photos from your zm 50/1.5 sonnar

Quick dive into linguistics:
In Norway, you would use "uffda" in sentences (it's a very oral word, by the way, not very much used in writing unless the style is very conversational, but I guess that goes for interjections as a class of words) like this:

Picture a little boy coming home, walking with his bike, looking a bit shaken and bleeding from a scratched knee.. The mother waiting on the porch could then say something like:
Uffda! Did you hurt your knee? That doesn't look good! Let me look at it.
It expresses elements of surprise, empathy and good intentions.

Has the word taken a life of its own in the states?

Kind regards
Kjetil
 
thanks guys!

i'm for sure gonna keep this lens as i've never received this much positive feedback on my shots!!

joe
 
sheepdog said:
Quick dive into linguistics:
In Norway, you would use "uffda" in sentences (it's a very oral word, by the way, not very much used in writing unless the style is very conversational, but I guess that goes for interjections as a class of words) like this:

Picture a little boy coming home, walking with his bike, looking a bit shaken and bleeding from a scratched knee.. The mother waiting on the porch could then say something like:
Uffda! Did you hurt your knee? That doesn't look good! Let me look at it.
It expresses elements of surprise, empathy and good intentions.

Has the word taken a life of its own in the states?

Kind regards
Kjetil
Click to expand...


thanks sheepdog.
i'm in canada and have never heard/seen the word before.

joe
 
thanks fanman.

i need to shoot some more film before i can post anymore.
i hope to this weekend but it's supposed to be wicked cold...

joe
 
That last set there is awsome, especially the last two. Was it all delta 100? Hmmm.. I like the blacks and contrast you've got.

I took my 50cZM out today, too.. it was an absolute gorgeous day out. Foma 200 ei 100 stand dev in rodinal -- contrast appears low, and playing in PS with it makes the images too flat for my tastes *shrug* Both @ f4.
127650107-M.jpg


127650120-M.jpg
 
Great shots!!!!!!

Great shots!!!!!!

back alley said:
processed that roll...


376833526_1662e4378c.jpg


376833524_f3e86ac836.jpg


376833522_9ff35ae560.jpg


376833520_98641df316.jpg


376833518_a486ce5ef0.jpg
Click to expand...
Very nice Joe, Looks like you got one great sample of Sonnar lens. If I knew for sure I'd be that lucky, I would get one as well. Maybe one day I'll try my luck.
 
i'm pleased enough that i sold my 50/2 planar last night.
one 50 for the zi and it's gonna be the sonnar.

all shots were delta 100, i didn't want to confuse things by changing the film.

thanks for the kind words.

joe
 
back alley said:
thanks for the kind words.

joe
Click to expand...

What kind words? I hate you. :mad: :angel:

But I will take your Sonnar off your hands if you ever get tired of it. ;)
For a reasonable discount of course. :D
 
as much as i move my gear around, i think the 50 sonnar, the 25 and the 35 are staples in my kit.

and as for you huck...i'm just jealous cause you seem to actually understand all this lens talk and i'm barely holdin' on!

joe
 
Nachkebia said:
at that size of jpg`s even cheapest sigma lens can be as good as these :p :D
Click to expand...


Is that so? Hmmm. While I can agree that one can't see a full potential of the lens from on-line photos, it still gives one a pretty good idea of what any given lens can do. Just go to any online gallery, like flickr or photo.net and see for yourself - do ALL photos look the same? No! And I'm not talking about composition. The way lens draws can be seen even in jpegs. If lens os off - you can see that too. Even in the thread of Sonnar front focusing problem - you can see that some examples are better/different from the others. As you can see in Joe's case here - consistently good photos.
Congrats on a great lens Joe!!!
PS. I think you may have rushed on selling that Planar, as I'm sure they deliver a different results, but from what I have seen from your Sonnar - I can sort of understand why you did it. Yet my policy here is - you can NEVER have enough "standard" lenses. Which is 50mm for me. Well, I kinda like 40 and 35 too, but 50 mm is my most used FL overall.
PPS. Joe, now that you got this beautifiul lens - you better keep posting more pics - make Huck get one too. hehe ;)
 
As promised here 2 test photos.

I used a tripod. On the C-Sonnar I used the minimum distance (90cm) and then I moved (while looking through the viewfinder) the ZI nearer to the puppets until the little doll in the middle (and not the little fox) was focused correctly according to the rangefinder patch. Then I used the apertures: 1.5, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6.

The results show indeed a front focus. I have posted the photos taken with 1.5 and 5.6.

Afterwards I checked the distance between film and doll‘s face using a metre rule. I noticed that the distance was approx. 93 cm. I adjusted the distance, i.e. moved the ZI 3cm nearer to the object. This, of course, resulted in a lesser front-focus effect. The rangefinder patch then indicated that the doll in the middle would be a little bit out of focus.

I wanted to mention also the following. When focusing the „view‘s angle“ seems to have an effect. Something similar was already mentioned by Mike Elek: „Eye placement is very important. Moving your eye to the left or right slightly will cause the secondary image in the rangefinder patch to fade.“ When I tried to focus as exactly as possible I noticed that slightly changing the eye placement resulted in the rangefinder patch sometimes indicating that the focus on the doll‘s face was correct and sometimes not. Of course only a very very small „out of focus“ - but in this case, i.e. with minimum distance, maximum aperture and minimal DOF with an effect on the result.

I have to say the Sonnar is really soft at open apertures.
 

Attachments

  • Sonnar50-1_5.jpg
    Sonnar50-1_5.jpg
    110.2 KB · Views: 0
  • Sonnar50-5_6.jpg
    Sonnar50-5_6.jpg
    119.8 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom