Sonnar2
Well-known
Huck Finn said:
You mean Ernostars? :angel:
IMHO the first Sonnar design where Zeiss economised the cemented triplet was the 2.8/180mm Contarex-mount about 1965. I have the diagram at one of my Zeiss pages. I don't have this particular lens used, but I think Zeiss had a good reason why to alter this design for the C/Y mount. Probably because 4 elements aren't enough for high correction of a highspeed lens like this...
Every element in a optical group has a reason why it's there in terms of optical correction. An glas-to-glas surface hasn'tr the same refraction as glas-to-air, no to speak about different glas types here. You cannot leave it away just because better coating is available. Of course the main design idea of "not more than three optical groups" was due to the fact that coating wasn't good enough, or even existing, in the 1930's. I haven't to repeat here what I described in my website about 1930's fast speed lenses. But given the fact that the three-optical-groups Sonnar of the 1930's and 1950's shows less flare than concurrent (and even a lot of modern) design, you cannot conclude that the C-Sonnar, having 4 optical groups, has the same or even better flare behaviour. There are millions of 4-optical groups designs showing bad flare. Of course you can believe the marketing statements of Zeiss. But I keep waiting for the prove picture-by-picture, or do it myself. Currently I'm waiting for a Zeiss lens to test.
We have some "Sonnars" with 4 optical groups in the 70's. i.e. 2.8/85 for Contax and Rollei (4/4 and 5/4), Rollei 35S (5/4) and some others. All had a good reputation at their time among users but none creates a "world quality standard" as the 1930's Sonnars.
Huck Finn said:
Why not, if I don't have the lenses yet? Sharpness isn't that much. That's what MTF charts are for, correct?
Last edited:
patrickjames said:
Where is the love Patrick?
Yes, of course people have opinions and the images from a Summicron are much different than those from a Sonnar. I wish all conversations about this could be factual and fee of all bias either way.....but..... at least this is better than Nikon v Canon stuff (even though a little of that slipped in
).I would also venture to say that optics designers and experts have nothing to do with this issue. This is about the "look" of produced images and preferences, not MTF charts.
In the end, they are all good here on RFF.
My M3 often is carried with both a Rigid Summicron and Canon 50/1.5 or Nikkor 50/2 (Sonnars) because I like both.
Oh, I can confirm, they all get along very well when carried in the same bag.
Huck Finn
Well-known
Sonnar2 said:
Yes, Bertele went from the Triplet to the Ernostar to the Sonnar in his development of the lens. But my guess is that he also had access to the Ultrastigmat, which is the closest match to the Sonnar - minus the middle element of the cemented triplet & without the strong cemented rear element.
All of what you say here is true. I'm sure that the missing middle element did serve a design function in correcting aberrations. However, the point is that Bertele really had no other choice without coatings to accomplish this. A lens of that speed would just have been too flare prone with so many glass-air surfaces. Today lens designers do have a choice with a combination of coatings & many more glass types - none of which existed in the early '30s.
I don't know what the behavior of this lens will be, but the design remains asymmetrical, which means that it will certainly behave differently than the double-Gauss designs of either the pre-ASPH Summilux or the current ASPH. If this is the look that a photographer wants, this means that he will have another choice. (The current ASPH Summilux is of course a very advanced design, not only using aspherical elements but also a floating element. Although it is at its core a symmetrical design, it is an oversimplification on my part to refer to it as just that. Still, a different design & a different fingerprint.)
As Leica works toward increasing sharpness with each new generation of lenses, they abandon the old designs. The interesting aspect of the Zeiss decision to offer the ZM lenses is that they are proposing that there is still a market for the old designs.
Regarding MTF, I wasn't challenging or criticizing. Just asking. No problem.
I would note that there are limits to what conclusions can be drawn when comparing MTF results from two different companies since they are derived differently by every manufacturer. Zeiss publishes measured results. One of the first things they did at Cosina was to install their own MTF plotters. Leica's results, on the other hand, are calculated. So, it's fair to say that the Leica results are an ideal that they strive for & not necessarily what one will get in real world use. Zeiss MTF data should be much closer to the real thing with only sample variations accounting for differences.
Even given the differences between the two companies, I have a hard time seeing any significant difference between the Sonnar & the pre-ASPH Summilux - ignoring of course the Leica data for 5 lp/mm. (I have no idea why they publish this.) What I see is that each of the curves is different at 10, 20, & 40 from that of the other lens at the same lp/mm. You could conclude that one lens is better than the other depending on what point on the curve you are comparing. They just seem to have different signatures. Comparison is further complicated by the fact that Zeiss publishes these curves at f/1.5 and f/4 while the ones I have available for the pre-ASPH Summilux are at f/1.4 & f/5.6.
While some conclusions can be drawn from these MTF charts, they are largely published for marketing purposes. In their own manufacturing & design process, lens designers are looking not at one, two, or three MTF charts, but at data at every aperture & every shutter speed. As close as these two lenses are, you'd probably need that amount of data to define the differences between the two.
Judging by the MTF charts, I would agree that the ASPH Summilux is the sharpest lens of the three - especially at f/1.4. At 3 times the price, I would hope that it offers something other than the Leica name. As I said earlier, I see it as a positive that Zeiss is offering these old designs to those who are interested - even if the lens is not the sharpest knife in the drawer & even if the modern design is not an exact replica of the original design. Being able to choose a different "look" is a good thing I would think.
Last edited:
Nachkebia
Well-known
I am learning so much by fallowing this topic :angel:
Nachkebia said:
Yeah, I go and say it is all about "look" and then Huck shows up.
jaapv is right about there being some smart people here.
Huck Finn
Well-known
rover said:Yeah, I go and say it is all about "look" and then Huck shows up.
Ralph, my post was just my long winded way of saying that I agree with you. It IS all about the "look."
I think it was sonnar2 who suggested "a picture comparison side by side." I agree. this is what really matters - the results.
By the way, how did you find those old Sonnars in M-mount? Diligent attention to eBay? If so, you should turn your attention to the stock market. You could make a lot of money instead of spending it on photo equipment.
Seriously, I'd love to know where/how you got them.Bill
Last edited:
Flyfisher Tom
Well-known
ferider said:Don't let Kiu read this
A Canon 50/1.5 shows up occasionally (it did on RFF a few weeks ago) and is around US 300, usually.
Just found the Canon:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost-classifieds/showproduct.php?product=722&cat=8
I am sure Tom will accept money for the lens, if he still has it ... It does look great.
Roland.
It is indeed available, and I would accept money for it
PM me if it is of interest.
regards
visiondr
cyclic iconoclast
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
BTW, like many, I too eagerly await the new 50/1.5 Sonnar from Zeiss.
Ron
Very nice Tom.
Huck,
Well, yeah, ebay with lots of patients. I paid bust out retail for the Canon 50/1.5 so no great tale there, but just looking and waiting has paid off for me. I bought the Nikkor with a Tower body from a shop I have found some great deals from, then sold the body so my cost was lessened. I have come across a couple good deals on the LUG and Pnet, it was just my turn, my response was quickest. I am in a good position now because I really don't need anything and am not really shopping, so if something comes up like those $450ish M2s that we saw today....
Huck,
Well, yeah, ebay with lots of patients. I paid bust out retail for the Canon 50/1.5 so no great tale there, but just looking and waiting has paid off for me. I bought the Nikkor with a Tower body from a shop I have found some great deals from, then sold the body so my cost was lessened. I have come across a couple good deals on the LUG and Pnet, it was just my turn, my response was quickest. I am in a good position now because I really don't need anything and am not really shopping, so if something comes up like those $450ish M2s that we saw today....
RObert Budding
D'oh!
Rich Silfver said:
Lack of knowledge does not stop most people from forming opinions. (Not directed at anyone in particulr. Just responding to the quote).
Last edited:
Harry Lime
Practitioner
wlewisiii said:Sonnar 50/1.5?
Quote:
and then he switched to the Summicron Collapsible, which he used for the next 40 years.
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
William
This is fairly well known and documented. For one thing it is mentioned in several volumes of his photographic work.
Also if you browse through the MAGNUM library you will see pictures of Bresson shooting in China, just after the war with a LTM camera (IIIc?) and a Sonnar 1.5/50. This must be around 1948. He also appears to have used it when he documented the USA, shortly after that.
Then over the next few decades you will find photos of HCB at work and his various M cameras are mounting a 2/50 collapsible Summicron, that has had the front section of the barrel painted black. During the 60's there are several shots of him working with a rigid Summicron, but the collapsible keeps returning.
Also the collapsible Summicron has a very destinct fingerprint and it is evident in his work all the way in to the 70's. HCB liked this negs printed a medium, creamy gray. You will not find a lot of dark blacks or blown out whites in his prints. The collapsible Cron is a medium crontrast lens, with just a touch of glow, that delivers this look.
R
Rich Silfver
Guest
Tom, nice shot!
Sonnar2
Well-known
Huck Finn said:
For strict comparison with the new C-Sonnnar (when Zeiss comes with it) I think searching for a M- or LTM-mount T-coated Zeiss Sonnar (not a Russian fake) should be waste of time. I will look for a Contax IIa attached to it. Nice camera, don't cost much more.
Of course I have the Canon 1.5/50mm LTM. I sang its enconium among the firsts here. But as a non-owner of the Zeiss original, I'm not sure they are corrected a similar way. Maybe the Nikkor is closer to it. Comparing with Rich' portraits posted in this thread I doubt if the Canon is quite as good at near focus. My best Canon pictures are middle distance. Better for nudes than for portraiture. The Canon focusses to 1.0m. The Zeiss to 0.9m. BTW, the C-Sonnar also focussed to 0.9m. *Just* to 0.9m, in the terms of 2006. If designed as a portraiture lense, it should be nearer.
BTW, I don't believe many buyers will compare it with a Summilux-ASPH in real terms, or buy it as "new alternative to second-hand last gen. Non-Asph. Summilux". This lens hasn't to prove that it's sharper than the C/V Nokton. I'm quite sure the Nokton is sharper, offers more contrast, but looks cold, with ugly bookeh. So it's great that Zeiss (or again was it Mr. K.??) offers a real choice here...! Even if the sales of one thing may lower the sales of another! And another "classic" lens, the 2.0/50 Heliar! A hard year to decide for which toy to spend the money..!
cheers, Frank
Mazurka
Well-known
Huck Finn said:By the way, how did you find those old Sonnars in M-mount? Diligent attention to eBay? If so, you should turn your attention to the stock market. You could make a lot of money instead of spending it on photo equipment.
Huck, there are such things as Contax (or rather Kiev) to Leica adapters, if you must use an M body.
Flyfisher Tom
Well-known
Whatever Zeiss comes out with, it can only be a good thing for us. More competition, more choices.
But I doubt I'd pay more than $600 (retail new) for it when there are other classic "sonnar" designs in LTM and M-mount around for that look, at a much more affordable $300 price point.
I'm more curious about how it will compare with the current Zeiss ZM 50mm.
But I doubt I'd pay more than $600 (retail new) for it when there are other classic "sonnar" designs in LTM and M-mount around for that look, at a much more affordable $300 price point.
I'm more curious about how it will compare with the current Zeiss ZM 50mm.
patrickjames said:
Thanks for the reply Patrick.
Hey, I have the rapid load kit in my M3, loading it is a snap. Next time your camera goes in for a CLA adding it will make your life much better.
Flyfisher Tom
Well-known
Rich + Ralph,
thanks !
and here is my obligatory 'bokeh' shot ... I am well documented for being a fan of the 50/cron's OOF look, but I must admit I really like the Canon's signature too, it is different by nuance if that makes any sense.
Canon 50/1.5 LTM, @ f/1.5, tri-x 400tx pushed 800, xtol 1+1.
My son's crib animals enjoying a sunny day
[please note: no animals were harmed in the making of this image]
thanks !
and here is my obligatory 'bokeh' shot ... I am well documented for being a fan of the 50/cron's OOF look, but I must admit I really like the Canon's signature too, it is different by nuance if that makes any sense.
Canon 50/1.5 LTM, @ f/1.5, tri-x 400tx pushed 800, xtol 1+1.
My son's crib animals enjoying a sunny day
[please note: no animals were harmed in the making of this image]
Nachkebia
Well-known
wow I like that one! Flyfisher Tom
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Hi Tom,
you've got mail regarding the 50/1.5.
Philipp
you've got mail regarding the 50/1.5.
Philipp
Flyfisher Tom
Well-known
thanks Nachkebia.
In fact, another RFF member, Regit Young, did a lot of testing with his Zeiss 50/1.5 against his Leica 50 summilux-asph sometime ago.
Verdict? I, along with a lot of others, were thoroughly impressed with how the 50/1.5 zeiss performed against the Leica (given the age difference, design difference, and the price difference). Absent being told which lens was which, I'm not sure I could have definitively distinguished the two.
There is more than one way to skin a photo
In fact, another RFF member, Regit Young, did a lot of testing with his Zeiss 50/1.5 against his Leica 50 summilux-asph sometime ago.
Verdict? I, along with a lot of others, were thoroughly impressed with how the 50/1.5 zeiss performed against the Leica (given the age difference, design difference, and the price difference). Absent being told which lens was which, I'm not sure I could have definitively distinguished the two.
There is more than one way to skin a photo