which Nikkor 50mm lenses are Sonnars?

RF lenses, 50/2, 50/1.4 and I believe the rear 50/1.5 as well as the 85/2 and 105/2.5. I am not sure about the 135.
 
Sonnars, Planars and others were manufactured in Japan after 1945. As the story goes the US Occupation Forces in Germany felt free after the unconditional surrender of the latter to give many optical patents to Japan, a country which was to export massively to America. Zeiss patented optics were made cheaply in Japan and Zeiss in Germany could not do a thing about it. To ad insult to injury the American importer of Japanese lenses claimed their products were "better" than the originals, a claim Zeiss refuted. This situation led to the expansion of Japan's optical and photography industry and made, among others, Nikon a giant in the world market after conquering the US. Ironically the US now days complains about "piracy" of patents and copy rights having forgotten what they did to Germany by transferring intellectual property to first themselves and second to satellite industries in Japan. As the French says goes "the more things change the more they are the same"
 
The Sonnar based Nikkor-H 5cm F2 was designed in August 1937, before the outbreak of World War II in Europe. Germany and Japan were Allied and exchanged technology. I am not sure if the Sonnar was part of it, but it existed before the War ended.

The Nikkor-Q 135 F3.5 is a 4 element in three group design, and is referred to as a Sonnar derived formula. The Nikkor AIS 135 F3.5 survived in the same basic formula through the end of its production in the 1980s (or so).
 
Last edited:
Japan did not have the advanced optical glasses of the Zeiss works. Raw optical glass from Germany reached Japan in very small quantities during the war thanks to the few U boats and even fewer Japanese subs that made the journey between the two countries.

The Sonnar f1.5 was introduced in Germany in 1933 but for it to work it required glass available in Germany. Sonnar, the name was taken from a camera made in the 1920's by Contessa incorporating a Tessar type lens, Contessa became part of Zeiss and so did the name Sonnar. Leitz could not have a f1.5 lens because the Zeiss patent. Flare was a problem with fast lenses as we all know, the f2.0 Summar atest to that. The development of optical surface coating during the war gave a new life to fast lenses design. The Sonnar F2.0 was the most popular of the two, with better overall performance, yet the f1.5 had a very sharp central image and a wonderful bohke.
 
I can't answer the question, but I went back and looked at my F mount 50/2 H non AI slr images, and they don't look Sonnarish (relative to the ones I see here and on flickr) or even with bokeh like my Jupiters.

So whatever design it is, my example doesn't show the qualities I've associated Sonnars, but it is still an very good lens.

On the other hand, I have a 105/2.5 P*C AI lens that on mir.com says is the first double gauss version of this design, where previous are sonnar designs.

I can't tell the difference, in images I see, but I love the coatings and images. I have the long reversible HS8 bayonet hood, but have never needed it.
 
None of the F-Mount 50mm lenses are based on the Sonnar formula. The "Olympic" 50/1.4 and Millenium Nikkor 50/1.4 are not based on the Sonnar.

Only the 5cm F2 Nikkor-H, 5cm F1.5 Nikkor-S, and 5cm F1.4 Nikkor-S in S-mount are 50mm Sonnar formula lenses.

My 1935 Sonnar 5cm F1.5, converted to Leica Mount, wide-open on the M8.

picture.php


and my 1936 5cm F2 Sonnar, converted to Leica Mount, wide-open on the M8.

picture.php


The Nikkor 5cm F1.4 and Nikkor 5cm F2 are based on the Sonnar formula, but the rendering is much different from the pre-war lenses.

The Nikkor-H 5cm F2 in LTM, mint glass, wide-open on the M8.

picture.php
 
Last edited:
I should add- the construction of the pre-war 5cm F2 Sonnar is very interesting, with the front element and front group each pressed into a brass fixture, each engraved with the SN of the lens. The Nikkors are very different construction. The rear module of the pre-war Sonnar and J-8 are interchangeable, but not the front sections.

Disassembly of the Zeiss 5cm F2 Lens:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89797
 
Excellent samples of pre-war Sonnar performance Brian! Naturally because the crop factor of the M8 we are missing part of the softness near the corners, which in my opinion added to the overall rendition of the image. Especially for the f1.5 Sonnar which I prefer.
 
The 5cm f2 Sonnar on the Canon P, at F4.

picture.php


And a 1938 Uncoated 5cm F1.5 Sonnar, wide-open on the Canon P.

picture.php


The 5cm F1.5 Uncoated Sonnar is my favorite lens.

These lenses are converted to LTM using a J-8 and J-3 focus mount. The Nikkor 5cm F2 has more contrast, deeper colors, probably due to being coated. My Wartime 5cm F2 Sonnar "T" and the Nikkor are very close.
 
Lens designers of that era knew how to use optical aberrations to their advantage in creating an image that had depth and relieve, technically perfect lenses as many made today have no character in their image rendition. Yet they can achieve goals un attainable in the past, like for example contrast and color rendition in deep shadows.
 
To answer the OP's question:

RF: 50/2, 50/1.5, 50/1.4 (all versions), 85/2, 85/1.5, 105/2.5, 135/4, 135/3.5
F: early 105/2.5.

There is a good chance that some longer F lenses (85/2, 1.8, 135/2.8 ?) are modified Ernostar designs, somebody else should be able to confirm.

After playing with many lenses, I find the Sonnar "look" over-rated. In the sense that a 50/1.4 Millenium (Sonnar) is hard to distinguish from a Summilux (Gauss), or a Canon 50/1.5 (Sonnar) from a 50/1.2 (Gauss), at the same f stops. Conversely, a Nikkor Millenium and Canon 50/1.5 are very different beasts. Different lens renderings can not be attributed to the design origin mainly.

The Sonnar design was used originally for compactness and flare resistance - not for bokeh.

Roland.
 
Last edited:
I agree: 50/2, 50/1.4, 50/1.5.

The Sonnar lenses have proven themselves over the years to be very much in demand. My feeling is that as film got better, so did the Sonnar popularity. A Planar may be sharper, but a Sonnar is ... a Sonnar.
 
There are even some more Nikkor lenses that are Sonnar based- but Frank specified 50mm lenses. The 25cm F4 and a few others are basically "big" versions of the 135/3.5.

I brought in the images from the original Sonnars that the Nikkor 5cm F2, 5cm F1.5, and 5cm F1.4 for comparison. The Nikkor lenses are not copies of the Zeiss lenses, but are based on the same configuration, or block diagram. The focal length is different, the glass is different, and the optimizations are different. The overall rendering of the Nikkor 5cm F1.4 is "harsher" than the Zeiss, in my opinion. More overcorrection for Spherical aberration compared to the Zeiss 5cm F1.5 is my guess.

Nikkor 5cm F1.4, "Japan version ", wide-open on the Nikon SP.

picture.php


picture.php
 
Last edited:
ferider said:
To answer the OP's question:

RF: 50/2, 50/1.5, 50/1.4 (all versions), 85/2, 85/1.5, 105/2.5, 135/4, 135/3.5
F: early 105/2.5.

There is a good chance that some longer F lenses (85/2, 1.8, 135/2.8 ?) are modified Ernostar designs, somebody else should be able to confirm.

After playing with many lenses, I find the Sonnar "look" over-rated. In the sense that a 50/1.4 Millenium (Sonnar) is hard to distinguish from a Summilux (Gauss), or a Canon 50/1.5 (Sonnar) from a 50/1.2 (Gauss), at the same f stops. Conversely, a Nikkor Millenium and Canon 50/1.5 are very different beasts. Different lens renderings can not be attributed to the design origin mainly.

The Sonnar design was used originally for compactness and flare resistance - not for bokeh.

Roland.
Click to expand...

Are you sure the Millennium is a Sonnar formula, Roland?

I thought the jury was still out on that one since the formula has never been officially announced. It's a lot bigger than any of the 5cm Nikkor sonnars, and has a much larger rear element than you would expect for a sonnar.
 
Agreed with Brian. Even 50/1.4 NKT and NKJ are a bit different. In practice, I find it impossible to distinguish output from my NKT 50/1.4 when compared to my DR Summicron. Except below f2, of course :)

Not sure, Jon. The copy that I tried felt like it though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom