What I think about the Sonnar 50/1.5 ...

R

Rich Silfver

Guest
...I absolutely love this lens.

I'm on my third roll through my Contax IIIa and the Sonnar 50/1.5 lens and as much as it pains me to even write this...I belive the Sonnar 50/1.5 beats my beloved first version rigid Summicron 50/2 when it comes to how creamy it renders the out of focus areas and how pleasingly it captures skin tones.
It's sharp where needed as well.

My Sonnar 50/1.5 is from the mid 50's and my Summicron 50/2 came out almost exactly 10 years after that so I got to hand it to Zeiss - they knew what they were doing.

Here are two shots trying to show examples of what I mean:

63552917.jpg


63552962.jpg
 
Rich, lovely photos, great tonality. The 50/1.5 Sonnar is one of my favorite lenses for the reasons that you discussed. Classic look, and beautiful rendering of subject and OOF areas. This look is probably why Zeiss released a new version in ZM mount.
 
Yep. There is a something, I feel, that asymmetrical designs (Cooke, Tessar, Sonnar, Heliar) have that even the best of the double Gaussian designs don't have. I think that number 2 shows it the best of the two - even in a web jpg you can still see the delicate tracery of the light and shadow on the wall to the right. That's just about as good as it gets. It would be an interesting experiment if you could get a similar shot with your Contessa for comparison.

Now, don't get me wrong, I have a collapsible Summicron that is the best lens I currently own. But put it up against a good Zeiss Sonnar? Not a contest to my eyes. This is why I'd dearly love to have the coin for the ZM Sonnar 50/1.5 when it ships... :(


William
 
"Some people are 'the glass is half full' types. Some people are 'the glass is half empty' types. I'm a 'the glass is full of radioactive waste and I just drank half of it' type.
And I'm still thirsty." -- Bill Mattocks

Not to divert the thread, but I miss Bill's contributions. He is a very thoughtful guy.

My absolute favorite lens of all time is the Contax 85/2 Sonnar. Outstanding portrait lens, with perhaps even more beautiful renderings than the 50/1.5 at equal apertures. Nice work, Rich.
 
I agree, the 1.5/50 Sonnar is one heck of a piece of glass. I rank it up there with my Summicron Collapsible and Summicron DR. HCB shot a lot of his early postwar work with one and then he switched to the Summicron Collapsible, which he used for the next 40 years.

If you really want to see what the Sonnar can do, send it to Henry Scherer at
http://www.zeisscamera.com/. It appears that most Contax cameras and lenses left the factory out of spec and once he reworks them you won't believe your eyes. His prices are very reasonable.

I recently had Leica do a full rebuild on my Summicron DR and the improvement in image quality was substantial, while retaining its fingerprint.
 
Harry Lime said:
HCB shot a lot of his early postwar work with one
Click to expand...
Sonnar 50/1.5?
and then he switched to the Summicron Collapsible, which he used for the next 40 years.
Click to expand...

That's a very interesting statement. I tend towards the other direction but as I currently own a good collapsible Summicron, I can believe someone would feel that way. Can you point me at a good source for that information?

No matter, I still want a LTM or M Sonnar :D

William
 
The vintage Contax RF 50mm f/1.5 Sonnar is one of the best lenses ever made, no doubt. When I'm concerned with "sharpness" and some other things, I tend to use my Summicron (which is rarely now). The pre-asph 50 Summilux, the 50 1.5 Sonnar, and the 50 1.5 Summarit (see a trend here?) are my top two lenses. Yes, top two: I consider the pre-asph 50 Summilux a finely-tuned Summarit.

I doubt we'll get the same "magic" from the new ZM lens than the old Contax RF lens. If they prove me wrong, I'd be very pleasantly surprised.
 
Lovely results, Rich. I use a 'poor-man's Sonnar', the extremely common, cheap, but engaging Jupiter 8 ... it shares some of the same characteristics.

Gene
 
Rich,

Great photos as usual.

If you ever get your hands on a Canon 50/1.5 (sonnar) ltm lens, I'd be most interested in your opinions on its characteristics versus the Zeiss 50/1.5.

regards
 
Charming subject Rich, but the images are too soft for my taste. When making a portrait like this I focus on my subject's eyes. If those are sharp it doesn't matter if the other areas of the face and background are less focused - the viewer of the photograph tends to make eye contact with the subject in the picture.
 
Harry Lime said:
If you really want to see what the Sonnar can do, send it to Henry Scherer at
http://www.zeisscamera.com/. It appears that most Contax cameras and lenses left the factory out of spec and once he reworks them you won't believe your eyes. His prices are very reasonable.
Click to expand...


Not to be a cantankerous SOB, but this sounds like an Internet myth started by a repairman. And his waiting list and prices I think border on unreasonable.

It really isn't that difficult to rework one of these cameras or lenses, as long as there isn't irrepairable damage. The postwar lenses are easier to recollimate than the prewar versions.

At that time, I believe Zeiss Ikon (and Carl Zeiss) were trying to re-establish themselves as the premier names in photography, and I simply don't believe that the flagship products of their respective lines would receive so little attention that they would come off their lines out of spec.
 
Oldprof said:
Charming subject Rich, but the images are too soft for my taste. When making a portrait like this I focus on my subject's eyes. If those are sharp it doesn't matter if the other areas of the face and background are less focused - the viewer of the photograph tends to make eye contact with the subject in the picture.
Click to expand...
Yep I think its just the plane of focus which seems to be behind the eyes in the first picture, and maybe slightly in front of the eyes in the second one. However the pics are good examples of how the lens renders, which is what I think Rich is trying to illustrate.
 
Nice shots, Rich. The highlights are excellent! The focal plane is a little "off" the eyes, but the slight softness works well. I see what you're talking aoubt, though, a nice quality throughout.

:)

edited
 
Last edited:
ferider said:
Nice photos, Rich.

Reg the focal plane, for the second picture, it seems to me that
they hit the eyes exactly ?

I wonder when we get to see portraits of you, maybe shot with
a 50 Summicron ? :)

Roland.
Click to expand...

For that one it seems to be on the front shoulder.

They're both really excellent shots.

Yeah, Rich, when do we get to see Melanie's portraits of you? :)
 
darkkavenger said:
what kind of film did you use ?
Click to expand...

I believe this was Fuji Neopan 400.
They were both snapped at an ice cream store so no 'controlled' lighting in any way but I still liked the results.

Thanks for all the comments everyone.
 
Flyfisher Tom said:
Rich,

Great photos as usual.

If you ever get your hands on a Canon 50/1.5 (sonnar) ltm lens, I'd be most interested in your opinions on its characteristics versus the Zeiss 50/1.5.

regards
Click to expand...

Tom, I got the Canon 50/1.4 and 50/1.8 LTM lenses. Between the two of THEM I'd say the 50/1.4 is absolutely the best performer.

Now I'm curious to do a comparison between the Canon 50/1.4 and Zeiss 50/1.5 though (as I got both on my table...).
 
peter_n said:
Yep I think its just the plane of focus which seems to be behind the eyes in the first picture, and maybe slightly in front of the eyes in the second one. However the pics are good examples of how the lens renders, which is what I think Rich is trying to illustrate.
Click to expand...

God I wish that was true..in all honesty I suck at accurate focusing and my scanner seems to for some reason gotten 'softer' lately. But thanks for assuming I actually know what I'm doing - and with an intent behind it :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom