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

visiondr said:
So, Huck, Sonnar2 you two seem to have quite a lot of optics knowledge wrt lens design (I studied optics extensively in college as part of my career training). Where did you pick up all this wisdom?... books, online articles, coursework? I'd like to find out more about lens design myself.

BTW, like many, I too eagerly await the new 50/1.5 Sonnar from Zeiss.

Ron
Click to expand...

Ron, a lot of reading on my own. Here are a couple of references that I use frequently:

A History of the Photographic Lens, by Rudolf Kingslake
Leica Lens Compendium, by Erwin Puts
Leica Pocket Book, pub. by Hove Collectors Books

A few web sites that I also have found helpful:

www.dantestella.com
http://johnlind.tripod.com
www.vanwalree.com

Enjoy your reading!

Bill
 
Last edited:
In following this thread as it has developed over time I got the distinct impression that the new lens had fewer elements than the pre-war lenses (5 in 4 groups as opposed to 6 in 4 groups) or is it that I’ve not recalled the original formula correctly, the Zeiss website states 6 in 4 groups (three singles and a triplet) is that the same as the pre-war version?
 
no, the original had 7 lens in 3 groupsd (if my memory is correct).
one single lens, a cemented triplet, and a second cemented triplet behind the iris/aperture.
in the modern design, the middle lens of the first triplet is replaced by air.

regards,
sebastian
 
sebastel said:
no, the original had 7 lens in 3 groupsd (if my memory is correct).
one single lens, a cemented triplet, and a second cemented triplet behind the iris/aperture.
in the modern design, the middle lens of the first triplet is replaced by air.

regards,
sebastian
Click to expand...
thanks,

regards
 
Rich,

Thank you very much for your beautiful pictures and singing praise of the Sonnar 50. I thought I was GAS free, but you infected me.

Anyway I have picked up attached beauty on Evilbay and now am trying to find somebody in Holland for a CLA. If anybody reading this has an idea please let me know.

Hope I can be putting it to use quickly and cqn only hope I will be able to produce similar results. On a different topic, would you be willing to share your duotone recipe with us?

I must stop buying cqmeras, I must stop buying cameras, I must stop buying cameras, I must stop buying cameras!!!!!.

Regards from sunny Amsterdam

http://http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=006&item=160008873477&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&rd=1[/URL]d=1
 
People have already stated what I would have said about the posted images. Nicely done, Rich.
Some people insist on a textbook approach of sharp eyes. Not all photos need to be tack sharp. This I find to be especially true with loved ones. We have special way of looking at them and their photos. Sometimes dreamy photos are great.

I have a question on the Sonnar lens;
How does the Zeiss Sonnar 5cm/2 stack up against the Zeiss Sonnar 5cm/1.5?
Are these two different animals or is there a resemblence?
I have a war-time/pre-war(?) Zeiss Sonnar in LTM but I don't own a Sonnar 5cm/1.5 to compare it to.


Raid
 
wlewisiii said:
SNIP: Let's face it - most of us are shooting this kind of lens wide open in situations where without a tripod and cable release you aren't going to get anywhere near the full resolution of any lens. It's about creating images with a look that the individual photographer enjoys making.

William
Click to expand...

I'd agree with William here and what makes these portraits of Melanie work for me is the sense of intimacy and her relaxed smile - it seems to me the point of focus is on Melanie's lips in the first two shots - which seems correct to me as it's the smile i'm drawn to first and second is the dreamy lighting perhaps brought out more by the nature of this lens. As an outsider viewing these images i feel like i'm glimpsing on something quite intimate (hope i'm not sounding creepy here?) and Rich has used this lens to good effect to achieve this.

I'd be very interested to see what the new 1.5 lens in M mount can offer in comparison. Thanks for posting these Rich :)
 
raid amin said:
... Some people insist on a textbook approach of sharp eyes ...
Click to expand...

It is "textbook" for a reason, not just for pedantic nonsense. When the subject's eyes are in focus they engage the eye contact of the viewer and the portrait is more personal and effective. ;)
 
ferider said:
I wonder when we get to see portraits of you, maybe shot with
a 50 Summicron ? :)
Click to expand...

Ask and ye shall receive. Yes, it takes me this long to get around to developing film. I was afraid to develop Neopan myself since I keep reading it's supposed to be difficult to work with, but this roll turned out OK as far as I can tell.

198252918_ee69a2c36e.jpg
 
I wish cameras were bigger.

And yes, that's an argyle sweater...argyle is IN!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Peter thanks for posting these
it's now officially on my "watch" list along with a VC 35/1.2 - both would compliment my existing older luxes in the same formats - but to work with the M8
 
thanks for the link Peter ....

I guess my preliminary feeling is that I wouldn't kick this lens out of bed
 
Last edited:
IME, they provide a similar look @ the same apertures, w/the f/1.5 version being a teensy bit sharper @ f/2. I'll let others w/more technical knowledge re: # of elements, etc. weigh in on whether they're different animals.

raid amin said:
I have a question on the Sonnar lens;
How does the Zeiss Sonnar 5cm/2 stack up against the Zeiss Sonnar 5cm/1.5?
Are these two different animals or is there a resemblence?
I have a war-time/pre-war(?) Zeiss Sonnar in LTM but I don't own a Sonnar 5cm/1.5 to compare it to.


Raid
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom