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

[Rich Silfver]

...I absolutely love this lens.

I'm on my third roll through my Contax IIIa and the Sonnar 50/1.5 lens and as much as it pains me to even write this...I belive the Sonnar 50/1.5 beats my beloved first version rigid Summicron 50/2 when it comes to how creamy it renders the out of focus areas and how pleasingly it captures skin tones.
It's sharp where needed as well.

My Sonnar 50/1.5 is from the mid 50's and my Summicron 50/2 came out almost exactly 10 years after that so I got to hand it to Zeiss - they knew what they were doing.

Here are two shots trying to show examples of what I mean:

[dexdog]

Rich, lovely photos, great tonality. The 50/1.5 Sonnar is one of my favorite lenses for the reasons that you discussed. Classic look, and beautiful rendering of subject and OOF areas. This look is probably why Zeiss released a new version in ZM mount.

[wlewisiii]

Yep. There is a something, I feel, that asymmetrical designs (Cooke, Tessar, Sonnar, Heliar) have that even the best of the double Gaussian designs don't have. I think that number 2 shows it the best of the two - even in a web jpg you can still see the delicate tracery of the light and shadow on the wall to the right. That's just about as good as it gets. It would be an interesting experiment if you could get a similar shot with your Contessa for comparison.

Now, don't get me wrong, I have a collapsible Summicron that is the best lens I currently own. But put it up against a good Zeiss Sonnar? Not a contest to my eyes. This is why I'd dearly love to have the coin for the ZM Sonnar 50/1.5 when it ships...


William

[dexdog]

"Some people are 'the glass is half full' types. Some people are 'the glass is half empty' types. I'm a 'the glass is full of radioactive waste and I just drank half of it' type.
And I'm still thirsty." -- Bill Mattocks

Not to divert the thread, but I miss Bill's contributions. He is a very thoughtful guy.

My absolute favorite lens of all time is the Contax 85/2 Sonnar. Outstanding portrait lens, with perhaps even more beautiful renderings than the 50/1.5 at equal apertures. Nice work, Rich.

[back alley]

i wonder what the new zm 50/1.5 will be like...

[Harry Lime]

I agree, the 1.5/50 Sonnar is one heck of a piece of glass. I rank it up there with my Summicron Collapsible and Summicron DR. HCB shot a lot of his early postwar work with one and then he switched to the Summicron Collapsible, which he used for the next 40 years.

If you really want to see what the Sonnar can do, send it to Henry Scherer at
http://www.zeisscamera.com/. It appears that most Contax cameras and lenses left the factory out of spec and once he reworks them you won't believe your eyes. His prices are very reasonable.

I recently had Leica do a full rebuild on my Summicron DR and the improvement in image quality was substantial, while retaining its fingerprint.

[wlewisiii]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

HCB shot a lot of his early postwar work with one

Sonnar 50/1.5?

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

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by wlewisiii

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.

[ZeissFan]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

If you really want to see what the Sonnar can do, send it to Henry Scherer at
http://www.zeisscamera.com/. It appears that most Contax cameras and lenses left the factory out of spec and once he reworks them you won't believe your eyes. His prices are very reasonable.

Not to be a cantankerous SOB, but this sounds like an Internet myth started by a repairman. And his waiting list and prices I think border on unreasonable.

It really isn't that difficult to rework one of these cameras or lenses, as long as there isn't irrepairable damage. The postwar lenses are easier to recollimate than the prewar versions.

At that time, I believe Zeiss Ikon (and Carl Zeiss) were trying to re-establish themselves as the premier names in photography, and I simply don't believe that the flagship products of their respective lines would receive so little attention that they would come off their lines out of spec.

[Gabriel M.A.]

The vintage Contax RF 50mm f/1.5 Sonnar is one of the best lenses ever made, no doubt. When I'm concerned with "sharpness" and some other things, I tend to use my Summicron (which is rarely now). The pre-asph 50 Summilux, the 50 1.5 Sonnar, and the 50 1.5 Summarit (see a trend here?) are my top two lenses. Yes, top two: I consider the pre-asph 50 Summilux a finely-tuned Summarit.

I doubt we'll get the same "magic" from the new ZM lens than the old Contax RF lens. If they prove me wrong, I'd be very pleasantly surprised.

[darkkavenger]

what kind of film did you use ?

[GeneW]

Lovely results, Rich. I use a 'poor-man's Sonnar', the extremely common, cheap, but engaging Jupiter 8 ... it shares some of the same characteristics.

Gene

[Rich Silfver]

Originally Posted by darkkavenger

what kind of film did you use ?

I believe this was Fuji Neopan 400.
They were both snapped at an ice cream store so no 'controlled' lighting in any way but I still liked the results.

Thanks for all the comments everyone.

[Flyfisher Tom]

Rich,

Great photos as usual.

If you ever get your hands on a Canon 50/1.5 (sonnar) ltm lens, I'd be most interested in your opinions on its characteristics versus the Zeiss 50/1.5.

regards

[Rich Silfver]

Originally Posted by Flyfisher Tom

Rich,

Great photos as usual.

If you ever get your hands on a Canon 50/1.5 (sonnar) ltm lens, I'd be most interested in your opinions on its characteristics versus the Zeiss 50/1.5.

regards

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...).

[Gabriel M.A.]

Originally Posted by Rich Silfver

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...).

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.

[rover]

Originally Posted by gabrielma

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.

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.

[Flyfisher Tom]

Originally Posted by rover

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.

Looking forward to that test Ralph, please let us know the results

[RayPA]

Originally Posted by Rich Silfver

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. ...

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

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

[Oldprof]

Charming subject Rich, but the images are too soft for my taste. When making a portrait like this I focus on my subject's eyes. If those are sharp it doesn't matter if the other areas of the face and background are less focused - the viewer of the photograph tends to make eye contact with the subject in the picture.

[peter_n]

Originally Posted by Oldprof

Charming subject Rich, but the images are too soft for my taste. When making a portrait like this I focus on my subject's eyes. If those are sharp it doesn't matter if the other areas of the face and background are less focused - the viewer of the photograph tends to make eye contact with the subject in the picture.

Yep I think its just the plane of focus which seems to be behind the eyes in the first picture, and maybe slightly in front of the eyes in the second one. However the pics are good examples of how the lens renders, which is what I think Rich is trying to illustrate.

[Rich Silfver]

Originally Posted by peter_n

Yep I think its just the plane of focus which seems to be behind the eyes in the first picture, and maybe slightly in front of the eyes in the second one. However the pics are good examples of how the lens renders, which is what I think Rich is trying to illustrate.

God I wish that was true..in all honesty I suck at accurate focusing and my scanner seems to for some reason gotten 'softer' lately. But thanks for assuming I actually know what I'm doing - and with an intent behind it

[RayPA]

Nice shots, Rich. The highlights are excellent! The focal plane is a little "off" the eyes, but the slight softness works well. I see what you're talking aoubt, though, a nice quality throughout.



edited

[RayPA]

Originally Posted by ferider

Nice photos, Rich.

Reg the focal plane, for the second picture, it seems to me that
they hit the eyes exactly ?

I wonder when we get to see portraits of you, maybe shot with
a 50 Summicron ?

Roland.

For that one it seems to be on the front shoulder.

They're both really excellent shots.

Yeah, Rich, when do we get to see Melanie's portraits of you?

[Rich Silfver]

Originally Posted by RayPA

Yeah, Rich, when do we get to see Melanie's portraits of you?

How about when pigs fly over a frozen hell?