C-sonnar!
p.24 #1C-sonnar!
genji wrote:
The rounded blades could be good at f2.8 or smaller, at f2 10 straight blades make a round enough aperture..
Looks like it's more succeptible to veiling flare than ZM, but less so than original Sonnars or Jupiters. Also sounds like it has a smaller and weaker central area if sharpness at wide apertures than ZM. And it's look is just a little more 'extreme' by modern standards in virtue of being exactly like a Jupiter/Opton Sonnar.
So all in I think the ZM is likely the best bet for use on Sony (where the mfd is no issue using TAP or a regular helicoid adapter). But it might well be a good option in those markets where it is very much cheaper than ZM. Useful performance and quality improvements over a classic Jupiter or Zeiss Opton while less money than ZM.Having briefly had a Lomography Jupiter 3+ 50/1.5 I'd have to say that it offers "useful performance and quality improvements" only if "performance" doesn't include handling and "quality" doesn't refer to construction.
Over the years I've owned and used several hundred lenses and I can't recall being more disappointed in a lens than I was with the Jupiter 3+. Not with the images it produced, which were much as I'd expected but rather with its haptics and marginally acceptable build quality (for its price).
While the review Fred linked to, which runs to nearly 7000 words, tells a prospective buyer everything he...Show more →
Thanks for the heads-up!! I purchased my Sonnar 50/1.5C from the buy and sell board for a bargain price so I never really considered the Jupiter 3+ for more money.
DavidBM wrote
Interesting review!The rounded blades could be good at f2.8 or smaller, at f2 10 straight blades make a round enough aperture..
Looks like it's more succeptible to veiling flare than ZM, but less so than original Sonnars or Jupiters. Also sounds like it has a smaller and weaker central area if sharpness at wide apertures than ZM. And it's look is just a little more 'extreme' by modern standards in virtue of being exactly like a Jupiter/Opton Sonnar.
So all in I think the ZM is likely the best bet for use on Sony (where the mfd is no issue using TAP or a regular helicoid adapter). But it might well be a good option in those markets where it is very much cheaper than ZM. Useful performance and quality improvements over a classic Jupiter or Zeiss Opton while less money than ZM.
Over the years I've owned and used several hundred lenses and I can't recall being more disappointed in a lens than I was with the Jupiter 3+. Not with the images it produced, which were much as I'd expected but rather with its haptics and marginally acceptable build quality (for its price).
While the review Fred linked to, which runs to nearly 7000 words, tells a prospective buyer everything he...Show more →
Thanks for the heads-up!! I purchased my Sonnar 50/1.5C from the buy and sell board for a bargain price so I never really considered the Jupiter 3+ for more money.
Nov 19, 2016 at 09:00 PM
p.24 #2C-sonnar!
genji wrote:
Over the years I've owned and used several hundred lenses and I can't recall being more disappointed in a lens than I was with the Jupiter 3+. Not with the images it produced, which were much as I'd expected but rather with its haptics and marginally acceptable build quality (for its price).
He liked the "otherwise very smooth and satisfying clickless aperture". I hated it: fiddly to set and dishearteningly easy to bump off the chosen aperture.
I knew I had to get rid of it but I didn't want to put it on the Buy-Sell board because photographs of the Jupiter...Show more →
OMG
I'll make a guess: you never owned an original Jupiter 3.
I've never even seen a plus, but a wide variety of users who do know the original say the build is way better. No comparison, they claim. Some note their C-sonnars developed the famous wobble in short order
Brian Sweeny who has seen literally hundreds of 5cm Sonnars of all flavors felt the build was excellent and more important, his calibration was spot on, which is huge, as the the originals are all over the place on the M body. Equally huge is the .7 CF.
Your complaint about the aperture ring not having any clicks and very easy to accidentally move: that's the way the originals are, both German and Russian, and Sonnetar too I'm afraid. So I have to wonder, did you get a bad copy? Did you expect a modern lens or a modern re-issue, which is what it is. I certainly respect your opinion, but for others interested, I suggest you compare impressions on the build at RFF and Leicaplace, as honestly this is the first negative take on the construction I've heard.
The whole thing is made from chrome-plated solid brass, and those who know the old J3 or just old LTM lenses seem delighted with it.
Anyway I'm sorry you had such a bad experience.
Over the years I've owned and used several hundred lenses and I can't recall being more disappointed in a lens than I was with the Jupiter 3+. Not with the images it produced, which were much as I'd expected but rather with its haptics and marginally acceptable build quality (for its price).
He liked the "otherwise very smooth and satisfying clickless aperture". I hated it: fiddly to set and dishearteningly easy to bump off the chosen aperture.
I knew I had to get rid of it but I didn't want to put it on the Buy-Sell board because photographs of the Jupiter...Show more →
OMG
I'll make a guess: you never owned an original Jupiter 3.
I've never even seen a plus, but a wide variety of users who do know the original say the build is way better. No comparison, they claim. Some note their C-sonnars developed the famous wobble in short order
Brian Sweeny who has seen literally hundreds of 5cm Sonnars of all flavors felt the build was excellent and more important, his calibration was spot on, which is huge, as the the originals are all over the place on the M body. Equally huge is the .7 CF.
Your complaint about the aperture ring not having any clicks and very easy to accidentally move: that's the way the originals are, both German and Russian, and Sonnetar too I'm afraid. So I have to wonder, did you get a bad copy? Did you expect a modern lens or a modern re-issue, which is what it is. I certainly respect your opinion, but for others interested, I suggest you compare impressions on the build at RFF and Leicaplace, as honestly this is the first negative take on the construction I've heard.
The whole thing is made from chrome-plated solid brass, and those who know the old J3 or just old LTM lenses seem delighted with it.
Anyway I'm sorry you had such a bad experience.
Nov 20, 2016 at 01:53 AM
p.24 #3C-sonnar!
uhoh7 wrote:
OMG
I'll make a guess: you never owned an original Jupiter 3.
Nope.
I've never even seen a plus, but a wide variety of users who do know the original say the build is way better. No comparison, they claim. Some note their C-sonnars developed the famous wobble in short order
Perhaps you might want to take a look at a Jupiter 3+ and then express a first-hand opinion. I currently have four ZM lenses and none of them (so far) has had the famous ZM wobble.
Brian Sweeny who has seen literally hundreds of 5cm Sonnars of all flavors felt the build was excellent and more important, his calibration was spot on, which is huge, as the the originals are all over the place on the M body. Equally huge is the .7 CF.
I use all my lenses on an A7R II so I don't give a rat's arse about the calibration on an M body nor the 0.7m close focus distance.
Your complaint about the aperture ring not having any clicks and very easy to accidentally move: that's the way the originals are, both German and Russian, and Sonnetar too I'm afraid. So I have to wonder, did you get a bad copy? Did you expect a modern lens or a modern re-issue, which is what it is. I certainly respect your opinion, but for others interested, I suggest you compare impressions on the build at RFF and Leicaplace, as honestly this is the first negative take on the construction I've heard.
I guess I'm allergic to clickless aperture rings. I was so impressed with the Sonnetar pictures you posted recently that I thought seriously about purchasing the copy I saw on eBay. Until I discovered that it had a clickless aperture.
I'm pretty sure I didn't get a bad copy for two reasons: firstly, that the image quality was fine, as I stated in my original post; secondly, that the review of the lens that Fred linked to, and from which I quoted, validated my criticisms of the build quality, meaning that there are now at least two negative takes on the construction.
The whole thing is made from chrome-plated solid brass, and those who know the old J3 or just old LTM lenses seem delighted with it.
Well, as you've realized, I was far from delighted with it and, as for "just old LTM lenses", those that I currently own and use include:
Canon 50/1.4
Fujinon L 50/2
Hexanon 50/1.9
Nikkor H.C. 50/2 (two copies)
Super Rokkor 50/1.8
Topcor-S 50/2
Yashinon 50/1.8
Canon 100/2 (two copies)
IMNSHO, compared to any of these lenses, the build quality and haptics of the Jupiter 3+ are a joke.
Anyway I'm sorry you had such a bad experience.
No need to apologize, the responsibility for my bad experience lies with Lomography not you.
I don't resile from my negative view of the Jupiter 3+. Rather, I believe that I should be congratulated, rather than castigated, for contradicting the prevailing deification of this overpriced "modern re-issue". As Mao Zedong said in 1957 (an unexpected coincidence given the vintage of the lenses under discussion): "Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend."
OMG
I'll make a guess: you never owned an original Jupiter 3.
Nope.
I've never even seen a plus, but a wide variety of users who do know the original say the build is way better. No comparison, they claim. Some note their C-sonnars developed the famous wobble in short order
Perhaps you might want to take a look at a Jupiter 3+ and then express a first-hand opinion. I currently have four ZM lenses and none of them (so far) has had the famous ZM wobble.
Brian Sweeny who has seen literally hundreds of 5cm Sonnars of all flavors felt the build was excellent and more important, his calibration was spot on, which is huge, as the the originals are all over the place on the M body. Equally huge is the .7 CF.
I use all my lenses on an A7R II so I don't give a rat's arse about the calibration on an M body nor the 0.7m close focus distance.
Your complaint about the aperture ring not having any clicks and very easy to accidentally move: that's the way the originals are, both German and Russian, and Sonnetar too I'm afraid. So I have to wonder, did you get a bad copy? Did you expect a modern lens or a modern re-issue, which is what it is. I certainly respect your opinion, but for others interested, I suggest you compare impressions on the build at RFF and Leicaplace, as honestly this is the first negative take on the construction I've heard.
I guess I'm allergic to clickless aperture rings. I was so impressed with the Sonnetar pictures you posted recently that I thought seriously about purchasing the copy I saw on eBay. Until I discovered that it had a clickless aperture.
I'm pretty sure I didn't get a bad copy for two reasons: firstly, that the image quality was fine, as I stated in my original post; secondly, that the review of the lens that Fred linked to, and from which I quoted, validated my criticisms of the build quality, meaning that there are now at least two negative takes on the construction.
The whole thing is made from chrome-plated solid brass, and those who know the old J3 or just old LTM lenses seem delighted with it.
Well, as you've realized, I was far from delighted with it and, as for "just old LTM lenses", those that I currently own and use include:
Canon 50/1.4
Fujinon L 50/2
Hexanon 50/1.9
Nikkor H.C. 50/2 (two copies)
Super Rokkor 50/1.8
Topcor-S 50/2
Yashinon 50/1.8
Canon 100/2 (two copies)
IMNSHO, compared to any of these lenses, the build quality and haptics of the Jupiter 3+ are a joke.
Anyway I'm sorry you had such a bad experience.
No need to apologize, the responsibility for my bad experience lies with Lomography not you.
I don't resile from my negative view of the Jupiter 3+. Rather, I believe that I should be congratulated, rather than castigated, for contradicting the prevailing deification of this overpriced "modern re-issue". As Mao Zedong said in 1957 (an unexpected coincidence given the vintage of the lenses under discussion): "Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend."
Nov 20, 2016 at 03:52 AM
p.24 #4C-sonnar!
genji wrote:
I'll make a guess: you never owned an original Jupiter 3.Nope.
Perhaps you might want to take a look at a Jupiter 3+ and then express a first-hand opinion. I currently have four ZM lenses and none of them (so far) has had the famous ZM wobble.
I use all my lenses on an A7R II so I don't give a rat's arse about the calibration on an M body nor the 0.7m close focus distance.
I guess I'm allergic to clickless aperture rings. I was so impressed with the Sonnetar pictures you posted recently that I thought seriously about purchasing the copy I saw on eBay. Until I discovered that it had...Show more →
OK points taken Love the Mao reference, but I have no plans to have you interned for dissent now you have expressed an outlying view, as happened back then 
Two ZM lenses here; 35/2 and 18/4, both are fine, no wobble, I love them. But some who did have to deal with that screamed: ZM is crap don't buy them etc, almost as poetically as you
No castigation intended, and for sure you need to call it as you see it regardless. You have those little nikkors 5cm, etc, so you know the era. Are they LTM or Nikon/Contax? Just curious.
Perhaps what you see is what DDD and others saw with the superior Nikkor builds in 1950, which caused them to leave Zeiss.
So besides the aperture ring, what were the worst aspects?
I guess what I'm really wondering to myself is are you upset with what are basically design elements of the original? Back in the day, there were obviously some Nikkor designers in 1948 who felt the same way as you about the aperture.
DSC01098 by unoh7, on Flickr
The russians simply took the factory, and made the lens as best they could as a nearly exact copy. Not so the guys at Nikkor:
CZJ and progeny by unoh7, on Flickr
Note aperture ring on CZJ vs Nikkor. The Nikkor is very precise with clicks. The CZJ is clickless and very easy to move with little tabs. Build on the CZJ is not as good. Which do I prefer using? The CZJ by far because the ring moves so easy. You can change it without losing focus. This is impossible on the Nikkor or the Sonnetar. Common all three is that the "throw" of the aperture ring varies incredibly. Tiny space between F/8 and F/16, huge space between WO and f/2.
The nikkor became the fastest lens in the world for 135 film for a brief time. Dante Stella has a nice write up:
HERE
DSC01569-2 by unoh7, on Flickr
What he fails to get across is this lens can, at times, make the wildest bokeh WO I have ever seen--no swirl though. I made a album so you can see of these:
HERE
On the stock A7r:
Vic by unoh7, on Flickr
M9:
L1007300 by unoh7, on Flickr
Those are when it's in a good mood
What does he smell? by unoh7, on Flickr
This again is on the M9 so CF is one meter. With a Hawks CF adapter it will really make some shapes.
Sharpness sort of across the frame I have only seen happen when the focus is close, as Dante notes. Note snow flakes:
L1007379 by unoh7, on Flickr
UPDATE: at first I had a Sonnetar f/8 image here, My Bad, sorry Nikkor
Let's compare fast v slow across the frame:
Nikkor_5cm_f2+ by unoh7, WO i think
Nikkor_5cm_f8 by unoh7, more likely 5.6
and here again you can see why sonnar experts like Brian Sweeney call the nikkor's bokeh harsher than other sonnars:
L1055009-2 by unoh7, on Flickr
That to my eye is very ugly, but some of the previous samples I like very much.
Many famous photos in LIFE during the 50s were taken with this lens. It was replaced by the "olympic", a double gauss design which was reissued in 2000 for the Nikon RF remake. Reputedly that is a fantastic lens.
Edited on Nov 21, 2016 at 01:46 PM · View previous versions
uhoh7 wrote
OMGI'll make a guess: you never owned an original Jupiter 3.
Earlier quote
I've never even seen a plus, but a wide variety of users who do know the original say the build is way better. No comparison, they claim. Some note their C-sonnars developed the famous wobble in short orderEarlier quote
Brian Sweeny who has seen literally hundreds of 5cm Sonnars of all flavors felt the build was excellent and more important, his calibration was spot on, which is huge, as the the originals are all over the place on the M body. Equally huge is the .7 CF.Earlier quote
Your complaint about the aperture ring not having any clicks and very easy to accidentally move: that's the way the originals are, both German and Russian, and Sonnetar too I'm afraid. So I have to wonder, did you get a bad copy? Did you expect a modern lens or a modern re-issue, which is what it is. I certainly respect your opinion, but for others interested, I suggest you compare impressions on the build at RFF and Leicaplace, as honestly this is the first negative take on the construction I've heard.Earlier quote
The whole thing is made from chrome-plated solid brass, and those who know the old J3 or just old LTM lenses seem delighted with it.Earlier quote
Anyway I'm sorry you had such a bad experience.OK points taken
Love the Mao reference, but I have no plans to have you interned for dissent now you have expressed an outlying view, as happened back then Two ZM lenses here; 35/2 and 18/4, both are fine, no wobble, I love them. But some who did have to deal with that screamed: ZM is crap don't buy them etc, almost as poetically as you
No castigation intended, and for sure you need to call it as you see it regardless. You have those little nikkors 5cm, etc, so you know the era. Are they LTM or Nikon/Contax? Just curious.
Perhaps what you see is what DDD and others saw with the superior Nikkor builds in 1950, which caused them to leave Zeiss.
So besides the aperture ring, what were the worst aspects?
I guess what I'm really wondering to myself is are you upset with what are basically design elements of the original? Back in the day, there were obviously some Nikkor designers in 1948 who felt the same way as you about the aperture.
DSC01098 by unoh7, on Flickr
The russians simply took the factory, and made the lens as best they could as a nearly exact copy. Not so the guys at Nikkor:
CZJ and progeny by unoh7, on Flickr
Note aperture ring on CZJ vs Nikkor. The Nikkor is very precise with clicks. The CZJ is clickless and very easy to move with little tabs. Build on the CZJ is not as good. Which do I prefer using? The CZJ by far because the ring moves so easy. You can change it without losing focus. This is impossible on the Nikkor or the Sonnetar. Common all three is that the "throw" of the aperture ring varies incredibly. Tiny space between F/8 and F/16, huge space between WO and f/2.
The nikkor became the fastest lens in the world for 135 film for a brief time. Dante Stella has a nice write up:
HERE
DSC01569-2 by unoh7, on Flickr
What he fails to get across is this lens can, at times, make the wildest bokeh WO I have ever seen--no swirl though. I made a album so you can see of these:
HERE
On the stock A7r:
Vic by unoh7, on Flickr
M9:
L1007300 by unoh7, on Flickr
Those are when it's in a good mood
What does he smell? by unoh7, on Flickr
This again is on the M9 so CF is one meter. With a Hawks CF adapter it will really make some shapes.
Sharpness sort of across the frame I have only seen happen when the focus is close, as Dante notes. Note snow flakes:
L1007379 by unoh7, on Flickr
UPDATE: at first I had a Sonnetar f/8 image here, My Bad, sorry Nikkor
Let's compare fast v slow across the frame:
Nikkor_5cm_f2+ by unoh7, WO i think
Nikkor_5cm_f8 by unoh7, more likely 5.6
and here again you can see why sonnar experts like Brian Sweeney call the nikkor's bokeh harsher than other sonnars:
L1055009-2 by unoh7, on Flickr
That to my eye is very ugly, but some of the previous samples I like very much.
Many famous photos in LIFE during the 50s were taken with this lens. It was replaced by the "olympic", a double gauss design which was reissued in 2000 for the Nikon RF remake. Reputedly that is a fantastic lens.
Edited on Nov 21, 2016 at 01:46 PM · View previous versions
Nov 20, 2016 at 12:03 PM
p.24 #5C-sonnar!
Since the C-sonar seems to loved for its rendering of portraits, how does it compare to the Rokkor 58/1.2? I am interested, because I recently purchased the Rokkor, and unlike the C-sonnar, it is sharp from f2 on up but still has lovely bokeh. I would have no hesitation using the Rokkor for landscapes as well as portraits. Its main drawback for me is weight. That is one solid lens.
Rob
Rob
Nov 20, 2016 at 02:37 PM
p.24 #6C-sonnar!
50mm Sonnar Bokeh from the two badboys of the genre, Nikkor 5cm and Sonnetar
Nikkor 5cm Sonnar WO by unoh7, on Flickr
Sonnetar WO by unoh7, on Flickr
I love that a retired telescope designer, famed Miyazaki san, now singlehandedly imagines all sorts of interesting tiny lenses for Leica M, then specs, builds and sells them. He will also put anything appropriate into an M calibrated helicoid by special order.
His champion, the anti-Huff
Nikkor 5cm Sonnar WO by unoh7, on Flickr
Sonnetar WO by unoh7, on Flickr
I love that a retired telescope designer, famed Miyazaki san, now singlehandedly imagines all sorts of interesting tiny lenses for Leica M, then specs, builds and sells them. He will also put anything appropriate into an M calibrated helicoid by special order.
His champion, the anti-Huff
Nov 21, 2016 at 11:14 PM
p.24 #7C-sonnar!
Warning: long post. Short version: Although I have an implacable hatred of the Jupiter 3+ 50/1.5, clickless aperture rings, and the Contax/Nikon/Pentax focusing direction, I have a high regard and a warm affection for the Sonnar-type lenses that Nikon made in LTM mount.
uhoh7 wrote:
OK points taken Love the Mao reference, but I have no plans to have you interned for dissent now you have expressed an outlying view, as happened back then
Very impressed that you caught the subtext of the Mao reference. I originally had a brief explanation of the consequences for dissidents who fell for Mao's sly manoeuvre and a statement about how I was now waiting for the 3am knock on the door by the FSU Lens Police. But I decided this was unnecessarily provocative (and hyperbolic, even by my standards).
Two ZM lenses here; 35/2 and 18/4, both are fine, no wobble, I love them. But some who did have to deal with that screamed: ZM is crap don't buy them etc, almost as poetically as you
Touché!
No castigation intended, and for sure you need to call it as you see it regardless. You have those little nikkors 5cm, etc, so you know the era. Are they LTM or Nikon/Contax? Just curious.
LTM. The Contax focusing direction is an automatic disqualifier. My first film SLR was a Nikkormat FTn, which was followed by Nikon F and F2 bodies. But then I bought a Leica M2 and quickly became annoyed by the opposite focusing directions of the Leica and Nikon lenses. I solved that problem by replacing the Nikon gear with a Canon F1 system.
After a long hiatus from doing "serious" photography, I bought a Nikon D300 and then a D700 because I preferred the build quality of the Nikon bodies to that of Canon. But, believe it or not, the only modern Nikon lens I really loved was the AF Nikkor 28mm f/1.4D. Once I stumbled upon FredMiranda.com and discovered the Alt religion, I converted without hesitation. At that time Nikon's register distance made it a poor choice for using anything other than Nikon legacy lenses. Why stay with Nikon when all those Canon FD(n), Konica AR, Leica R, Minolta MD, and Olympus OM lenses were beckoning? All of which focus in the same direction. As JohnJ wrote a few weeks ago in another thread: "Damn Nikon, a pox on them and their focusing direction."
Perhaps what you see is what DDD and others saw with the superior Nikkor builds in 1950, which caused them to leave Zeiss.
According to Tale 36 in the One Thousand and One Nights of Nikkor, it was the sharpness and contrast of the 8.5cm f/2 Nikkor which had so impressed Duncan that he arranged to visit the Nippon Kogaku factory. But once there he purchased the 5cm f/1.5 and 13.5cm f/3.5 lenses. I recall reading somewhere else that he thought the Nikkor lenses would stand up better to the rigours of combat photography.
My first Japanese 50mm lens in LTM mount was the Canon 50/1.4, an amazingly good lens given how little it costs. But then came the Fujinon L 50/2, which I bought after seeing some images posted on RFF. I was stunned by its performance, handling, and build quality. So that was really the gateway drug that led to my buying the other LTM 50's I mentioned earlier. Once I'd learned from Dante Stella and other sources about the lenses that Nikon had made in LTM mount I picked up a Nikkor H.C. 50/2, primarily because of its gentler bokeh. And, because I liked it so much, another as a spare. It's such a sweet lens and the LTM version, unlike the Contax, focuses down to 18 inches.
I was baffled as to how this could be focused accurately on a Leica but Tale 34 explains that "Though not interlocked with the rangefinder, it is possible to measure short distance of approx. 50cm with a measure or to move the entire camera in regards to parallax handling."
So besides the aperture ring, what were the worst aspects?
Apart from the clickless aperture, I don't think its price is justified by the build quality. But, to be honest, on reflection I accept that I'm the idiot who has only himself to blame. Why did I expect anything different from Lomography, who represent the gold -- or at least the chrome-plated solid brass -- standard in purveying style at the expense of substance?
I guess what I'm really wondering to myself is are you upset with what are basically design elements of the original? Back in the day, there were obviously some Nikkor designers in 1948 who felt the same way as you about the aperture.
I'm upset with the clickless aperture which, because I don't shoot video, is a bug for me, not a feature. Most of all though, I'm grateful that those Nikkor designers manufactured these marvellous lenses in LTM as well as Contax mounts. Currently, I can't decide whether to start looking for a copy the 8.5cm f/2 or the 10.5cm f/2.5. I already have the Canon 100/2 but the Nikkor 8.5cm lens seems hard to find and the 10.5cm lens has that very appealing tripod foot.
The russians simply took the factory, and made the lens as best they could as a nearly exact copy. Not so the guys at Nikkor.
As Vladimir Horowitz is reputed to have said when he gave two students in a piano competition 10 out of 10 and the rest zero: "Some people can play the piano and other people can't."
Note aperture ring on CZJ vs Nikkor. The Nikkor is very precise with clicks. The CZJ is clickless and very easy to move with little tabs. Build on the CZJ is not as good. Which do I prefer using? The CZJ by far because the ring moves so easy. You can change it without losing focus. This is impossible on the Nikkor or the Sonnetar. Common all three is that the "throw" of the aperture ring varies incredibly. Tiny space between F/8 and F/16, huge space between WO and f/2.
Changing the aperture without losing focus isn't an issue with the TAP but the ease with which one can change a clickless aperture accidentally is. Out of my LTM 50's, only the Nikkor H.C. 50/2 and the Hexanon 50/1.9 have the variable throw aperture rings. All the rest have evenly spaced aperture values.
The nikkor became the fastest lens in the world for 135 film for a brief time. Dante Stella has a nice write up:
HERE
As I mentioned it was Dante Stella's article, which provides useful capsule reviews of the 50-135 LTM Nikkors, that convinced me to try the H.C. 5cm f/2.
What he fails to get across is this lens can, at times, make the wildest bokeh WO I have ever seen--no swirl though.
Frequent online references to the wild bokeh of the 50/1.4 pushed me towards the 50/2. But... the bokeh in the final picture in your post (sharp flowers in the lower right, OOF trees in the upper left and center), which you describe as "very ugly" to your eye, doesn't offend me at all. Time to start looking for an S.C. 5cm f/1.4, I guess.
Sharpness sort of across the frame I have only seen happen when the focus is close, as Dante notes.
That's been my experience with the (Sonnar-type) Nikkor H.C. 5cm f/2 also:
Edited on Aug 06, 2017 at 12:38 AM · View previous versions
uhoh7 wrote:
OK points taken
Love the Mao reference, but I have no plans to have you interned for dissent now you have expressed an outlying view, as happened back then Very impressed that you caught the subtext of the Mao reference. I originally had a brief explanation of the consequences for dissidents who fell for Mao's sly manoeuvre and a statement about how I was now waiting for the 3am knock on the door by the FSU Lens Police. But I decided this was unnecessarily provocative (and hyperbolic, even by my standards).
Two ZM lenses here; 35/2 and 18/4, both are fine, no wobble, I love them. But some who did have to deal with that screamed: ZM is crap don't buy them etc, almost as poetically as you
Touché!
No castigation intended, and for sure you need to call it as you see it regardless. You have those little nikkors 5cm, etc, so you know the era. Are they LTM or Nikon/Contax? Just curious.
LTM. The Contax focusing direction is an automatic disqualifier. My first film SLR was a Nikkormat FTn, which was followed by Nikon F and F2 bodies. But then I bought a Leica M2 and quickly became annoyed by the opposite focusing directions of the Leica and Nikon lenses. I solved that problem by replacing the Nikon gear with a Canon F1 system.
After a long hiatus from doing "serious" photography, I bought a Nikon D300 and then a D700 because I preferred the build quality of the Nikon bodies to that of Canon. But, believe it or not, the only modern Nikon lens I really loved was the AF Nikkor 28mm f/1.4D. Once I stumbled upon FredMiranda.com and discovered the Alt religion, I converted without hesitation. At that time Nikon's register distance made it a poor choice for using anything other than Nikon legacy lenses. Why stay with Nikon when all those Canon FD(n), Konica AR, Leica R, Minolta MD, and Olympus OM lenses were beckoning? All of which focus in the same direction. As JohnJ wrote a few weeks ago in another thread: "Damn Nikon, a pox on them and their focusing direction."
Perhaps what you see is what DDD and others saw with the superior Nikkor builds in 1950, which caused them to leave Zeiss.
According to Tale 36 in the One Thousand and One Nights of Nikkor, it was the sharpness and contrast of the 8.5cm f/2 Nikkor which had so impressed Duncan that he arranged to visit the Nippon Kogaku factory. But once there he purchased the 5cm f/1.5 and 13.5cm f/3.5 lenses. I recall reading somewhere else that he thought the Nikkor lenses would stand up better to the rigours of combat photography.
My first Japanese 50mm lens in LTM mount was the Canon 50/1.4, an amazingly good lens given how little it costs. But then came the Fujinon L 50/2, which I bought after seeing some images posted on RFF. I was stunned by its performance, handling, and build quality. So that was really the gateway drug that led to my buying the other LTM 50's I mentioned earlier. Once I'd learned from Dante Stella and other sources about the lenses that Nikon had made in LTM mount I picked up a Nikkor H.C. 50/2, primarily because of its gentler bokeh. And, because I liked it so much, another as a spare. It's such a sweet lens and the LTM version, unlike the Contax, focuses down to 18 inches.
I was baffled as to how this could be focused accurately on a Leica but Tale 34 explains that "Though not interlocked with the rangefinder, it is possible to measure short distance of approx. 50cm with a measure or to move the entire camera in regards to parallax handling."
So besides the aperture ring, what were the worst aspects?
Apart from the clickless aperture, I don't think its price is justified by the build quality. But, to be honest, on reflection I accept that I'm the idiot who has only himself to blame. Why did I expect anything different from Lomography, who represent the gold -- or at least the chrome-plated solid brass -- standard in purveying style at the expense of substance?
I guess what I'm really wondering to myself is are you upset with what are basically design elements of the original? Back in the day, there were obviously some Nikkor designers in 1948 who felt the same way as you about the aperture.
I'm upset with the clickless aperture which, because I don't shoot video, is a bug for me, not a feature. Most of all though, I'm grateful that those Nikkor designers manufactured these marvellous lenses in LTM as well as Contax mounts. Currently, I can't decide whether to start looking for a copy the 8.5cm f/2 or the 10.5cm f/2.5. I already have the Canon 100/2 but the Nikkor 8.5cm lens seems hard to find and the 10.5cm lens has that very appealing tripod foot.
The russians simply took the factory, and made the lens as best they could as a nearly exact copy. Not so the guys at Nikkor.
As Vladimir Horowitz is reputed to have said when he gave two students in a piano competition 10 out of 10 and the rest zero: "Some people can play the piano and other people can't."
Note aperture ring on CZJ vs Nikkor. The Nikkor is very precise with clicks. The CZJ is clickless and very easy to move with little tabs. Build on the CZJ is not as good. Which do I prefer using? The CZJ by far because the ring moves so easy. You can change it without losing focus. This is impossible on the Nikkor or the Sonnetar. Common all three is that the "throw" of the aperture ring varies incredibly. Tiny space between F/8 and F/16, huge space between WO and f/2.
Changing the aperture without losing focus isn't an issue with the TAP but the ease with which one can change a clickless aperture accidentally is. Out of my LTM 50's, only the Nikkor H.C. 50/2 and the Hexanon 50/1.9 have the variable throw aperture rings. All the rest have evenly spaced aperture values.
The nikkor became the fastest lens in the world for 135 film for a brief time. Dante Stella has a nice write up:
HERE
As I mentioned it was Dante Stella's article, which provides useful capsule reviews of the 50-135 LTM Nikkors, that convinced me to try the H.C. 5cm f/2.
What he fails to get across is this lens can, at times, make the wildest bokeh WO I have ever seen--no swirl though.
Frequent online references to the wild bokeh of the 50/1.4 pushed me towards the 50/2. But... the bokeh in the final picture in your post (sharp flowers in the lower right, OOF trees in the upper left and center), which you describe as "very ugly" to your eye, doesn't offend me at all. Time to start looking for an S.C. 5cm f/1.4, I guess.
Sharpness sort of across the frame I have only seen happen when the focus is close, as Dante notes.
That's been my experience with the (Sonnar-type) Nikkor H.C. 5cm f/2 also:
Edited on Aug 06, 2017 at 12:38 AM · View previous versions
Nov 22, 2016 at 01:29 AM
p.24 #8C-sonnar!
uhoh7 wrote:
I guess what I'm really wondering to myself is are you upset with what are basically design elements of the original? Back in the day, there were obviously some Nikkor designers in 1948 who felt the same way as you about the aperture.
The russians simply took the factory, and made the lens as best they could as a nearly exact copy. Not so the guys at Nikkor:
i owned a nikkor H.C. 50/2 and currently own an OG jupiter-3. the difference in build is yuuuge! the nikkor is a thing of beauty and the body of the commie lens is one step above tinfoil. it still makes pretty pictures though.
robgo2 wrote:
Since the C-sonar seems to loved for its rendering of portraits, how does it compare to the Rokkor 58/1.2? I am interested, because I recently purchased the Rokkor, and unlike the C-sonnar, it is sharp from f2 on up but still has lovely bokeh. I would have no hesitation using the Rokkor for landscapes as well as portraits. Its main drawback for me is weight. That is one solid lens.
Rob
i like the rokkor better for portraits, but it's close. you could carry an extra 5 of the zm as backup with the space and weight saving over the rokkor + adapter though.
I guess what I'm really wondering to myself is are you upset with what are basically design elements of the original? Back in the day, there were obviously some Nikkor designers in 1948 who felt the same way as you about the aperture.
The russians simply took the factory, and made the lens as best they could as a nearly exact copy. Not so the guys at Nikkor:
i owned a nikkor H.C. 50/2 and currently own an OG jupiter-3. the difference in build is yuuuge! the nikkor is a thing of beauty and the body of the commie lens is one step above tinfoil. it still makes pretty pictures though.
robgo2 wrote:
Since the C-sonar seems to loved for its rendering of portraits, how does it compare to the Rokkor 58/1.2? I am interested, because I recently purchased the Rokkor, and unlike the C-sonnar, it is sharp from f2 on up but still has lovely bokeh. I would have no hesitation using the Rokkor for landscapes as well as portraits. Its main drawback for me is weight. That is one solid lens.
Rob
i like the rokkor better for portraits, but it's close. you could carry an extra 5 of the zm as backup with the space and weight saving over the rokkor + adapter though.
Nov 23, 2016 at 12:51 AM
p.24 #9C-sonnar!
sebboh wrote:
i owned a nikkor H.C. 50/2 and currently own an OG jupiter-3. the difference in build is yuuuge! the nikkor is a thing of beauty and the body of the commie lens is one step above tinfoil. it still makes pretty pictures though.
Wish I'd thought of characterizing the Jupiter 3+ as "the commie lens"...
i owned a nikkor H.C. 50/2 and currently own an OG jupiter-3. the difference in build is yuuuge! the nikkor is a thing of beauty and the body of the commie lens is one step above tinfoil. it still makes pretty pictures though.
Wish I'd thought of characterizing the Jupiter 3+ as "the commie lens"...
Nov 23, 2016 at 05:06 AM
p.24 #10C-sonnar!
genji wrote:
Very impressed that you caught the subtext of the Mao reference.
I confess: in around 1970 I was in 7th or 8th grade. Besides learning photography in a darkroom helped by a wonderful art teacher, I used to march around like a character in "Good girls Revolt", army jacket, long hair.....and wait for it, a little red book. You know the one. Of course I really had no idea how many had died in the great leap forward or the cultural revolution which was just starting.
The Contax focusing direction is an automatic disqualifier. My first film SLR was a Nikkormat FTn, which was followed by Nikon F and F2 bodies. But then I bought a Leica M2 and quickly became annoyed by the opposite focusing directions of the Leica and Nikon lenses. I solved that problem by replacing the Nikon gear with a Canon F1 system.
I hear you. Very annoying to reverse the focus direction. I think it may be useful for some to consider a amedeo adapter however, which takes the Contax/Nikon mount to M, because the Contax and Nikon mounts are so dead, it's way easier to find great copies of these lenses for much less money. The adapter is 200ish. RF coupled, but there is one for each mount, nikon and contax, since the Nikon designers did screw up in copying the contax mount and for 50+ they are not compatible in coupling, WA is fine though. But with A7x issue is moot. The 85. 105 and 135 mount on the same adapter or body but "externally", and focus becomes quite heavy on the amedeo. However there are 20USD cheap adapters just for this mount which go directly to Emount. Nikon made both Contax and Nikon versions of these long RF lenses, and you have a "C" on the Contax ones printed on the lens barrel. You know this i bet, but others may not.
My first serious camera was a brand new FTb I never heard or understood about Leicas and other RF cameras until......this century, I'm ashamed to admit
According to Tale 36 in the One Thousand and One Nights of Nikkor, it was the sharpness and contrast of the 8.5cm f/2 Nikkor which had so impressed Duncan that he arranged to visit the Nippon Kogaku factory. But once there he purchased the 5cm f/1.5 and 13.5cm f/3.5 lenses. I recall reading somewhere else that he thought the Nikkor lenses would stand up better to the rigours of combat photography.
the rest of the story:
Japan Camera by unoh7, on Flickr
That was not so easy to find. It is the most influential document in the history of the Japanese camera industry. In one day the American market opened to the idea of Japanese lenses and cameras. It's worth a very close read
picked up a Nikkor H.C. 50/2, primarily because of its gentler bokeh. And, because I liked it so much, another as a spare. It's such a sweet lens and the LTM version, unlike the Contax, focuses down to 18 inches.
I was baffled as to how this could be focused accurately on a Leica but Tale 34 explains that "Though not interlocked with the rangefinder, it is possible to measure short distance of approx. 50cm with a measure or to move the entire camera in regards to parallax handling."
I did not know this, great point
Apart from the clickless aperture, I don't think its price is justified by the build quality. But, to be honest, on reflection I accept that I'm the idiot who has only himself to blame. Why did I expect anything different from Lomography, who represent the gold -- or at least the chrome-plated solid brass -- standard in purveying style at the expense of substance?
When the lens was announced there was much screaming to both of these points. Lomography is poser crap and 650 is outrageous. Of course these same people at RFF considered all Sony cameras in a similar light when I joined with a Nex-5, not the price but everything else. Anyway I've followed the release closely, and my impression became:
It's a reissue in M, made of brass, of the soviet copy with some new marks and .7 CF, which is put together carefully and has modern coatings. (this in no way contradicts your dislike)
As to the price: finding a good clean J-3 can mean alot of time and some money. They do exist, but many bad copies are out there. This lens is made in very low numbers. Considering those points, 650 is not outrageous if you want one. It's a brand new lens, not a 70 year old one. etc. 400 bucks would be nicer.
ICurrently, I can't decide whether to start looking for a copy the 8.5cm f/2 or the 10.5cm f/2.5. I already have the Canon 100/2 but the Nikkor 8.5cm lens seems hard to find and the 10.5cm lens has that very appealing tripod foot.
Entanglement by unoh7, on Flickr
Note cheap adapter which works great on the "C" (or nikkor-s)
This. 105s are great too, but to my eye this is the masterpiece and as you note it's the lens which caught DDD's attention. Technically, it is way beyond any of these sonnar 50s old or new. This is a very beat copy, I got both those lenses for 80 bucks. Performance astonished me.
DSC09621 by unoh7, on Flickr
DSC09624 by unoh7, on Flickr
DSC09617 by unoh7, on Flickr
above at F2 below f/8:
DSC09634 by unoh7, on Flickr
In my admittedly questionable opinion, this is one smoking hot 85, then, now, any day, by any standard. I've used a bunch of SLR nikkors and today the 180 ED is my frontline lens at that range. It's nasty bokeh is widely noted. Only two newer nikkors I have shot reach the heights of the old 85/2: 300/2.8 EDIF and 500/4p. Their bokeh, no leica glass I own can match. Fortunate, since DOF is always tiny
Funny enough DDD did not use the 85/2 himself, far as I can tell, in daily reporting. His "money lens" was:
Nikkor S 13.5cm by unoh7, on Flickr
This is another Sonnar, which drew high praise in the article above. Replaced the 135/4 in 1950 or 51. He also used it Vietnam. Many of his most iconic shots were made with it. Superior to the Zeiss and Leica counterparts in every way, until the introduction of the TE 135/4 (way heavier), which became the benchmark 135 (only APO is better today). That nikkor was made in 5 mounts and the formula stayed in production untill 1983, I think. Longest lived single sonar formula. Very cheap today.
Anyway, genji, it's so fun to compare notes with somebody else who loves and uses a bunch of these old lenses
Very impressed that you caught the subtext of the Mao reference.
I confess: in around 1970 I was in 7th or 8th grade. Besides learning photography in a darkroom helped by a wonderful art teacher, I used to march around like a character in "Good girls Revolt", army jacket, long hair.....and wait for it, a little red book. You know the one. Of course I really had no idea how many had died in the great leap forward or the cultural revolution which was just starting. The Contax focusing direction is an automatic disqualifier. My first film SLR was a Nikkormat FTn, which was followed by Nikon F and F2 bodies. But then I bought a Leica M2 and quickly became annoyed by the opposite focusing directions of the Leica and Nikon lenses. I solved that problem by replacing the Nikon gear with a Canon F1 system.
I hear you. Very annoying to reverse the focus direction. I think it may be useful for some to consider a amedeo adapter however, which takes the Contax/Nikon mount to M, because the Contax and Nikon mounts are so dead, it's way easier to find great copies of these lenses for much less money. The adapter is 200ish. RF coupled, but there is one for each mount, nikon and contax, since the Nikon designers did screw up in copying the contax mount and for 50+ they are not compatible in coupling, WA is fine though. But with A7x issue is moot. The 85. 105 and 135 mount on the same adapter or body but "externally", and focus becomes quite heavy on the amedeo. However there are 20USD cheap adapters just for this mount which go directly to Emount. Nikon made both Contax and Nikon versions of these long RF lenses, and you have a "C" on the Contax ones printed on the lens barrel. You know this i bet, but others may not.
My first serious camera was a brand new FTb
I never heard or understood about Leicas and other RF cameras until......this century, I'm ashamed to admit According to Tale 36 in the One Thousand and One Nights of Nikkor, it was the sharpness and contrast of the 8.5cm f/2 Nikkor which had so impressed Duncan that he arranged to visit the Nippon Kogaku factory. But once there he purchased the 5cm f/1.5 and 13.5cm f/3.5 lenses. I recall reading somewhere else that he thought the Nikkor lenses would stand up better to the rigours of combat photography.
the rest of the story:
Japan Camera by unoh7, on Flickr
That was not so easy to find. It is the most influential document in the history of the Japanese camera industry. In one day the American market opened to the idea of Japanese lenses and cameras. It's worth a very close read
picked up a Nikkor H.C. 50/2, primarily because of its gentler bokeh. And, because I liked it so much, another as a spare. It's such a sweet lens and the LTM version, unlike the Contax, focuses down to 18 inches.
I was baffled as to how this could be focused accurately on a Leica but Tale 34 explains that "Though not interlocked with the rangefinder, it is possible to measure short distance of approx. 50cm with a measure or to move the entire camera in regards to parallax handling."
I did not know this, great point
Apart from the clickless aperture, I don't think its price is justified by the build quality. But, to be honest, on reflection I accept that I'm the idiot who has only himself to blame. Why did I expect anything different from Lomography, who represent the gold -- or at least the chrome-plated solid brass -- standard in purveying style at the expense of substance?
When the lens was announced there was much screaming to both of these points. Lomography is poser crap and 650 is outrageous. Of course these same people at RFF considered all Sony cameras in a similar light when I joined with a Nex-5, not the price but everything else. Anyway I've followed the release closely, and my impression became:
It's a reissue in M, made of brass, of the soviet copy with some new marks and .7 CF, which is put together carefully and has modern coatings. (this in no way contradicts your dislike)
As to the price: finding a good clean J-3 can mean alot of time and some money. They do exist, but many bad copies are out there. This lens is made in very low numbers. Considering those points, 650 is not outrageous if you want one. It's a brand new lens, not a 70 year old one. etc. 400 bucks would be nicer.
ICurrently, I can't decide whether to start looking for a copy the 8.5cm f/2 or the 10.5cm f/2.5. I already have the Canon 100/2 but the Nikkor 8.5cm lens seems hard to find and the 10.5cm lens has that very appealing tripod foot.
Entanglement by unoh7, on FlickrNote cheap adapter which works great on the "C" (or nikkor-s)
This. 105s are great too, but to my eye this is the masterpiece and as you note it's the lens which caught DDD's attention. Technically, it is way beyond any of these sonnar 50s old or new. This is a very beat copy, I got both those lenses for 80 bucks. Performance astonished me.
DSC09621 by unoh7, on Flickr
DSC09624 by unoh7, on Flickr
DSC09617 by unoh7, on Flickr
above at F2 below f/8:
DSC09634 by unoh7, on Flickr
In my admittedly questionable opinion, this is one smoking hot 85, then, now, any day, by any standard.
I've used a bunch of SLR nikkors and today the 180 ED is my frontline lens at that range. It's nasty bokeh is widely noted. Only two newer nikkors I have shot reach the heights of the old 85/2: 300/2.8 EDIF and 500/4p. Their bokeh, no leica glass I own can match. Fortunate, since DOF is always tiny Funny enough DDD did not use the 85/2 himself, far as I can tell, in daily reporting. His "money lens" was:
Nikkor S 13.5cm by unoh7, on Flickr
This is another Sonnar, which drew high praise in the article above. Replaced the 135/4 in 1950 or 51. He also used it Vietnam. Many of his most iconic shots were made with it. Superior to the Zeiss and Leica counterparts in every way, until the introduction of the TE 135/4 (way heavier), which became the benchmark 135 (only APO is better today). That nikkor was made in 5 mounts and the formula stayed in production untill 1983, I think. Longest lived single sonar formula. Very cheap today.
Anyway, genji, it's so fun to compare notes with somebody else who loves and uses a bunch of these old lenses
Nov 23, 2016 at 11:55 AM
|
p.24 #11C-sonnar!
uhoh7 wrote:
I confess: in around 1970 I was in 7th or 8th grade. Besides learning photography in a darkroom helped by a wonderful art teacher, I used to march around like a character in "Good girls Revolt", army jacket, long hair.....and wait for it, a little red book. You know the one. Of course I really had no idea how many had died in the great leap forward or the cultural revolution which was just starting.
Hahah, I had one too! I think it might have disappeared when I had my house decluttered a couple of years ago. Nor did I have any idea about what really happened in China in those years -- I was totally fooled by Jean-Luc Godard's Marxist-period films. I still love Godard's movies but only from Breathless (1960) to Two or Three Things I Know About Her (1967), although I have a soft spot for one "commie" (as Sebboh might say) film, Le gai savoir (1969).
I hear you. Very annoying to reverse the focus direction. I think it may be useful for some to consider a amedeo adapter however, which takes the Contax/Nikon mount to M, because the Contax and Nikon mounts are so dead, it's way easier to find great copies of these lenses for much less money. The adapter is 200ish. RF coupled, but there is one for each mount, nikon and contax, since the Nikon designers did screw up in copying the contax mount and for 50+ they are not compatible in coupling, WA is fine though. But with A7x issue is moot....Show more →
I've only known about the Contax/Nikon mount compatibility issues since this morning when I decided to investigate the Amedeo adapters after reading your post in my "Cleaning Marks and Scratches" thread (which I read before catching up with this thread). I think that the Amedeo adapters are very reasonably priced but am a little confused about which I should purchase. I asked about this in the other thread. Good to know that the 85mm-135mm lenses are heavy on the "normal" Amedeo adapter. I'm wondering if I'd be better off with the Amedeo Nikon/Contax to Sony E adapter for these lenses, even though that means I wouldn't be able to use the Techart PRO.
That was not so easy to find. It is the most influential document in the history of the Japanese camera industry. In one day the American market opened to the idea of Japanese lenses and cameras. It's worth a very close read
Good Golly Miss Molly, what an amazing find! I used to buy and read Modern Photography and Popular Photography every month through the seventies. Marty Forscher, who praised the build quality of both the Nikon bodies and lenses, was the most highly regarded camera repairman in New York even twenty years later.
Note cheap adapter which works great on the "C" (or nikkor-s)
This. 105s are great too, but to my eye this is the masterpiece and as you note it's the lens which caught DDD's attention. Technically, it is way beyond any of these sonnar 50s old or new. This is a very beat copy, I got both those lenses for 80 bucks. Performance astonished me.
Pretty sure I won't be picking up even a beat copy for $80.
In my admittedly questionable opinion, this is one smoking hot 85, then, now, any day, by any standard. I've used a bunch of SLR nikkors and today the 180 ED is my frontline lens at that range. It's nasty bokeh is widely noted. Only two newer nikkors I have shot reach the heights of the old 85/2: 300/2.8 EDIF and 500/4p. Their bokeh, no leica glass I own can match. Fortunate, since DOF is always tiny
When I had the Nikkor 180 ED, no-one had ever heard of bokeh.
This is another Sonnar, which drew high praise in the article above. Replaced the 135/4 in 1950 or 51. He also used it Vietnam. Many of his most iconic shots were made with it. Superior to the Zeiss and Leica counterparts in every way, until the introduction of the TE 135/4 (way heavier), which became the benchmark 135 (only APO is better today). That nikkor was made in 5 mounts and the formula stayed in production untill 1983, I think. Longest lived single sonar formula. Very cheap today.
135mm is a little too long for me. I have a CZJ Sonnar 135/3.5 and Tair 11A 135/2.8 but I hardly use either, preferring to stay in the 24/25mm to 100/105mm zone (actually, 28mm to 90mm is ideal).
