Kevcaster
Well-known
I would be interested in your opinions on this, what are your experiences with these lenses?
I recently bought an F1.5 Sonnar that had collimation/optical issues and returned it. To establish just how faulty it was I tested against my known good lenses and though you might like to see the examples. this does not include the F1.5 results as they were universally unsharp at all apertures.
All negs produced with the same Contax lla, same roll of FP4+ developed in Rodinal, 1:50. The point of focus was the right hand of the picture mounting mat. Camera on a tripod. The cropped pictures are approximately 20% of the full frame - a 7mm wide rectangle, they display as 210mm wide pictures on my screen and so would equate to a print of roughly 1 metre wide.
The first is the full frame picture taken at F5.6 with the 1961 Carl Zeiss Sonnar, THEN ALL THREE AT THEIR FULL APERTURES AND THEN ALL THREE AT F8.0.
Coated Sonnar F2.0 @F5.6 by Kevin, on Flickr
F2.8 PRE-WAR UNCOATED TESSAR @F2.8
Tessar F2.8 @F2,8 crop by Kevin, on Flickr
F2.0 PRE-WAR UNCOATED SONNAR @ F2.0
Sonnar F2,0 @ F2,0 crop by Kevin, on Flickr
F2.0 POST-WAR COATED SONNAR @ F2.0 (1961)
Coated Sonnar F2.0 @F2.0 crop by Kevin, on Flickr
F2.8 PRE-WAR UNCOATED TESSAR @F8.0
Tessar F2.8 @F8.0crop by Kevin, on Flickr
F2.0 PRE-WAR UNCOATED SONNAR @ F8.0
Sonnar F2.0 @F8,0crop by Kevin, on Flickr
F2.0 POST-WAR COATED SONNAR @ F8.0 (1961)
Coated Sonnar F2.0 @F8.0crop by Kevin, on Flickr
As you see the Tessar at F8.00 is a lighter picture and I suspect that my aperture setting may be off a little, the control ring is fiddly and the stops very close together. This lens is infamous for it's ergonomics.
In every day picture making, I would happily take any of the three out with me although I resist the Tessar as it is so fiddly. The collapsible Sonnar goes most frequently as it makes a compact unit with the lla.
Thought you might like to see these.
Kevin
I recently bought an F1.5 Sonnar that had collimation/optical issues and returned it. To establish just how faulty it was I tested against my known good lenses and though you might like to see the examples. this does not include the F1.5 results as they were universally unsharp at all apertures.
All negs produced with the same Contax lla, same roll of FP4+ developed in Rodinal, 1:50. The point of focus was the right hand of the picture mounting mat. Camera on a tripod. The cropped pictures are approximately 20% of the full frame - a 7mm wide rectangle, they display as 210mm wide pictures on my screen and so would equate to a print of roughly 1 metre wide.
The first is the full frame picture taken at F5.6 with the 1961 Carl Zeiss Sonnar, THEN ALL THREE AT THEIR FULL APERTURES AND THEN ALL THREE AT F8.0.
Coated Sonnar F2.0 @F5.6 by Kevin, on Flickr
F2.8 PRE-WAR UNCOATED TESSAR @F2.8
Tessar F2.8 @F2,8 crop by Kevin, on Flickr
F2.0 PRE-WAR UNCOATED SONNAR @ F2.0
Sonnar F2,0 @ F2,0 crop by Kevin, on Flickr
F2.0 POST-WAR COATED SONNAR @ F2.0 (1961)
Coated Sonnar F2.0 @F2.0 crop by Kevin, on Flickr
F2.8 PRE-WAR UNCOATED TESSAR @F8.0
Tessar F2.8 @F8.0crop by Kevin, on Flickr
F2.0 PRE-WAR UNCOATED SONNAR @ F8.0
Sonnar F2.0 @F8,0crop by Kevin, on Flickr
F2.0 POST-WAR COATED SONNAR @ F8.0 (1961)
Coated Sonnar F2.0 @F8.0crop by Kevin, on Flickr
As you see the Tessar at F8.00 is a lighter picture and I suspect that my aperture setting may be off a little, the control ring is fiddly and the stops very close together. This lens is infamous for it's ergonomics.
In every day picture making, I would happily take any of the three out with me although I resist the Tessar as it is so fiddly. The collapsible Sonnar goes most frequently as it makes a compact unit with the lla.
Thought you might like to see these.
Kevin
