Carl Zeiss Sonnar 50/1.5 in Contax mount: AWESOME

A pic of my IIIa Color Dial.... done by Henry Scherer with a J3. Wonderful camera and lens.

16011928927_01f8b15530_k.jpg
 
Love the Sonnar 50/1.5! Mine is with native nickel LTM mount, from 1933. A real rarity according to Zeiss experts.
Here's a portrait I took with the Sony A7R + helicoid adapter to come way closer than the 1m limit of the lens.
2598wah.jpg
 
I had a Contax iiia with a 50mm f1.5 Sonnar T.
It is quite dreamy wide open. Sharper stopped down.
But it did not suit me. i sold it a while back.
 

Attachments

  • ContaxIIIa_820s.jpg
    ContaxIIIa_820s.jpg
    29 KB · Views: 0
  • ContaxIIIa_835s.jpg
    ContaxIIIa_835s.jpg
    19.1 KB · Views: 0
  • ContaxIIIa_824.jpg
    ContaxIIIa_824.jpg
    36.5 KB · Views: 0
Sonnars can be found in many other brands and sizes, most do deliver very well despite age. I have an adaper for my Ms besides my Contaxes.
 
In terms of sharpness vs. dreaminess, in descending order of sharpness:

1. CZ (final) West German - has 80-85% of the contrast wide-open that it does at f/2. Bokeh not like the older ones. You could describe the sharpness at f/2 and close range as almost transgressive; in the central circle, it has extremely high contrast and apparent sharpness. Backgrounds, though... they tend to either have Nikon 1.4-style bokeh or look like paper cutouts against backlighting. The chrome and coatings on these (and even the aperture blades) are jewel-like.

2. (Tie) ZM C-Sonnar - really depends on how the lens is set. Lenses set to just focus at f/1.5 are very good all-around performers. The focus shift on this lens is not inherently any worse than any other Sonnar, and it really seems to be the one where the lore has gotten a little out of control. But there are better and worse ways to calibrate it. Yes, Virginia, you can make this your everyday 50. Less rickety mechanically than any of the others, takes 46mm filters, and is nicely finished. Best bokeh by far.

2. (Tie) MS-Sonnetar - at f/1.6 and down, it performs about as well as any of these. At the maximum aperture (1.1), it is roughly similar to the ZM. Has the advantage of being arbitrarily adjusted for focal length, which allows you to set a very precise relationship to the RF. Extremely light in weight.

3. CZJ (uncoated) - lower contrast all around; not as sharp as the CZ when it is sharp (which is not surprising at all - and in many cases desirable). Most pleasing lens at f/1.5. With this one, you can fix this one to adjust like a Sonnetar, which seems to be important because pretty much every example I have owned seems to front-focus on Amedeo adapters. I'm guessing these were collimated for particular cameras. Nicely finished, but the newest of these are approaching 80 years old.

Dante

And for the people who don't believe that the ZM Sonnar is sharp.... this is wide-open on an M240. Just keep making your repair guy adjust it until it's right. Totally worth it.

20160216_190525-X3.jpg
 
I have a number of CZJ 5cm f/1.5 Sonnars now. All pre-war, 2 in Contax-mount, one shoe-horned into an Jupiter-3 LTM mount by Mr Sweeney.

Looking forward to play with them on my Contax IIa when it arrives.
 
Dante_Stella said:
In terms of sharpness vs. dreaminess, in descending order of sharpness:
...

3. CZJ (uncoated) - lower contrast all around; not as sharp as the CZ when it is sharp (which is not surprising at all - and in many cases desirable). Most pleasing lens at f/1.5. With this one, you can fix this one to adjust like a Sonnetar, which seems to be important because pretty much every example I have owned seems to front-focus on Amedeo adapters. I'm guessing these were collimated for particular cameras. Nicely finished, but the newest of these are approaching 80 years old.

Dante
...
Click to expand...

Dante,

Thanks for the rundown. I've been interested in the Sonnars for a while and happened onto a very early Contax mount one this fall. I believe mine is about 1934.

I'm curious to hear more about a couple of your comments. This is the only 50 1.5 Sonnar I've shot other than a Nikkor (1.4) version. I'm wondering why you think it is not surprising that the early uncoated lens is less sharp than the late version. Do you think the design was tweaked in a positive way over the years? Or glass choices improved? And do you find the older one less sharp even stopped down? The Nikkor I tried seemed just a slight bit sharper wide open than the old Sonnar, but I prefer the look of the Sonnar. I'm not sure whether there was much difference in sharpness stopped down; both seem good.

I use mine on the simpler 50 only version Amedeo adapter, and the main thing I wondered about was your comment on adjusting the lens. Mine front focused at full aperture as you indicate, and seemed to match at about 2.8. I found that very awkward since I mostly wanted the lens for low light. After reading a lot of Brian Sweeney's old posts on tweaking Jupiters I experimented with slightly unscrewing the rear group to increase the focal length a little and get very accurate focus wide open now. Is that the same adjustment you mention?

It is a lovely lens. I'm tempted to try a later version, or maybe even the new Jupiter, but this one is working well enough for me that I may not bother.
 
Mark C said:
I've been interested in the Sonnars for a while and happened onto a very early Contax mount one this fall. I believe mine is about 1934.
(...)
I'm wondering why you think it is not surprising that the early uncoated lens is less sharp than the late version.
Click to expand...

It is not less sharp. It is older and uncoated. So it's probably dirtier than a late CZ 1950s version, with a dirty and oily layer everywhere on the optics elements, probably. And being uncoated it's more prone to internal reflections, hence a lower micro-contrast, hence an impression of "less sharp" photos.

Once properly cleaned, a prewar Sonnar, aimed at no contrejour, and fitted with a good lens hood, will deliver the same results as a postwar Sonnar. The formula is the same. But it can't compete with a later T coated Sonnar in difficult lighting conditions.

Erik Van Straten's photo above tells it all.

I have several Sonnars 1.5 for Contax. The best of the best is the Zeiss-Opton T. But it's because it's exceptionally clean I guess, with intact coatings. Yet, in similar, overcast and plain lighting conditions, I can't guess the photos shot with it from the photos shot with the prewar (1937) uncoated one, or with the prewar coated one (1938) which has damaged coatings and some light unremovable haze in its rear group.

I used a modern C-Sonnar 1.5 ZM several times, but it was on a Leica M8-2, with a sensor crop factor. So I can say nothing relevant about it.
 
Even against the light a clean uncoated Sonnar 50mm f/1.5 performs satisfactory at full aperture.

Contax I v7, Sonnar black and nickel 50mm f/1.5 full aperture, 400-2TMY.

Erik.

29131315456_dda4088eb5_c.jpg
 
In terms of the difference (and I can't speak to early West German lenses; I only have a late one), it's not as much the resolving power as the way focus rolls off on detailed subjects and how light rims on out of focus highlights. It's subtle, but it's pretty clear that something is different. If I get a minute today, I'll make some comparison shots that will make this more visible. Oil haze can lower contrast, but it seems extraordinarily unlikely that it would change aberrations.

Dante
 
My 1934 lens is remarkable considering the age and lack of coating. After all, the design was optimized for contrast in the days before coating. It was quite a while before Leica caught up.

Dante, did you see my question a few posts up about the adjustment you mention?
 
I have several Zeiss 5cm lenses, including an Opton, a ZK, and the early 5cm/1.5 and 5cm/2.0 lenses. They are excellent lenses overall. I have some of them in ltm while others are in Contax mount.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom