Early Nikkor-HC 5cm F2 Rigid LTM NKT, compared with Classic Sonnars

brusby said:
#750,xxx NKJ. Black belt. I really like the image quality and skin tones of the f2 version. In fact, I prefer the f2 over the f1.4, especially when fine detail is important.
These are initial test photos done immediately after I got the lens and cleaned it. I included bright light sources in or just outside of the frame to see how the lens handles them.
_OSR3796 by Brusby, on Flickr

_OSR3852 by Brusby, on Flickr

_OSR4332 by Brusby, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Gorgeous images though I am glad I looked at home rather than at work. I doubt anyone else would see and complain but still I do need to be careful at the hotel 😉
 
brusby said:
I think even properly functioning f1.4 types are a bit funky wide open but clean up pretty quickly when stopped down even just a bit to f2. At least, the couple I have are that way and they don't have any separation or other optical issues.
Click to expand...
Can't say I've ever noticed it on my 1.4 vs my 2 but by the same token, I think my Mk I eyeball isn't anywhere near as carefully calibrated as some around here! 🤣
 
wlewisiii said:
Gorgeous images though I am glad I looked at home rather than at work. I doubt anyone else would see and complain but still I do need to be careful at the hotel 😉
Click to expand...
I try to avoid posting many risqué photos here. In the referenced photos, about all that actually shows is the side of a girls rear end. Other parts which seem provocative are actually covered or blacked out. So, probably less is actually displayed than you'd see at any modern beach. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who would consider most of what I photograph offensive, which makes it hard to contribute much, if anything, here.
 
brusby said:
I try to avoid posting many risqué photos here. In the referenced photos, about all that actually shows is the side of a girls rear end. Other parts which seem provocative are actually covered or blacked out. So, probably less is actually displayed than you'd see at any modern beach. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who would consider most of what I photograph offensive, which makes it hard to contribute much, if anything, here.
Click to expand...
Understand. I found them well done and very tasteful. I just don't care to have anyone else have grief. Thankfully landscapes rarely cause that 😈
 
Sonnar Brian said:
@brusby- "my forum, contribute away". Especially when using a Sonnar.
Have you tried a wartime Sonnar? Or a pre-war uncoated Sonnar?
Click to expand...
Thanks Brian. I really appreciate you and your attitude.

I haven't tried either the wartime or pre-war Sonnar. 'Really wish I had access to either or both. I bet they'd be capable of some amazingly beautiful photos. Closest I've gotten is a couple of early 1950's Jupiter 3s I bought a few years back, which I understand likely have German glass, and a nice, clean Canon 50mm f1.5, which I think makes lovely images.

If you run across any nice examples of those lenses, please feel free to let me know. I'll keep an eye out, but with all the reports of fakes these days, I'm a little gun shy.
 
Last edited:
Brian, I was thinking about your reference above to pre-war and wartime Sonnars. At first I thought you were just curious whether I had used them, but on further reflection I'm wondering whether you were suggesting there was a significant difference in image quality between them and more recent Sonnars, particularly at the wider apertures we were then discussing.

From viewing images posted by you and others over many years I had developed the impression that the performance of the faster f1.4 and f1.5 pre-war and wartime Sonnars at widest apertures was not significantly different than that of post war Sonnars from the likes of Zeiss, Contax, Canon and Jupiter, i.e., I thought they were all kind of soft and lower in contrast at widest aperture due to uncorrected spherical aberration. But considering that I don't have any first hand experience with them, I realize my opinion might not be correct.

So, I'm very curious if you have any thoughts you'd be willing to share regarding the major differences, if any, between pre-war and wartime Sonnars versus their more recent descendants, particularly at the greatest aperture. Are they all a bit "funky" (sorry, not meant to denigrate, just my term for how the character seems to change at those f stops) at f1.4 or 1.5, or are they significantly different?
 
Last edited:
Bruce, thanks for posing that question... and Brian, thanks for responding to it. I have read that the wartime Zeiss Sonnar f1.5 lenses were a kind of peak in Zeiss's design and construction, but that (if true) might only be in relation to what Zeiss had issued in the pre-war years. I have a wartime Sonnar, from the 272*** serial number batch, that once belonged to Leica Tom on this forum. And while I don't usually shoot at full aperture, and don't do studio work like Bruce, it's a lens quite capable of subtlety in capturing an image.

I think I've posted this photo before, but it's what I have in mind...

Listening by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr

I've mainly used this lens for landscape work...

Beach in winter by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr
 
Getting back to the subject of this thread... and in response to my earlier comment... I did not take the Nikkor HC 50mm f2.0 LTM w/ me to Scotland after all. Instead, I took the Nikkor-SC 5cm f1.4 LTM, which I used exclusively on my ME240, for both color and black and white. I was really impressed with its performance on that trip and have used it on the ME240 since returning.

That said, the Nikkor HC 50mm f2.0 LTM needs a little love. Using it on a digital camera w/ a live view back means you can take advantage of the close focusing abilities of the LTM version. And it's just an all-round nice optic ...

Chevy by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr
Grandma’s hands... by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr
 
Bingley said:
Bruce, thanks for posing that question... and Brian, thanks for responding to it. I have read that the wartime Zeiss Sonnar f1.5 lenses were a kind of peak in Zeiss's design and construction, but that (if true) might only be in relation to what Zeiss had issued in the pre-war years. I have a wartime Sonnar, from the 272*** serial number batch, that once belonged to Leica Tom on this forum. And while I don't usually shoot at full aperture, and don't do studio work like Bruce, it's a lens quite capable of subtlety in capturing an image.

I think I've posted this photo before, but it's what I have in mind...

Listening by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr

I've mainly used this lens for landscape work...

Beach in winter by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Lovely photos, Steve. I particularly like the beach scene with the cliffs covered in mist and the beautiful backlit reverse S curve. Great tones and composition!

If I had to guess, I would say the lens in that shot was stopped down to at least f5.6 or f8, if not more. And based on the lack of that characteristic low contrast look from shooting wide open, I'd guess your other photos were stopped down at least a stop or two. Although the baby photo is slightly soft, in a nice way, I'd still guess stopped down at least a stop if it's the f1.4 lens. I think both lenses are optimized for close up work, so maybe wide open if it was the f2 lens.

Love the close focusing range on these lenses.
 
@brusby

Thinking this over: The post-war West German 50/1.5 Sonnar is the same basic optical formula as the Wartime Sonnar. The Aperture when closed down has a different shape, designed to mitigate focus shift. The "flowery shape" shows up in the Bokeh. The West German lenses also have more sample-to-sample deviation. The later ones went to a synthetic cement that fails. "All that considered", a good one is as good as the wartime lenses. The same is true of a good, correctly adjusted KMZ version 1 Jupiter-3. I've taken apart enough J-3s to identify version 1 1950~1953, and some made concurrently with v2 lenses into 1956.

Given that you have good post-war 50/1.5 Sonnars and early KMZ Jupiter-3s: wartime lenses are matched. So that leaves the version 2 and version 3 pre-war lenses.
The Version 2 is not as common. This version is center sharp. It's my favorite. Version 3 starts around SN 166xxxx, perhaps before.

1934 5cm F1.5, wide-open on the Leica M9.
L1006682.jpgL1006690.jpgSwinging_f15.jpgL1006665.jpg
 
Last edited:
Out of curiosity, how does the Nikkor 50/1.4 compare to these lenses since that's what I currently have (357040). I'm quite satisfied with it and doubt I'll go searching for anything else anytime soon, but It's always fun to know your thoughts on them.
 
I'll be changing the title of this thread... it's my thread...

@brusby

This shot shows off the 5cm F1.5 version 2 Sonnar.
Wide-Open on the M9. The colors just come out deeper. The background- seems more "blended" than the later versions.

L1016552.jpg
 
Last edited:
1936 CZJ Sonnar, 5cm F1.5. Light Orange Filter. Wide-Open on the M Monochrom.
L1006164.jpgL1006245.jpg

This is a version 3 lens. My observations/opinion: greater over-correction for spherical aberration, sharpness more spread over the image.


V2_Sonnars_two_types.jpg
Above: Two Version 2 Sonnars, rear triplet.

the rear triplet of the V3 vs V2.
Sonnar175xV3_145xV2_c.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom