Carl Zeiss Sonnar 50/1.5 in Contax mount: AWESOME

Yeah

I agree. I'm no expert but lenses/cameras from eastern europe are likely to be fake.

LTM Contax Sonnars are rare. You're better off going with a Contax RF mount + Amedeo adapter.
 
You only can wonder the "ingenuity" of some of the guys in Belarussia ! They seem to have a stock of old russian stuff which they "convert" to old german "collectibles"
 
raytoei@gmail.com said:
alas my contax 1.5 in amedeo is front focus, i have to "manually" over-focus it. any suggestions ?

raytoei
Click to expand...

Try the adapter with a Nikon RF 50mm lens. If it then focuses accurately, send the adapter back to Amedeo telling him that you got a Nikon-Leica adapter, although it's written Contax-Leica on it.

As per what I have heard here and there, such things happen with Amedeo's adapters. But he's a good guy and will be helpful.
 
I love this lens and Contax cameras. I have 3 Sonnars ( I have 2 sweet ones and my Contax II for sale in the classifieds ;)) They are wonderful lenses and have 2 characters, sharp with impressionist bokeh at 1.5 and sharp as a pin at smaller apertures. It is also a wonderful lens on the amedeo adapter. Mine works perfectly on my m9 and is wonderful for color, with a warm and saturated color rendition


Nik
 
This lens works very well with Fuji Reala 100. The mix of a sharp center with low contrast optices and high contrast film is beautiful. I have one in Contax mount and one that Brian adapted into LTM for me. The 50/2 is also a great lens, by the way.
 
I had shot 2 rolls of E100 using it and a CONTAX IIA, it is sharp, but the color maybe a little light then curren time lens.
 
Anyone shot/compared both the new Zeiss C Sonnar and "classic" Sonnar (coated)?

I have Zeiss-Opton 1,5/50 (Contax mount) which I use on my Kiev II and M6 with Amedeo adapter. I LOVE it. I think it's a perfect match for slide film which I decided to shoot while it's still around. Still, focusing and aperture rings turn in the "wrong" direction.

Funny thing is, I did own the new C Sonnar but I shot it mostly on digital and foolishly sold it. Anyone went from old to new Sonnar and lived to tell?
 
brbo said:
Anyone shot/compared both the new Zeiss C Sonnar and "classic" Sonnar (coated)?

I have Zeiss-Opton 1,5/50 (Contax mount) which I use on my Kiev II and M6 with Amedeo adapter. I LOVE it. I think it's a perfect match for slide film which I decided to shoot while it's still around. Still, focusing and aperture rings turn in the "wrong" direction.

Funny thing is, I did own the new C Sonnar but I shot it mostly on digital and foolishly sold it. Anyone went from old to new Sonnar and lived to tell?
Click to expand...

Hello brbo,
I thihk I'm the one to answer your question, as it was me who bought your ZM 50mm C-Sonnar about 2 years ago!

I have an uncoated Opton Sonnar in Contax mount (which I used on a Contax II until that camera broke), and then I've used your former C-Sonnar on a Leica M4-P. I've shot both these setups at different times, and never "tested" the lenses, I only shot with them in my normal use. I've shot C-41 colour films with them both, but not the same exact film (old Porta NC 400 before, and now new Portra 400).

So my impressions are far from a scientific analysis. But I sold your modern C-Sonnar a couple of months ago and kept the vintage Zeiss lens (from 1939 I believe). For me the determining factor was not so much image quality (more on that below), but whether or not I could use the ZM C-Sonnar as my "everyday", all-around, do everything 50mm lens (I hoped I could be due to its fast aperture and relatively small size (stubby profile)).

But I really didn't like the 1/3 f-stops on the ZM lens, and the general ergonomics compared to all my other lenses with are 1/2-stop Leitz/Leica lenses. The IQ from the C-Sonnar was excellent though, but I little too modern/contrasty for my taste.

Once I realised that I didn't want the C-Sonnar as my "everyday", all-around, do everything 50mm lens, then it became a specialised lens in my eyes, and if I'm reaching for a specialised lens already, I might as well go all the way, and use the old, uncoated Zeiss Opton whose images have more of the "vintage look" (softer and less contrasty).

By the way, I didn't notice any significant differences between the two lenses in terms of bokeh. The ZM C-Sonnar was sharper (or gave the impression of sharpness via higher contrast).

I'm now testing the MS-Optical 50mm f/1.1 Sonnetar as my "everyday", all-around, do everything 50mm lens. It is quirky ergonomically, but so far I like it as it is very small and light-weight, 1-stop faster than the Zeiss Opton Sonnar, focuses to 0.8 meters, and doesn't seem to suffer from focus shift (magically). I tested the Sonnetar under controlled conditions on a tripod mounted Sony NEX-5n which I briefly owned, and found that (a) it REALLY was 1 stop faster, and (b) I could not see any focus shift when stopping the lens down.

And indeed, so far in real-world usage I seem to be nailing focus better with the Sonnetar than I did with the C-Sonnar.

I think in the end I'm going to pair the 50mm Sonnetar with a 50mm modern Elmar-M that I also own, and which is the best 50mm lens I have ever used - but of course only opens up to f/2.8!
 
Thanks for your input sleepyhead!

1/3 stops might even come handy for me since I'm using slide film 90% of the time. But you got a point there, C Sonnar would be a perfect match to 2,8/35 C Biogon (both small, 1/3 click stops), but I don't think I'm ready to let go of my 35mm lens (Canon 35/2 ltm).

Nikkor 50/1.4 ltm would probably solve the "problem" of ergonomics, but those are too expensive.
 
I'm currently shooting my Dad's old Carl Zeiss Sonnar 50mm 1.5 on my M3 via Amadeo adaptor (which also allows me to shoot my W-Nikkor 35/2.5.) The adaptor works great, and I highly recommend it. Someone (maybe here on RFF) did a side-by-side test of the C-Sonnar with the '50s version like mine, and I remember how much alike they were until the corners, where the older lens fell behind, as we might have expected. Both are great lenses. I may weld mine to the M3.
 
Sorry, I made a mistake above, my Zeiss Opton Sonnar is not uncoated. It has a light bluish-purple coating. I guess compared to the beautiful coating of the ZM C-Sonnar (with multiple colors) I always thought of the old one as uncoated.

Its serial number is 1055211. I don't know what year that's from, but someone pointed out that it is not 1939 as I thought.
 
I agree, the Sonnar 50/1,5 is perhaps the best 50mm. lens ever made for 35mm. film cameras. I'm a fan of the Contax RF system (also in its Soviet "variation") and it's interesting to compare the results between an uncoated pre-war lens, a wartime, red "T" one and the Zeiss Opton one made in the West. All, with their own character, are capable of excellent results.

Best wishes,

E.L.
 
Here it is, 1937 CZJ 50/1.5 which I got with a post war red dial IIIa. In this case it's amedeo to M to E on stock Sony A7, and wide open:


Mark
by unoh7, on Flickr

And stopped down on the M9:
[
All fall down by unoh7, on Flickr

That last shot the M9 thinks was f/11, but it was at least F/8 for sure. I just looked at the full and at this range it's good to the edges :)

Usually I look at the longer landscapes where tiny distant details reveal very subtle changes in performance. I memory is that the edges went soft, but that might have been a Sony sensor thing. I should try some on the M9.


DSC02414 by unoh7, on Flickr
 
As I was saying in the Sonnetar thread, I sold this lens along with all my Leica stuff...now I'm back into RF and buying some of it back. I'm giving the Sonnetar a try, but if it doesn't suit me, I'll probably find another of these...
 
Nice thread, great pictures from the contributors and I like the lower contrast rendered by these older lenses. I also love the idea that you are all using and preserving these great jewels for the future - what ever that future might be - and so enjoying them along the way.

It seems to me that these older Zeiss lenses produce pictures closer to the colours and shadings that I see with my eyes, modern lenses and sensors producing an unnatural sharpness and with garish colours. This may be the decline in my eyesight!
On the 'soft corners at full aperture debate'. It is fairly unlikely that a picture made at full aperture has any important information in it's corners that needs to be sharp, and not a single viewer of any of my pictures has ever commented on my soft corners. My poor technique or camera shake is far more likely to be my cause of image degradation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom