richard_l
Well-known
If that's a typical Skopar image, it definitely has more of a Sonnar look. The Tessar/Elmar is not that creamy.Doug said:
Interesting; thanks, Richard! I've added a 100% crop from the original 6.1mp scan to my earlier post#17 for closer examination. The crop isn't blindingly sharp, but then the camera was hand-held, too, probaby around 1/30 sec, and the film was ISO 800.richard_l said:
There are maybe half a dozen more such print/crop pairs in my online gallery, with this lens.
Last edited:
Jason Sprenger
Well-known
I don't own the current Elmar 50/2.8 but its reputation is that of a sharp lens with a very flat field. The Skopar 50/2.5 doesn't particularly fit those descriptors in my experience.
I have noticed opened up, both contrast and detail fall off significantly. However, at apertures of f5.6 and smaller, the lens is fine, with a modern but not overly contrasty look. Its out of focus highlights are real smooth until f2.5 when they kind of turn into little golf balls that can be distracting. Maybe Cosina was "pushing it" by putting a stop at f2.5.
Overall, I'd say that if Cosina was going for a sharp little 50 like the current Elmar, they missed.
Nevertheless, thinking about it now...
Maybe it was done that way on purpose. With the Nokton 50/1.5 at a similar price point, a shorter, softer lens might be what they were shooting for.
Afterall, f2.5 is not particularly fast for available light work and if you're not opening it up because of the lack of light, odds are you're going for a 3-D look by blurring the background, people's faces, babies on rugs, etc. Conditions where contrast and razor sharp detail may not be the best things.
Since sharp, sharp sharp is the mantra in modern 50's, it's small wonder that a lens that didn't go that way wouldn't generate excitement. (Disciples of the Summitar not withstanding.)
--Jason
I have noticed opened up, both contrast and detail fall off significantly. However, at apertures of f5.6 and smaller, the lens is fine, with a modern but not overly contrasty look. Its out of focus highlights are real smooth until f2.5 when they kind of turn into little golf balls that can be distracting. Maybe Cosina was "pushing it" by putting a stop at f2.5.
Overall, I'd say that if Cosina was going for a sharp little 50 like the current Elmar, they missed.
Nevertheless, thinking about it now...
Maybe it was done that way on purpose. With the Nokton 50/1.5 at a similar price point, a shorter, softer lens might be what they were shooting for.
Afterall, f2.5 is not particularly fast for available light work and if you're not opening it up because of the lack of light, odds are you're going for a 3-D look by blurring the background, people's faces, babies on rugs, etc. Conditions where contrast and razor sharp detail may not be the best things.
Since sharp, sharp sharp is the mantra in modern 50's, it's small wonder that a lens that didn't go that way wouldn't generate excitement. (Disciples of the Summitar not withstanding.)
--Jason
FPjohn
Well-known
you mean i do not have to purchase a rollei 35 to get a small sonnar?
richard_l
Well-known
I'm still not positive the Skopar is a true Sonnar. However, you can buy a real 40mm Rollei Sonnar in LTM/M mount, but it's pricey. It's cheaper to buy a Rollei 35 S to get the same lens, and you can consider the camera thrown in for free.FPjohn said:
W
wlewisiii
Guest
Oh, I don't think the Skopar is a Sonnar. Instead, like most normal lenses for 35mm in the last couple of decades, it starts as a Planar but rather than being a pure Planar it is modified in ways that are obviously derived from the Sonnar design. The closest analog I can think of off the top of my head is the various permutiations that happened to the Cooke Triplet design - one of which was the Zeiss Tessar which brings us to this discussion.
No one is likely to mistake the signature of a Sonnar for that of a Triplet. But that Triplet started a series of developements in asymetrical design that lead to the Sonnar. Then coating changed everything and Planars became the rule. Finally in the mid to late 50's the designs appear, to me from looking at the information I can find, to have melded the two design paths into what has become the standard normal lens design.
I went to the Canon museum and looked at a block diagram of the current EOS 50/1.8 and then looked at the one in the current Nikon catalog for the Nikkor AF 50/1.8. Both are 6 element/5 group designs that seem to my eye to be near enough to identical for our purposes here. Any difference in "look" comes from other elements of the design process.
Hoping this makes some sense,
William
No one is likely to mistake the signature of a Sonnar for that of a Triplet. But that Triplet started a series of developements in asymetrical design that lead to the Sonnar. Then coating changed everything and Planars became the rule. Finally in the mid to late 50's the designs appear, to me from looking at the information I can find, to have melded the two design paths into what has become the standard normal lens design.
I went to the Canon museum and looked at a block diagram of the current EOS 50/1.8 and then looked at the one in the current Nikon catalog for the Nikkor AF 50/1.8. Both are 6 element/5 group designs that seem to my eye to be near enough to identical for our purposes here. Any difference in "look" comes from other elements of the design process.
Hoping this makes some sense,
William
Isn't it surprising that the 50 Skopar, with its modest f/2.5 aperture, has 7 elements in 6 groups? Why did they "need" so many elements for this small lens? And further that they still did not eliminate that slight pincushion distortion. What were they trying to accomplish, what was the priority? Six separate lens groups including one cemented doublet doesn't seem much like either a Sonnar or a Planar type...
einolu
Well-known
To make it curiously heavy?
back alley
IMAGES
gear
acquisition
syndrome
acquisition
syndrome
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
When I get gas I step outside in the street. My wife doesn't complain (people in the street may do) but it doesn't cost me anything.