uhoh7
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
genji wrote:
Those Sonnetar pictures are just gorgeous. I see that there's one available on eBay for USD1199.00. This review, MS-Optical 50mm f/1.1 Sonnetar: magic time, suggests that it's a difficult lens to master, although that doesn't seem to have been a problem for you.
TY very much for kind words. It's unpredictable on the M9, so not the best thing to use when you must count on results. You throw out plenty. A7 is better since WYSIWYG. BTW the sonnetar has very nice german aperture, always perfect circle. Rear group can be moved in or out either to adjust coma, or for calibration on RF.
Fred Miranda wrote:
What I really like about the modern version of this lens is the high contrast and flare performance. You may not have that with older versions.
One stereotype about old lenses is that they are low contrast. I don't doubt the C-sonnar has more contrast at 1.5, but by f/4 I would very much doubt a clean original is far behind. The CZJ 50/1.5 was famous at the time for high contrast, and old lenses contrast issues are case by case between designs, and since haze is a very common issue, often between copies.
Let's take a look:
Untitled by unoh7, 1937 CZJ Sonnar
First a benchmark....which image has more contrast?
shot two by unoh7, on Flickr
shot one by unoh7, on Flickr
Above are the 50 cron v4 and CZJ 50/1.5 on the M9. Which is which? No PP. Exposure is slightly different, so though one has brighter whites, the other has darker blacks.
The only thing these lenses have in common is the size  . But at f/8 contrast is very similar, that's for sure.
What about f/4?
L1023072 by unoh7, CZJ f/4 M9 No PP
In fact at F/4 the uncoated CZJ has fantastic contrast. 
WO:
Shy Friend by unoh7, on Flickr
Hard to tell here, but I would not call it: "low contrast". Every lens looses contrast WO compared to say F/8.
Below we can see why this was the "best" 50 money could buy for 20 years:
L1023704 by unoh7, f/8
It's slightly overcast, so contrast is not obvious in this image, but note edges at this range are not glaringly soft, and not far off or equal to the elmar 50/3.5, which likes F/11 at least for landscape. A more distant shot would show more softness, but for reporters this level of performance on the edge is basically fine in 1940.
F/10ish, again slightly overcast:
L1023670 by unoh7, on Flickr
On the A7 Mod F/8 +
River Banks by unoh7, edited.
Below A7mod, no pp WO:
CZJ 50 WO by unoh7, on Flickr
AhHa! Low contrast Sun has gone behind thin cloud, so yes, at f/1.5 it is "low" contrast, yet by f/4 this lens is very close to modern contrast and famous for that at the time. It was also the fastest lens in the world for the 35 film format for many years, until Nikon went to f/1.4 with the design: more on that lens later.
Back then F1.5 was for emergencies, like 1.1 with the sonnetar
I'd love to have a Jupiter 3 +, and I think the price is fine for what you get. But the original CZJ is not expensive in the Contax mount:
DSC01069 by unoh7, on Flickr
Body and lens were 200 bucks or so. It's a 3a post war body, which cost the same as a Chevy sedan when new, but the lens was pre-war. No clue why.
No helicoid, so you need an Amedeo adapter (about 200) to get to M, then use you M adapter on A7. The LTM copies are much more, often beat up. No problem to find a clean copy in Contax mount. Glass was very hard, unlike Leitz.
The whole Zeiss reputation was created by this single lens, which evolved from the early hand held low light ernostar.
Erich Salomon with his RX1  Picked up a camera at 41. He would hide it in his bowler hat and take pictures of murderers on trial, diplomatic events, the US supreme court and Marlene Dietrich:
Father of candid photography and the most famous photographer in the world at the outbreak of the war he died in Auschwitz in 1944.
|
