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

Well, optical engineering has really made some advances since 1934. For a start, there are about 80 types of optical glass available now, as opposed to maybe a dozen back then. It is entirely plausible that a modern design can be calculated with less elements for same amount of residual abberations than something made 70 years ago.
 
Sonnar2 said:
I will believe it when I'll see results of both lenses...

For the moment, I see Zeiss reduces costs replacing one element in a cemented triple by a cheap "air" lens... ;)
Click to expand...
And uses glass of tenfold the price in the remaing elements.. :p
 
Sonnar2 said:
The key question isn't if the vintage Sonnar 1.5-50mm is a good lens, but: When so many, although not M-mount, great Sonnars still out there including the CANON or NIKON-clones - why buy I new one whith 1 element less?
What is need is a picture comparison side by side to the post-war version of the Sonnar. I think every potential buyer knows, or at least should know that in terms of sharpness the C-Sonnar isn't a match for the last Summilux, or the ASPH.
I'm tense for it. But not as much as for the 2.0/50mm Heliar...
cheers, Frank
Click to expand...

Very few of us is counting lines by microscope, in practical photography it´s more relevant how the lens behaves in different light situations etc. And this lens is presumably very insensitive to flare for example. The problem with the summilux asph on the other hand is the prise.
 
Sonnar2 said:
who knows?
Click to expand...
Who knows indeed. At this level of lens one thing is certain at any rate: The number of elements is determined by the designer for optimum correcting and has nothing to do with cost-cutting. The economic consideration will result in an overall adaptation of the design, including the mechanics and may well end with more lens elements of lesser quality. In general, at the moment the top lenses are better because they are designed for a minimum number of elements.
 
varjag said:
Well, optical engineering has really made some advances since 1934.
Click to expand...

Very true.

Although, an alternative way to think about it ... architectural engineering has really made some advances since the year 1492, but any comparison of a classic skyline versus a modern skyline will show that modern doesn't necessarily mean better, either in aesthetics or in function ;)
 
My suspicion is that the original Contax, and Sonnar, were hugely expensive in real terms, the price of a decent motor vehicle.

I would think that the modern Sonnar, like many items, is a fraction of the price, in real terms, that we'd have had to pay for the lens back in the 50s, or the 30s. It's not out of the question they have removed one element to save on costs, for it was certainly prohibitively expensive to produce in the 50s.
 
Paul T. said:
My suspicion is that the original Contax, and Sonnar, were hugely expensive in real terms, the price of a decent motor vehicle.

I would think that the modern Sonnar, like many items, is a fraction of the price, in real terms, that we'd have had to pay for the lens back in the 50s, or the 30s. It's not out of the question they have removed one element to save on costs, for it was certainly prohibitively expensive to produce in the 50s.
Click to expand...

As an example, a Prominent RF complete with Nokton 50 in 1953 would have set you back about 595 DM. about 10% of the price of a decent car. That is relatively the same- or even less- as a Noctilux now.
 
jaapv said:
In general, at the moment the top lenses are better because they are designed for a minimum number of elements.
Click to expand...

The Summilux ASPH. 1.4/50mm has 9 elements, although experts tell us one aspherical surface will save one element.

For high level of optical correction (and speed) a designer needs certain number of elements . 6 elements for ~f/1.4 isn't much nowadays...
 
Sonnar2 said:
The Summilux ASPH. 1.4/50mm has 9 elements, although experts tell us one aspherical surface will save one element.

For high level of optical correction (and speed) a designer needs certain number of elements . 6 elements for ~f/1.4 isn't much nowadays...
Click to expand...

True, but what I meant was that redesigns of existing lenses, which the 1.4/50 asph is not -it is very different from the pre-asph summilux , often drop an element with extra clarity as a result.
 
I don't have any great insight into lens design..so here's another photo with the Sonnar 50/1.5 instead :)

Same place as the other two - but the light got kinda weird/interesting here :)

63668153.jpg
 
well, if that is how sonnar looks I don`t want it :) I mean it is very soft and it also has some kind of glow to it, take in considiration it has been downsized, full size image would be a disaster :)
 
Sonnar2 said:
I will believe it when I'll see results of both lenses...

For the moment, I see Zeiss reduces costs replacing one element in a cemented triple by a cheap "air" lens... ;)
Click to expand...

Of course Zeiss has eliniated the element to reduce costs. Why would any manufacturer in their right mind use a more expensive method than is necessary?

You are correct that the original Sonnar was very expensive to build. One of the reasons was the care with which the cemented triplet had to be manufactured. There were also tedious mathematical calculations that had to be accomplished by hand. No one would dream of doing such calculations by hand today just so we could adhere to classical methodology - at least not when we have computers available to perform the same task faster & cheaper. The same is true for other cost saving measures.

Zeiss didn't eliminate the element all of a sudden with the introduction of this lens. They have been producing Sonnar designs in other focal lengths from 40 to 180 for years without that element, which was eliminated a long time ago.

It is a mistaken notion that Zeiss replaced the element in question with an "air" lens. They replaced it with modern coatings. The purpose of the middle element of the cemented triplet of the original Sonnar was to reduce the number of glass-air surfaces, the only way to control flare in those days. This was especially critical in the design of the fast Sonnars with maximum apertures of f/2 & f/1.5. Increased light at maximum aperture resulted in uncontrolled flare until Bertele introduced the cemented triplet.

However, modern coatings make this middle element unnecessary to control flare. The behavior of the lens, its fingerprint, should remain the same as coatings replace the function of the missing element. We will know more when the C-Sonnar is available for use.
 
Last edited:
Sonnar2 said:
The key question isn't if the vintage Sonnar 1.5-50mm is a good lens, but: When so many, although not M-mount, great Sonnars still out there including the CANON or NIKON-clones - why buy I new one whith 1 element less?
Click to expand...

I think that making it available in M-mount is exactly the point.

What is need is a picture comparison side by side to the post-war version of the Sonnar. I think every potential buyer knows, or at least should know that in terms of sharpness the C-Sonnar isn't a match for the last Summilux, or the ASPH.

cheers, Frank
Click to expand...

Are you judging comparative sharpness by MTF charts?
 
Rich, I think I like that one the best of the three you've shown. Thank you very much for sharing it.

As I've said before, I feel that an asymmetrical optic has a different look and feel than a symmetrical one. It isn't about better or worse or raw resolution. 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
 
I dunno.. I think my Sonnar 50/1.5 is sharp enough for me
 

Attachments

  • sonnar1.jpg
    sonnar1.jpg
    116.7 KB · Views: 0
  • sonnar2.jpg
    sonnar2.jpg
    88.3 KB · Views: 0
Your website brings up: service unavailable and freezes up my computer. Yes there are experts on this site (not me I'm an interested amateur with some knowledge) Just read the threads from the last years.
 
patrickjames said:
Are there any actual optical experts or lens designers in this forum? If not then all of this conjecture is pure cr**. I love how Leica afficianados will always say how great Leica is and Zeiss is always a poor second according to them. From my experience with photography (and this is my opinion) Zeiss makes products for photographers to use. Leica makes products for people to put on shelves (albeit high quality). Think about it.
Click to expand...

Actually I would dare to say that the last couple of sentences are utter cr** as well. Leica has made lenses and cameras for decades and been used by thousands and thousands of working photographers. Think about that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom