vintage Sonnar vs other modest options

[jgrainger]

Sometimes I get tempted to consider a different or additional 50 to my collapsible Sonnar or Jupiter 8 lenses.. Lately I've started to run a couple of films through a serviced Baldina (damaged Xenon), mostly just to see the look.. Other 50's don't tend to come home or last due to my liking for the Contax - otherwise I'd probably just try my way through a few.



As the Sonnar's seem to be a good go-to suggestion, I wondered how the vintage 50mm Sonnars compare to the F2 (or abouts) Retina Xenon/ Summitar / original Vitessa or Prominent Ultron?

 

[markjwyatt]

I would consider a Tessar. Simpler lens, but I kind of like the look. I have a Xenon (double Gauss) and a Xenar (Tessar) for my Retina Reflex, and like both. I have an uncoated Tessar (105mm f4.5) on a 6x9 folder also, and like it. Sonnars are one of my favorites overall, but tend to be heavy (especially my new/old 105mm f2.5 Nikkor P.C, Contax mount), which is not a true Sonnar, but is of the Sonnar design. I thought it might be a more affordable replacement for a 85mm f2 Sonnar. I suspect the 85mm is not a lot lighter (maybe 300g instead of 400g), but is probably a bit more compact. The 85mm Triotar is probably lighter, but I am not sure I want a Triotar for the Contax.

 

[jgrainger]

Mark,
The Tessar is a great lens which can be pretty sharp while not being too harsh (in some forms).. either the pre-war Tessars for being fairly sharp but still dreamy, or the post-war (eg Contaflex) examples which produce a lovely sharp but less saturated look than modern lenses. I only don't use Tessars more because they're a bit slow for snapshots of stuff like low-light music or dancing. The other quick-ish 6 and 7 element lenses would be quick enough and affordable but I don't really know much about them..

Btw, while not the lens people want, the late examples of the Triotar in Contax mount are pretty decent if not priced for collectors.. and even if a once-in-a-lifetime deal on a late 85mm Sonnar comes along, the Triotar is nicer to carry and use most times when F4 is enough.

To the Mods, I figured this would be a bit more general than the Contax forum, though my Sonnar is in Contax mount - was hoping for more of a general Sonnar vs other great (but not quite top dream) European 40's to 60's production lenses..

I can find some discussion and comparisons to the Summicron, Summilux, and original Nokton, but not much on the models just a bit more affordable and common, or produced between the most revolutionary models.

This could be because they weren't direct competitors at the time - or for slr and rangefinder etc, but nowadays with available adapters and all falling into the category of vintage lenses, it seems interesting to compare a few more of them which can nowadays theoretically be mounted to the same body.

I have seen some talk linking the Xenon to the Summitar, and that the Ultron is an improved Xenon with a high level of sharpness. I've also seen comments recommending a Sonnar over a Summitar for a holiday, but I don't really have any idea how an Ultron compares to a vintage Sonnar, or whether a Xenon would work nicely for the sharp but slightly dreamy, slightly lower contrast pictures I tend to like.
On some level part of me would also like a (vintage) sharper but not perfect 50mm F2 for available-light action shots - different options for some specific circumstances.

 

[markjwyatt]

Maybe you should have started this in this forum: https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=135

 

[jgrainger]

I did 😀



Was surprised it got moved but it'll be alright

 

[Scrambler]

I don't have a Contax to help on that side. I do have 2x 50mm Sonnars (both in FSU mounts, one being adapted). I have a good Summar, had a late Summitar that didn't quite do as good a job as the Summar. I have Tessars too, but frankly they aren't my style.

There are 2 elements to what you seem to want: lens imprecision, and lack of coating.

Anything pre 1940 is good for the (lack of) coatings, as is tge occasional affordable 40s or 50s lens.

I think you will struggle to beat a Sonnar for 'dreamy'. Pre-war lenses were calculated by hand, and their out-of-focus areas weren't considered. Sonnars blend into oof but most faster lenses of the era get busy. But then I haven't used the top-end early Leica lenses you mention. These were, I believe, designed for Hobson & Taylor and their versions may be earlier. They will all be very expensive!

 

[Doug]

Maybe you should have started this in this forum: https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=135

I don't think so.... 🙂 The forum description:

Optics Theory - This forum is aimed towards the TECHNICAL side of photographic OPTICS THEORY. There will be some overlap by camera/manufacturer, but this forum is for the heavy duty tech discussions. This is NOT the place to discuss a specific lens or lens line, do that in the appropriate forum. This is the forum to discuss optics or lenses in general, to learn about the tech behind the lenses and images. IF you have a question about a specific lens, post it in the forum about that type of camera, NOT HERE.

 

[jgrainger]

I don't have a Contax to help on that side. I do have 2x 50mm Sonnars (both in FSU mounts, one being adapted). I have a good Summar, had a late Summitar that didn't quite do as good a job as the Summar. I have Tessars too, but frankly they aren't my style.

There are 2 elements to what you seem to want: lens imprecision, and lack of coating.

Anything pre 1940 is good for the (lack of) coatings, as is tge occasional affordable 40s or 50s lens.

I think you will struggle to beat a Sonnar for 'dreamy'. Pre-war lenses were calculated by hand, and their out-of-focus areas weren't considered. Sonnars blend into oof but most faster lenses of the era get busy.

The Sonnar is really good for the out of focus areas.. I'll do some more reasearch on the pre and post-war differences for that lens. My own lightly coated collapsible Sonnar does a great job but it seems slightly low in resolution (could be related to condition).



How do the Summitar / Summar compare to the Sonnar?

 

[Scrambler]

I'll try to get some shots today to show the coated vs uncoated Sonnars vs Summar.

My Summar has benefited from a lifelong daylight filter: it has no scratches/marks on the soft front lens. The average Summar hasn't been so lucky and will have more flare.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I've taken the 5cm F2 Sonnar out with the 5cm F2 Summar, and the 5cm F1.5 Sonnar out with the 5cm F1.5 Xenon. Different rendering, the Sonnars are sharper.

For a Contax: you have more limited options.

menopta_wo_2a by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

Fortunately, the Helios-103 is one of them, and does not cost much. Wide-open on my Nikon. Several years ago I bought a dozen of these, shimmed some for the Nikon and others left for the Contax. They are great lenses.

helios84_nikki2a by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

100% crop-
helios84_nikki2b by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

This is a classic 1-2-2-1 Double Gauss, 52.4mm F1.8 lens. The 50mm F2 Xenon is also a 1-2-2-1 Double Gauss.

 

[jgrainger]

Brian,
I'm a bit surprised - had figured the Xenon or Summar would be slightly sharper.


Thank you for posting some Helios pictures.
Funnily enough, I've once had one briefly yet never tried it - took ages to arrive, during which time I lost my job and finished up selling my first Contax, over a decade ago.. then sold it a bit after.. might try one again sometime.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Adapting a Xenon to a Contax RF would be a Hack, but do-able. I did this with the Cintagon from an Argus C3, Exakta mount Tessars, and a Kodak Ektar.

The Helios-103 is very good, plentiful, and cheap.