Tests for Sonnar and Nikkors of the '50s?

[SyPat]

Is anybody aware of serious tests about:
-- the Zeiss Sonnar 2/50mm (postwar version)
-- the Nikkor 2/50mm (a copy of the former)

During the '50 and '60, some magazines published a lot of reviews, including the Sonnar f1.5 and the Nikkor f1.4, but I did'nt found anything about theses.

 

[xayraa33]

Is anybody aware of serious tests about:
-- the Zeiss Sonnar 2/50mm (postwar version)
-- the Nikkor 2/50mm (a copy of the former)

During the '50 and '60, some magazines published a lot of reviews, including the Sonnar f1.5 and the Nikkor f1.4, but I did'nt found anything about theses.

I doubt that mere mortals will find much difference in optical performance in everyday use. Both were quality lenses of their day and pricey to buy.

I find it hard to tell the photo quality difference between my many LTM Nikkor 50mm f 2 lenses to a pick of the litter Jupiter 8 or 8M lens, even from photos taken at full open aperture, both brand of lenses were Zeiss Sonnar design based.

 

[SyPat]

Of course the differences are small. I'm not so interested here to compare Zeiss and Nikon, but to understand how the f2 sonnars behave.

 

[xayraa33]

Of course the differences are small. I'm not so interested here to compare Zeiss and Nikon, but to understand how the f2 sonnars behave.

From my experience with the 50 f2 Sonnars, when compared to their faster brothers, are a little more consistent performance wise and with less surprises.

 

[splitimageview]

In my experience the 50/2 Zeiss Sonnar is pretty much indistinguishable from the 50/1.5 when the f/1.5 is used at f/2 or smaller apertures.

 

[raid]

I have read that the Zeiss Sonnar 5cm lenses are the only lenses where the faster lens is better than the slower lens at equal aperture settings. Both the 5cm/1.5 and 5cm/2 are superb lenses. In fact, they are incredibly good for their age.

 

[bluesun267]

Not a "serious" test, but my own comparison of the Nikkor HC and SC lenses, on film. Mostly for bokeh. Each set of 2 shots were at the same f-stop ranging from f2-f11. The 2nd set of shots (street) are at f2 and it seems the SC had better contrast/less flare there. Other than that I found them very similar. Seems to me the HC had ever ever so slightly less busy bokeh, yet in the SC images I feel a bit more 'magic', hard to describe. So that is why I kept the SC. Both were clean copies, free from haze or other defects

 

[SyPat]

Thanks for sharing.