Sonnar Formula Lenses: "Normal Lenses" 40mm to 60mm, 4cm to 6cm, Any Make

Sonnar Brian said:
I like that lens! And I'm very happy you like it too. It led a very rough life, but is feeling much better now.
Click to expand...

I really like the Sonnars. That 272nnnn is nice. Factoring in that the lens is from 1941 illustrates that a good mind can create what a good computer cannot. Maybe if I had been buying the Leitz lenses I would be as rhapsodic about them. But I did not, I followed the Sonnar route. I have a very nice '57 KMZ Jupiter 8. Supposedly less than the CZJ's just as the M240 is supposedly less than the M9. But here is a photo with those two together with fine definition of grays and in the distance there is color on the stern of the ships in the Astoria Mooring where they loiter awaiting their time at docks upriver. As they are pointed upriver the tide is falling. They reverse and point downstream towards the sea when the tide is rising.

Zoom in on the Flickr link and you can see the aft lights on the ships rather clearly. Not at all bad for a Soviet lens. I am guessing that by '57 they were using their glass and parts rather than war prize parts from CZJ. Or maybe they could have whittled it out of white pine. Regardless of how it was built, the result is a good lens.

M2419657rff.JPG

This is the link if you want to look up close and personal:
https://flic.kr/p/2n6AMeG
 
Last edited:
WARNING! TANGENT

I was paging through random photos of mine up on Flickr and checking the color. It was mostly OK but not much made my heart leap. Then I hit one of just "right" color taken out my back door. It just looked as I see it without a camera. So I checked to see if it was a Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 on the A7M III. Nope, M9 with an Amotal. It stood out that much, to me. And I have been through a minor contretemps on another board devoted to a different brand where this one fellow ranted about the lousy M9 color and Leica color in general. M9 color consistently looks good to me and I have a few different cameras to compare it with. And while I am sometimes peeved with Leitz I have to admit that the color is fine. /TANGENT
 
boojum said:
WARNING! TANGENT

I was paging through random photos of mine up on Flickr and checking the color. It was mostly OK but not much made my heart leap. Then I hit one of just "right" color taken out my back door. It just looked as I see it without a camera. So I checked to see if it was a Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 on the A7M III. Nope, M9 with an Amotal. It stood out that much, to me. And I have been through a minor contretemps on another board devoted to a different brand where this one fellow ranted about the lousy M9 color and Leica color in general. M9 color consistently looks good to me and I have a few different cameras to compare it with. And while I am sometimes peeved with Leitz I have to admit that the color is fine. /TANGENT
Click to expand...
Just have them look at Brusby's pictures of beautiful women and tell him to shut-up because he would not know a good color if it was in black and white.
 
Sonnar Brian said:
Just have them look at Brusby's pictures of beautiful women and tell him to shut-up because he would not know a good color if it was in black and white.
Click to expand...

I went on for a few exchanges with the fellow and then just let it go. I know, you know and most of the folks who shoot digital know, the M9 has great color. And with the right lenses it really does well. It was just striking to me how that one shot leapt out of a random sting of color shots as "right." It was almost a double blind test. And I am not one to run around and rave about the color even though I will certainly say it is good and that I like it. But the way that that one shot was different struck me. When I look at a string of M9 photos I do not, cannot, notice a difference. But for that one to pop up as it did. As they say down below The Cotton Curtain, "It stuck out like a diamond in a billy goat's a$$." I love the Southern metaphors which I picked up while in a trucking outfit in the Army.
 
lukx said:
That Canon is such a nice lens, somehow the most underrated amongst the vintage Sonnar 50s. I should use mine more, but I have just too many Sonnars.
Click to expand...
I was pleasantly surprised when I first saw the results from mine. In addition to all the typical sonnar attributes, this lens is very detailed. I don't know whether I was just lucky and got a good copy or whether all Canon Sonnars are all like this, but even at f2 -- which is where I shot all the photos above -- it's very sharp and detailed. I'm not normally a sharpness fanatic, but I find it's rare to get features like eyes and eyelashes so well defined without being harsh or overly etched looking in casual, non-studio portraits like these.
 
OP0106C.jpg


"The most dangerous thing in the world is an officer with a map and a compass."

Contax II, uncoated CZJ 50mm f/2 Sonnar + Y2 filter, Double-X
 
splitimageview said:
Is this even possible? 🙂
Click to expand...
I'd argue it is when we're talking about doing all those lenses justice by using them frequently. I know you and others have MANY more than I do, but between the Canon, the Nikkor SC 1.4 and my various pre- and post-war Zeiss Sonnars, they all sit on the shelf too often. But I like having them 🥰
 
I do find that no two classic Sonnars render exactly alike. I have Sonnars that the serial numbers are within 100 of each other- yet are different. The Nikkor-SC 5cm F1.4 underwent many design changes during the run. The Canon 50/1.5: Optimization seems to be for F2, with exceptions. The Canon is very smooth. The problem with it, and many other Canon RF lenses: damage to the surface behind the aperture. If you get a clean one keep it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom