an attempt to boost its value prior to you selling it 😉😀.
Pete

 

[ulrich.von.lich]

Is the coma adjuster something that manually compensates the focus shift or does it increase the depth of field at given apertures ?

 

[Bille]

It's tiny, it's light, and it is very, very sharp.

You mean "stopped-down sharp" or "f1.1 sharp"?

 

[Ko.Fe.]

2014 thread:
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140352

Some results where on digital cameras reminds me my $15 Zenitar 50/2, which I find to be as the defect, not something special.
Going to google Marek's Sonar C, his are the best so far on this thread 🙂

 

[jsrockit]

201212824 by marek fogiel, on Flickr

I really like this portrait for some reason.

 

[Lss]

Prediction: the MS-Sonnetar, once people figure out what the "coma" adjuster does, will become the next cult lens. It's tiny, it's light, and it is very, very sharp.

Interesting information and very nice photos! The first I heard about this lens was that it's fiddly. So, how's the handling really like for shooting fast?

 

[ferider]

I don't know Dante. In a blind test, I wouldn't be able to tell your results apart from my Canon 50/1.2 LTM, or F-mount Nikkor 55/1.2, for that matter.

I do prefer more punch in the center and smoother bokeh for portraits, like Marek's C-Sonnar examples, or what I get with my 5005 Nikkor, the Zuiko 50/1.2, the CV VM 50/1.5, etc. Note that I got rid of my C-Sonnar years ago because I felt it was difficult to handle. Sounds like the Sonnetar - which I never tried - is even more of a pain.

Currently debating if I should ask MiyazakiSan to convert my Zuiko to M as I like it so much. Small lens too, but very capable also for landscapes.

Here is the Canon (film):

The 50/1.5 Nokton (film):

The Zuiko (film):

The 5005 (digital):

Roland.

 

[Dante_Stella]

A couple of brief comments.

Pete B: Not pumping this up. I own almost every lens that you would compare to this, so it would be a zero sum game ("hey, check out my 50/1.4 Nikkor!). Also, things only become cult items three years after I sell them at a loss. 🙂

Mfogiel: I actually have a C-Sonnar as well. It's easier to handle in a lot of ways (primarily because it doesn't have the rotating front), but it has its own foibles. As to the QC issues with this lens, it's hard to say. Zeiss seems to have been in three different places as regards "normal" collimation.

ulrich.von.lich: Adjusting the rear group of a lens influences both the focal length and the shape of the plane of focus. This is something Brian Sweeney noted with Sonnars (his idea was to make the field flatter), and this can be exploited with the Sonnetar by inducing a not-flat field that grabs more items in view.

ferider: I have a Canon 50/1.2 coming today or tomorrow, so I should be able to do this head-on.

In general, two minor points:

1. This lens would not be very much fun to use if you only had a film camera to test it with - since the adjustments are not very repeatable (there really should be a vernier scale), and there are no English-language instructions that adequately explain how setting the lens to the optimum position for coma can mean suboptimal focus.

2. The "fiddly" part of this is not an issue if you have used a Contax or Nikon RF - whose 50mm lenses all suffer from the same issues. The easiest thing to do with this is to bolt on a filter (or empty ring) and just grab the front of the lens to focus.

I guess the other thing is that you really need to calibrate this lens on a body that shoots in color. I found it very difficult to set it based on what the M typ 246 returned; the M typ 240 was a lot easier.

Dante

 

[Huss]

I much prefer all the non Sonnetar pics in this thread. Guess soft and blurry aint my thing.

 

[ulrich.von.lich]

I wish I knew more about the plane of focus. There are some Russian lenses with speical design affecting the DOF as well. For example, they made one 85mm f1.5 lens which will never get sharp in corners and therefore is condamned to remain a portrait lens. But in any case, I guess I am not missing much by not having the coma adjuster since I use films. I would imagine how useful it would be on a Sony A7.

Roland, do you think the Olympus can be converted with the minimum focus distance unchanged? If so, that would be a good deal. I often hoped the Canon 50 f1.2 ltm could focus down further.

I look forward to seeing how the Canon compares.

 

[uhoh7]

The reason it may never be a cult lens is evident in the thread here: anecdotal attack from very narrow perspectives.

I have shot extensively with the Sonnetar at all apertures. Now obviously each of us can only speak to our own copies....and others should realize some negative experiences may relate to individual issues.

Is the Sonnetar a "sharp" lens? Any answer to this question without qualification of "when", i.e. aperture and distance, and "where" i.e. where in the frame, will bring misunderstanding and controversy. The extra variable is of course the coma adjuster.

I'll leave my own assessment out for a minute and let members see the Sonnetar some more:


Thinkin by unoh7, on Flickr


Sonnetar Portrait by unoh7, on Flickr


Coffee Baron by unoh7, on Flickr


Bill by unoh7, on Flickr


L1027656 by unoh7, on Flickr

 

[jsrockit]

Looks perfectly usable to me...

 

[ferider]

I'll leave my own assessment out for a minute and let members see the Sonnetar some more

F2 is easy. Do you have any wide open ? Thanks.

 

[uhoh7]

Some more:


Sonnetar and fast friends by unoh7, on Flickr



L1027456 by unoh7, on Flickr


L1027684 by unoh7, on Flickr


We Roll by unoh7, on Flickr


Smudge by unoh7, on Flickr


L1031622 by WS Snails, on Flickr

 

[ferider]

How about wide open ? 🙂