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

[rover]

Originally Posted by patrickjames

Just to clarify, I own both which is why I started reading this thread. I have an M3 and would buy the ZI but I really only use a 50 and a 90 so the M3 is the best, though I hate loading film in it. I also have the old Contaxes and several 50mm Sonnars. I will probably buy the new Sonnar because I am not really fond on the Summicron I have now compared to the old Sonnars.

My original point is that a great many people seem to think that if Leica doesn't make something it isn't as good, which of course is pure cr**. And as far as current working professionals and the gear they use- besides a few die hards, noone uses either Leica or Zeiss. I recently saw a picture of Salgado with a Hassy H1 in his hand.

The most important point is this-

It is not the arrow, but the Indian.

Think about that.

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]

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]

[Nachkebia]

wow I like that one! Flyfisher Tom

[rxmd]

Hi Tom,

you've got mail regarding the 50/1.5.

Philipp

[Flyfisher Tom]

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

[Huck Finn]

Originally Posted by visiondr

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

Ron, a lot of reading on my own. Here are a couple of references that I use frequently:

A History of the Photographic Lens, by Rudolf Kingslake
Leica Lens Compendium, by Erwin Puts
Leica Pocket Book, pub. by Hove Collectors Books

A few web sites that I also have found helpful:

www.dantestella.com
http://johnlind.tripod.com
www.vanwalree.com

Enjoy your reading!

Bill

[Flyfisher Tom]

Here are the threads I was thinking of.

Regit Young's Zeiss sonnar 50/1.5 (contax-M adapter) ...

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-...?msg_id=00EWTn

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-...?msg_id=00EyCx

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-...?msg_id=00FF9g



And this one, specifically comparing the Zeiss to the Leica 50/lux/asph

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...ad.php?t=15519


cheers

[Sparrow]

In following this thread as it has developed over time I got the distinct impression that the new lens had fewer elements than the pre-war lenses (5 in 4 groups as opposed to 6 in 4 groups) or is it that I’ve not recalled the original formula correctly, the Zeiss website states 6 in 4 groups (three singles and a triplet) is that the same as the pre-war version?

[sebastel]

no, the original had 7 lens in 3 groupsd (if my memory is correct).
one single lens, a cemented triplet, and a second cemented triplet behind the iris/aperture.
in the modern design, the middle lens of the first triplet is replaced by air.

regards,
sebastian

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by sebastel

no, the original had 7 lens in 3 groupsd (if my memory is correct).
one single lens, a cemented triplet, and a second cemented triplet behind the iris/aperture.
in the modern design, the middle lens of the first triplet is replaced by air.

regards,
sebastian

thanks,

regards

[Peter S]

Rich,

Thank you very much for your beautiful pictures and singing praise of the Sonnar 50. I thought I was GAS free, but you infected me.

Anyway I have picked up attached beauty on Evilbay and now am trying to find somebody in Holland for a CLA. If anybody reading this has an idea please let me know.

Hope I can be putting it to use quickly and cqn only hope I will be able to produce similar results. On a different topic, would you be willing to share your duotone recipe with us?

I must stop buying cqmeras, I must stop buying cameras, I must stop buying cameras, I must stop buying cameras!!!!!.

Regards from sunny Amsterdam

http://http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=006&item=160008873477&rd =1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&rd=1[/url]d=1

[raid]

People have already stated what I would have said about the posted images. Nicely done, Rich.
Some people insist on a textbook approach of sharp eyes. Not all photos need to be tack sharp. This I find to be especially true with loved ones. We have special way of looking at them and their photos. Sometimes dreamy photos are great.

I have a question on the Sonnar lens;
How does the Zeiss Sonnar 5cm/2 stack up against the Zeiss Sonnar 5cm/1.5?
Are these two different animals or is there a resemblence?
I have a war-time/pre-war(?) Zeiss Sonnar in LTM but I don't own a Sonnar 5cm/1.5 to compare it to.


Raid

[Simon Larbalestier]

Originally Posted by wlewisiii

SNIP: 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'd agree with William here and what makes these portraits of Melanie work for me is the sense of intimacy and her relaxed smile - it seems to me the point of focus is on Melanie's lips in the first two shots - which seems correct to me as it's the smile i'm drawn to first and second is the dreamy lighting perhaps brought out more by the nature of this lens. As an outsider viewing these images i feel like i'm glimpsing on something quite intimate (hope i'm not sounding creepy here?) and Rich has used this lens to good effect to achieve this.

I'd be very interested to see what the new 1.5 lens in M mount can offer in comparison. Thanks for posting these Rich

[Oldprof]

Originally Posted by raid amin

... Some people insist on a textbook approach of sharp eyes ...

It is "textbook" for a reason, not just for pedantic nonsense. When the subject's eyes are in focus they engage the eye contact of the viewer and the portrait is more personal and effective.

[MelanieC]

Originally Posted by ferider

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

Ask and ye shall receive. Yes, it takes me this long to get around to developing film. I was afraid to develop Neopan myself since I keep reading it's supposed to be difficult to work with, but this roll turned out OK as far as I can tell.

[Rich Silfver]

I wish cameras were bigger.

And yes, that's an argyle sweater...argyle is IN!

[peter_n]

Link below shows three shots taken with the CZ 50/1.5. They look pretty good...

Carl Zeiss T* C Sonnar 1.5/50ZM

[Simon Larbalestier]

Peter thanks for posting these
it's now officially on my "watch" list along with a VC 35/1.2 - both would compliment my existing older luxes in the same formats - but to work with the M8

[MelanieC]

Originally Posted by ferider

Nice, Melanie. You make pigs fly

And hell freeze over!

[raid]

I sold a Contax II plus Sonnar for $200 ....

Raid

[Flyfisher Tom]

thanks for the link Peter ....

I guess my preliminary feeling is that I wouldn't kick this lens out of bed

[furcafe]

IME, they provide a similar look @ the same apertures, w/the f/1.5 version being a teensy bit sharper @ f/2. I'll let others w/more technical knowledge re: # of elements, etc. weigh in on whether they're different animals.

Originally Posted by raid amin

I have a question on the Sonnar lens;
How does the Zeiss Sonnar 5cm/2 stack up against the Zeiss Sonnar 5cm/1.5?
Are these two different animals or is there a resemblence?
I have a war-time/pre-war(?) Zeiss Sonnar in LTM but I don't own a Sonnar 5cm/1.5 to compare it to.


Raid