Sonnar Formula Lenses: Any Focal Length, Any Make, Any Mount, Any Camera

L1002538.jpg


Nikkor-PC 10.5cm F2.5, LTM on the Leiva M Monochrom. Yellow filter.
 
A really good 1958 ZOMZ Jupiter-3, one of the first that I worked on.
Wide-Open.
j3g_15a.jpg


Nikkor 5cm F1.4, LTM, an early one- same formula as the 5005 series. One of the last before the formula was changed. Wide-Open.
nik14_f14a.jpg


Jupiter, full crop.j3g_15b.jpg

Nikkor, full crop.

nik14_f14b.jpg

On film, Canon 7- scanned with an Epson 3170.
Price on the Jupiter-3 : I bought a lot of four for $200. This was the best. Sold it here on RFF, one I wished I had kept.
From January 2006.
 
I am biased on this subject. Sonnar and Sonnar copies do wonderfully well in image and color and that is what a lens is supposed to do. Yes, there are other very good lenses. But for a consistent winner old Herr Doktor Bertele did a good one. For softness of color and image the Amotal is so very good and without losing detail. At the smaller lens openings the Amotal does color and image quite sharply and well. Other than that the Sonnar clan is the winner.

In a day or two, when my knees are back to healthy, I will be out to do some test shots of at least the CZJ 272 5cm /f1.5 and the Bertele. Maybe with the '51 and '57 KMZ Jupiter 8's and the Amotal. I am interested. Hopefully there will be interest here. Regardless I will do it. ;o)
 
Last edited:
Two photos taken with the Nikkor-PC 8.5cm f2.0, the first in S-mount and the second in Contax RF mount. I like using 85mm for landscape photography, and these Nikkors are keepers.

Bessa R2S, on Kodak Color Plus 200. I recall this pic was shot wide open, and the focus was on the closest bins on the right.

Awaiting the catch. by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr

Contax IIa, on Cinestill 400d at iso 320. Stopped down to f4 or f5.6. It’s great to be able to use this lens on the Contax w/out having to deal w/ focusing problems.

Spring by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr
 
Question for those who have both Zeiss 50/1.5 & 50/2:

Are pics indistinguishable from f/2?

In other words is the 50/2 just a 50/1.5 that's stopped down to f/2?

Speaking of comparing the same generation lenses.
 
splitimageview said:
Question for those who have both Zeiss 50/1.5 & 50/2:

Are pics indistinguishable from f/2?

In other words is the 50/2 just a 50/1.5 that's stopped down to f/2?

Speaking of comparing the same generation lenses.
Click to expand...
I would say no. The 50mm f2 Sonnar lenses have 6 elements, the 1.5 lenses have 7. In my opinion the f1.5 lenses are better at f2 than the f2 lenses are. The character is similar though. F1.5 lenses tend to be a bit more funky wide open than their smaller brethren.
 
splitimageview said:
Question for those who have both Zeiss 50/1.5 & 50/2:

Are pics indistinguishable from f/2?

In other words is the 50/2 just a 50/1.5 that's stopped down to f/2?

Speaking of comparing the same generation lenses.
Click to expand...
My Zeiss Opton Sonnar 5cm f2.0 appears to my eyes to resolve more detail than the f1.5 version at the same apertures. The second photo in Mark Wyatt’s first set shows the same kind of results I get w/ my f2.0. I know the f1.5 has the better reputation, but the 2.0 is my favorite.
 
splitimageview said:
Question for those who have both Zeiss 50/1.5 & 50/2:

Are pics indistinguishable from f/2?

In other words is the 50/2 just a 50/1.5 that's stopped down to f/2?

Speaking of comparing the same generation lenses.
Click to expand...
Another on my "to compare" lists. Additionally, the Post-War CZJ 5cm F1.5 and 5cm F2 Sonnars are different from the wartime lenses. So many Sonnars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top