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

I was curious just because of the sepia tint of the photos, but now I think it can come eventually from scanning this C41 film.. :)
 
ferider said:
I am not sure Ray. When I plaid with my Canon 50/1.5 and ZK 50/1.5,
they both do the following: when going from f2 to f1.5, the focal plane
"smears out" and becomes a larger interval with less sharpness.
Even the Nikkor 50/1.4 does that, to a lesser degree, though
(see also blakley's great test http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25915).

When I look at the 2nd shot of Melanie, I see some hairs in the back in focus
as much as her shoulder. So it might be just the lens doing that, IMHO.

Roland.
Click to expand...

Could be the tilt of her head is towards, and more into, the focal plane. It could also be a sharpening effect showing up on the hair highlight (if Rich sharpened these). Regardless, it's an interesting "effect." I've not experienced what you describe, but will defer because I've seen your lens tests and you're pretty thorough and detailed! :) Thanks Roland!
 
darkkavenger said:
I was curious just because of the sepia tint of the photos, but now I think it can come eventually from scanning this C41 film.. :)
Click to expand...

The tint is a duo-tone that I applied in photoshop.
 
Yes indeed. See the sub-headline in the attachment. Good one rover!! :D So, where is that portrait Rich? :)
 

Attachments

  • boston.jpg
    boston.jpg
    138.5 KB · Views: 0
cosina1_03l.jpg
 
Rich Silfver said:
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...).
Click to expand...
The Canon 50 1.4 and Canon 50 1.5 are not the same formula (one's a Planar, the other a Sonnar copy). It'd be best to compare the Canon 50 1.5 and the Zeiss 50 1.5, methinks.

I've heard that the Canon 50 1.4 is surely "sharper" than the 50 1.5. If I want "sharp", I have a Summicron. Or stopping down most any lens does the trick.
 
gabrielma said:
The Canon 50 1.4 and Canon 50 1.5 are not the same formula (one's a Planar, the other a Sonnar copy). It'd be best to compare the Canon 50 1.5 and the Zeiss 50 1.5, methinks.

I've heard that the Canon 50 1.4 is surely "sharper" than the 50 1.5. If I want "sharp", I have a Summicron. Or stopping down most any lens does the trick.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I have to agree about the 1.4 being sharper. It is an excellent all around lens. If I need to shoot wide open in low light the 1.4 is the one I go to. As an all around lens with that old Sonnar look in all light I love the 1.5.

I will surely enjoy when I get my IIa and 1.5 Sonnar. I will spend some time with the Sonnar 50s, CZO 1.5, CZJ 2.0, Canon 1.5, Nikkor 2.0 and J8. M3, IIa and P shooting it out! I am very excited about this. The only thing that can make it better will be if I find a Nikon S2 with 50/1.4 before Henry delivers my IIa.
 
Rich Silfver said:
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. ...
Click to expand...

I agree. 50/1.4 is a sweetie (and the 1.8 is no slouch either, though).

Rich, let's see that portrait...Melanie? :angel:

:)
 
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
 
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?
cheers, Frank
Click to expand...

What has one element less to do with it? As Leica has shown,and Zeiss is showing now, the reduction of the number of elements combined with the latest design technology has produced better corrected lenses with more brilliance.
 
rover said:
I will surely enjoy when I get my IIa and 1.5 Sonnar. I will spend some time with the Sonnar 50s, CZO 1.5, CZJ 2.0, Canon 1.5, Nikkor 2.0 and J8. M3, IIa and P shooting it out! I am very excited about this. The only thing that can make it better will be if I find a Nikon S2 with 50/1.4 before Henry delivers my IIa.
Click to expand...

Looking forward to that test Ralph, please let us know the results :)
 
jaapv said:
What has one element less to do with it? As Leica has shown,and Zeiss is showing now, the reduction of the number of elements combined with the latest design technology has produced better corrected lenses with more brilliance.
Click to expand...

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... ;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom