A Sonnar by any other name (Nikkor v. Sonnar)

[Sanders McNew]

For those of you who know your Sonnars:

I have a Nikkor 50/1.4, which I gather
is a variant of the original 1930s Zeiss
Sonnar 50/1.5. My wife wants it. And
I have an eBay credit I need to spend.

How does my Nikkor compare to the
new Zeiss C Sonnar 50/1.5? I like the
look of my Nikkor. How would the new
Zeiss Sonnar differ, visually?

And how would a collapsible Summicron
free of haze and scratches compare to
both of them?

Sanders

 

[tomasis]

I'm interested also of the answers to the questions.

I have a Jupiter and I feel I may need to add another sonnar with much better handling. I'm curious also how much capable is nikkor lens which appears to be well made so it might be good to handle with this compared to one russian. The aperture ring moves back sometimes when I adjust aperture, lol

I believe that I rather have both lenses sonnar and summicron. They do have their own unique signatures. I don't own the collapsible one but a bit newer one from year 1979. No matter if I have several sonnar or summicrons, I'm gonna definitely to add a collapsible due its compactness.

It doesn't matter anything if we are Bresson wannabes, right? hehe

 

[payasam]

The "look" of the collapsible Summicron, specially at wide apertures, is rather different from that of other lenses. I think also that it might be risky to go by name alone and assume that a Sonnar made now will be similar to one from the 1930s, or to a Nikkor from the 1950s.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I do not have the modern Zeiss Sonnar, so cannot answer that question.

The Collapsible Summicron is lower contrast, but retains a lot of detail in the shadow and highlights that the Nikkor can lose. More like water-colors vs an Oil painting. I have and use both. The older Zeiss Sonnar and Canon 50/1.5 are somewhere in between. The Nikkor went all-out for wide-open, up-close performance.

The Nikkor will be a fine present to your wife.

 

[Mackinaw]

Both Raid and Brian Sweeney have conducted pretty intensive tests (with a ton of pics) comparing several different 50mm lenses. I think you can find these in the Lens and Optics category.

I conducted a small mini-test, a few weeks back, comparing a collapsible 50mm Summicron, a Nikkor 50.2.0 (Sonnar-design) and a Canon 50/1.4. You can find the thread, and pictures, here:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55786

Jim B.

 

[furcafe]

I have no personal experience w/using the current production Zeiss 50/1.5 ZM Sonnar, but can make an informed assumption that it has superior coatings, & therefore significantly greater flare-resistance & noticeably more contrast (especially wide-open), compared to your Nikkor-S. Whether these are significant or attractive differences is up to your wife's aesthetic preferences/objectives (e.g., many photographers like a certain amount of flare).

As far as the collapsible 1950s Summicron goes, it will have some resemblance to your Nikkor when it comes to flare (single-coating on both), but have a different "signature" because of its optical formula. IMHO, the most visible will be the fact that the Summicron will not have the signature "sharp in the middle, blurrier towards the edges" look of the Nikkor/Sonnar when shot wide-open. The Summicron will also have less veiling flare @ middle apertures, but overall give a less contrasty look.

For those of you who know your Sonnars:

I have a Nikkor 50/1.4, which I gather
is a variant of the original 1930s Zeiss
Sonnar 50/1.5. My wife wants it. And
I have an eBay credit I need to spend.

How does my Nikkor compare to the
new Zeiss C Sonnar 50/1.5? I like the
look of my Nikkor. How would the new
Zeiss Sonnar differ, visually?

And how would a collapsible Summicron
free of haze and scratches compare to
both of them?

Sanders

 

[raid]

Collapsible Summicron at 2.0: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5297421
...............................at 4.0:http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5288220


Nikon 50/2 at 2.0: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5297453
...............at 4.0: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5288252

Zeiss Jena Sonnar 50/2 at 2.0: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5297459
................................ at 4.0: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5288225

I don't have much interest in newer lenses than those from the 60's and earlier.

The previous post gives the most likely differences with the new Zeiss 50/1.5. The coatings will be the biggest difference [I think].

 

[ferider]

I have used all three and think furcafe pretty much hit the nail on the head. The C-Sonnar has more contrast wide open than either Nikkor or Summicron, but still the Sonnar-typical center punch.

WRT to OOF, the Nikkor and the C-Sonnar are different. The C-Sonnar's "bokeh" is prettier to my eyes, and you know I already like the Nikkor's 🙂

One of the best things about the Nikkor is that you can modify it for .7m min. focus 🙂 See here:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56962

Roland.