Anyway, genji, it's so fun to compare notes with somebody else who loves and uses a bunch of these old lenses
The pleasure is entirely mutual. As much as I'm looking forward to picking up a Loxia Sonnar 85/2.4, I know in my heart that I'll get a far greater thrill from finding a pristine copy of the Nikkor P.C. 8.5cm f/2.
I confess: in around 1970 I was in 7th or 8th grade. Besides learning photography in a darkroom helped by a wonderful art teacher, I used to march around like a character in "Good girls Revolt", army jacket, long hair.....and wait for it, a little red book. You know the one. Of course I really had no idea how many had died in the great leap forward or the cultural revolution which was just starting.Hahah, I had one too! I think it might have disappeared when I had my house decluttered a couple of years ago. Nor did I have any idea about what really happened in China in those years -- I was totally fooled by Jean-Luc Godard's Marxist-period films. I still love Godard's movies but only from Breathless (1960) to Two or Three Things I Know About Her (1967), although I have a soft spot for one "commie" (as Sebboh might say) film, Le gai savoir (1969).
I hear you. Very annoying to reverse the focus direction. I think it may be useful for some to consider a amedeo adapter however, which takes the Contax/Nikon mount to M, because the Contax and Nikon mounts are so dead, it's way easier to find great copies of these lenses for much less money. The adapter is 200ish. RF coupled, but there is one for each mount, nikon and contax, since the Nikon designers did screw up in copying the contax mount and for 50+ they are not compatible in coupling, WA is fine though. But with A7x issue is moot....Show more →
I've only known about the Contax/Nikon mount compatibility issues since this morning when I decided to investigate the Amedeo adapters after reading your post in my "Cleaning Marks and Scratches" thread (which I read before catching up with this thread). I think that the Amedeo adapters are very reasonably priced but am a little confused about which I should purchase. I asked about this in the other thread. Good to know that the 85mm-135mm lenses are heavy on the "normal" Amedeo adapter. I'm wondering if I'd be better off with the Amedeo Nikon/Contax to Sony E adapter for these lenses, even though that means I wouldn't be able to use the Techart PRO.
That was not so easy to find. It is the most influential document in the history of the Japanese camera industry. In one day the American market opened to the idea of Japanese lenses and cameras. It's worth a very close read
Good Golly Miss Molly, what an amazing find! I used to buy and read Modern Photography and Popular Photography every month through the seventies. Marty Forscher, who praised the build quality of both the Nikon bodies and lenses, was the most highly regarded camera repairman in New York even twenty years later.
Note cheap adapter which works great on the "C" (or nikkor-s)
This. 105s are great too, but to my eye this is the masterpiece and as you note it's the lens which caught DDD's attention. Technically, it is way beyond any of these sonnar 50s old or new. This is a very beat copy, I got both those lenses for 80 bucks. Performance astonished me.
Pretty sure I won't be picking up even a beat copy for $80.
In my admittedly questionable opinion, this is one smoking hot 85, then, now, any day, by any standard.
I've used a bunch of SLR nikkors and today the 180 ED is my frontline lens at that range. It's nasty bokeh is widely noted. Only two newer nikkors I have shot reach the heights of the old 85/2: 300/2.8 EDIF and 500/4p. Their bokeh, no leica glass I own can match. Fortunate, since DOF is always tiny When I had the Nikkor 180 ED, no-one had ever heard of bokeh.
This is another Sonnar, which drew high praise in the article above. Replaced the 135/4 in 1950 or 51. He also used it Vietnam. Many of his most iconic shots were made with it. Superior to the Zeiss and Leica counterparts in every way, until the introduction of the TE 135/4 (way heavier), which became the benchmark 135 (only APO is better today). That nikkor was made in 5 mounts and the formula stayed in production untill 1983, I think. Longest lived single sonar formula. Very cheap today.
135mm is a little too long for me. I have a CZJ Sonnar 135/3.5 and Tair 11A 135/2.8 but I hardly use either, preferring to stay in the 24/25mm to 100/105mm zone (actually, 28mm to 90mm is ideal).
Anyway, genji, it's so fun to compare notes with somebody else who loves and uses a bunch of these old lenses
The pleasure is entirely mutual. As much as I'm looking forward to picking up a Loxia Sonnar 85/2.4, I know in my heart that I'll get a far greater thrill from finding a pristine copy of the Nikkor P.C. 8.5cm f/2.
Nov 25, 2016 at 04:38 AM
p.24 #12C-sonnar!
genji wrote:
I think what gives one a thrill depends in part on accidents of the past. My buying Modern and Pop monthly (along with some of the British mags) was the mid eighties; graduate school days. What I know would thill me more than the Loxia is the Olympus Zuiko 2/100. Now it is meant to be a very fine lens, but I bet it's no Loxia. But I remember reading the first review in Modern, and seeing amazing number by the lights of those times, and agonising about if I could afford it or the 2/90 macro. Never did get one (saved all my newsagent weekend work to get the 2/90) and maybe because of that it's something I often almost pull the trigger on (the review of Philip Reeve's site didn't help my restraint...)
I think what gives one a thrill depends in part on accidents of the past. My buying Modern and Pop monthly (along with some of the British mags) was the mid eighties; graduate school days. What I know would thill me more than the Loxia is the Olympus Zuiko 2/100. Now it is meant to be a very fine lens, but I bet it's no Loxia. But I remember reading the first review in Modern, and seeing amazing number by the lights of those times, and agonising about if I could afford it or the 2/90 macro. Never did get one (saved all my newsagent weekend work to get the 2/90) and maybe because of that it's something I often almost pull the trigger on (the review of Philip Reeve's site didn't help my restraint...)
Nov 25, 2016 at 04:54 AM
p.24 #13C-sonnar!
I picked up a like-new Zeiss 50mm Sonnar f 1.5 ZM lens a few days ago here on FM. So far I have had mixed feelings about keeping it. The plus side is that it is really great for low light inside photos. It has gorgeous Bokeh and really 'painterly' color and rendering (if I can say that). However, it is definitely not a landscape lens. (I am primarily a landscape photographer if I had to categorize) It is really best suited for portraits which I do not often shoot.
Meanwhile it is a very interesting lens that I bought hoping that it would expand my photographic repertoire . Time will tell? I was able to take a few shots before dinner on Thanksgiving day, but was very busy cooking most of the time, so I didn't really get to shoot much.
Archie the Golden Doodle was my only willing portrait subject available before I got busy with dinner prep.
BTW, I am using this lens on a Leica T, 1.5 crop sensor body. I am guessing that using it on a crop sensor has eliminated some of the corner smearing problems that seem to plague full frame A7x users.
I have managed a few test shots in the last couple of days. I must admit the colors seem to be rich, and the Bokeh is sweet. Focus pops in and out confidently making EVF focusing quite easy on the Leica T.
Red Banded Polypore - Fomitopsis pinicola
The Sonnar C is really quite compact - fits nice on the T.
Meanwhile it is a very interesting lens that I bought hoping that it would expand my photographic repertoire . Time will tell? I was able to take a few shots before dinner on Thanksgiving day, but was very busy cooking most of the time, so I didn't really get to shoot much.
Archie the Golden Doodle was my only willing portrait subject available before I got busy with dinner prep.
BTW, I am using this lens on a Leica T, 1.5 crop sensor body. I am guessing that using it on a crop sensor has eliminated some of the corner smearing problems that seem to plague full frame A7x users.
I have managed a few test shots in the last couple of days. I must admit the colors seem to be rich, and the Bokeh is sweet. Focus pops in and out confidently making EVF focusing quite easy on the Leica T.
Red Banded Polypore - Fomitopsis pinicola
The Sonnar C is really quite compact - fits nice on the T.
Nov 27, 2016 at 06:10 AM
p.24 #14C-sonnar!
RickPerry wrote:
I picked up a like-new Zeiss 50mm Sonnar f 1.5 ZM lens a few days ago here on FM. So far I have had mixed feelings about keeping it. The plus side is that it is really great for low light inside photos. It has gorgeous Bokeh and really 'painterly' color and rendering (if I can say that). However, it is definitely not a landscape lens. (I am primarily a landscape photographer if I had to categorize) It is really best suited for portraits which I do not often shoot.
Meanwhile it is a very interesting lens that I...Show more →
It most certainly isn't a landscape lens, so yes it only makes sense for you if your plan to shoot more portrait and close distance wider aperture stuff than before.
The other question I have is that while the central sharpness is adequate at wide apertures on full frame, it doesn't have resolution to spare, as it were, so you might find that while on APS the corners are better (which you won't notice in wide aperture closer distance work) the all important (for this kind of work) central sharpness may be strained by the crop sensors magnification...
I picked up a like-new Zeiss 50mm Sonnar f 1.5 ZM lens a few days ago here on FM. So far I have had mixed feelings about keeping it. The plus side is that it is really great for low light inside photos. It has gorgeous Bokeh and really 'painterly' color and rendering (if I can say that). However, it is definitely not a landscape lens. (I am primarily a landscape photographer if I had to categorize) It is really best suited for portraits which I do not often shoot.
Meanwhile it is a very interesting lens that I...Show more →
It most certainly isn't a landscape lens, so yes it only makes sense for you if your plan to shoot more portrait and close distance wider aperture stuff than before.
The other question I have is that while the central sharpness is adequate at wide apertures on full frame, it doesn't have resolution to spare, as it were, so you might find that while on APS the corners are better (which you won't notice in wide aperture closer distance work) the all important (for this kind of work) central sharpness may be strained by the crop sensors magnification...
Nov 27, 2016 at 03:15 PM
p.24 #15C-sonnar!
David,
You have a valid point I am sure.. What this means to me is that I must fill the frame with the image that I want .. cropping must be little to none.
You have a valid point I am sure.. What this means to me is that I must fill the frame with the image that I want .. cropping must be little to none.
Nov 27, 2016 at 03:24 PM
p.24 #16C-sonnar!
uscmatt99 wrote:
I have both the FE55 and ZM50/1.5 and there's definitely room in the bag for both of them, though I haven't been carrying both at the same time. The FE55 is very predictably good throughout the range, but I personally prefer the look of the Sonnar from 1.5-2.8. I was trying to figure out why, as when zoomed in the FE55 bokeh is really smooth compared to the Sonnar, even with the Sonnar at f/1.7 to take the edge off of the rings. For me, it comes down to the round vs. cat's eye shape at the periphery. I'm just...Show more →
I think you nailed it.
I also have both Sonnar 55/1.8 and Sonnar 50/1.5C.
Resolution-wise throughout the frame, the 55/1.8 will always win but what drives me to shoot with the Sonnar 50/1.5C is better micro/macro contrast and colors. The 55/1.8 is sharp with a very pleasant bokeh but images can look at little muted by comparison. I have created a Lightroom preset that mimics the 50/1.5C 'look' for the 55/1.8. The changes are not big but there is a need for a custom linear curve, contrast, color and vibrance changes.
From my tests, the 50/1.5C is sharp enough at f/1.8. (I've been saying it's f/1.7 but the stop between f/1.5 and f/2 actually measured f/1.8).
At f/2 there is a noticeable bump and at f/2.2 there is a significant bump. At f/2.2, I would say it's just as sharp as the 55/1.8 @f/1.8 (center area)
Another big difference is the shape of the bokeh balls as uscmatt99 wrote. With the Sonnar 50/1.5C, starting at f/1.8, bokeh balls towards the edges look rounded while the 55/1.8's balls are cat-eye shape. The inner area is also much cleaner with the 50/1.5C compared to the 55/1.8 which is onion ring prone.
So, when comparing files side by side, bokeh smoothness looks very similar. Both lenses have impressive smoothness but bokeh ball's quality and shape is really no contest in favor of the Sonnar 50C. Contrast and colors are also superior. LoCA is very similar for both lenses at similar apertures. The 50/1.4 ZA is way better than both.
I have both the FE55 and ZM50/1.5 and there's definitely room in the bag for both of them, though I haven't been carrying both at the same time. The FE55 is very predictably good throughout the range, but I personally prefer the look of the Sonnar from 1.5-2.8. I was trying to figure out why, as when zoomed in the FE55 bokeh is really smooth compared to the Sonnar, even with the Sonnar at f/1.7 to take the edge off of the rings. For me, it comes down to the round vs. cat's eye shape at the periphery. I'm just...Show more →
I think you nailed it.
I also have both Sonnar 55/1.8 and Sonnar 50/1.5C.
Resolution-wise throughout the frame, the 55/1.8 will always win but what drives me to shoot with the Sonnar 50/1.5C is better micro/macro contrast and colors. The 55/1.8 is sharp with a very pleasant bokeh but images can look at little muted by comparison. I have created a Lightroom preset that mimics the 50/1.5C 'look' for the 55/1.8. The changes are not big but there is a need for a custom linear curve, contrast, color and vibrance changes.
From my tests, the 50/1.5C is sharp enough at f/1.8. (I've been saying it's f/1.7 but the stop between f/1.5 and f/2 actually measured f/1.8).
At f/2 there is a noticeable bump and at f/2.2 there is a significant bump. At f/2.2, I would say it's just as sharp as the 55/1.8 @f/1.8 (center area)
Another big difference is the shape of the bokeh balls as uscmatt99 wrote. With the Sonnar 50/1.5C, starting at f/1.8, bokeh balls towards the edges look rounded while the 55/1.8's balls are cat-eye shape. The inner area is also much cleaner with the 50/1.5C compared to the 55/1.8 which is onion ring prone.
So, when comparing files side by side, bokeh smoothness looks very similar. Both lenses have impressive smoothness but bokeh ball's quality and shape is really no contest in favor of the Sonnar 50C. Contrast and colors are also superior. LoCA is very similar for both lenses at similar apertures. The 50/1.4 ZA is way better than both.
Nov 28, 2016 at 12:12 PM
p.24 #17C-sonnar!
Just have to watch off center as the Sonnar falls off quite a bit which in a way is what you want. Something to be aware of
Nov 28, 2016 at 12:18 PM
p.24 #18C-sonnar!
GMPhotography wrote:
Just have to watch off center as the Sonnar falls off quite a bit which in a way is what you want. Something to be aware of
That's the main benefit of the 55/1.8: Great resolution off center even at large apertures. With the 50/1.5C, one must have their subjects as close as possible to the center for a later composition crop in post.
Just have to watch off center as the Sonnar falls off quite a bit which in a way is what you want. Something to be aware of
That's the main benefit of the 55/1.8: Great resolution off center even at large apertures. With the 50/1.5C, one must have their subjects as close as possible to the center for a later composition crop in post.
Nov 28, 2016 at 12:22 PM
p.24 #19C-sonnar!
Really the bigger difference between the 2 . The Sonnar is a special unique lens
Nov 28, 2016 at 12:27 PM
p.24 #20C-sonnar!
Fred Miranda wrote:
My wife and I spent a couple weeks in Spain, and my kit usually boiled down to either the A7II with a FE16-35 and FE55, or the A7m (Kolari vII) with the ZM25/2.8, ZM35/2.8, and ZM50/1.5. The AF combo is easy to shoot and the lenses have pretty predictable performance across the frame, best at f/5.6-8. The ZM's are tricky even with the mod, but I have to say that at the pixel level, carefully focused, the ZM25/35 combo is visibly better than the zoom, and I have a pretty good 16-35 copy even at 35mm.
I need to do a side-by-side of the ZM50 on A7m and FE55 on A7II, as I wonder if the ZM50 is giving up a bit with the unmodified sensor. However for evening photos, I carried the ZM50 on the A7II to take advantage of the IBIS and keep my shutter speeds up, and I was happy with mid to long distance "moody" shots from f/1.7-2.8 at night as long as I cropped to 4x5. The corners of the frame can indeed get ugly with this lens until well stopped down, and even then it can't touch the FE55.I think you nailed it.
I also have both Sonnar 55/1.8 and Sonnar 50/1.5C.
Resolution-wise throughout the frame, the 55/1.8 will always win but what drives me to shoot with the Sonnar 50/1.5C is better micro/macro contrast and colors. The 55/1.8 is sharp with a very pleasant bokeh but images can look at little muted by comparison. I have created a Lightroom preset that mimics the 50/1.5C 'look' for the 55/1.8. The changes are not big but there is a need for a custom linear curve, contrast, color and vibrance changes.
From my tests, the 50/1.5C is sharp enough at...Show more →
Excellent exposition Fred.
uscmatt99 wrote
I have both the FE55 and ZM50/1.5 and there's definitely room in the bag for both of them, though I haven't been carrying both at the same time. The FE55 is very predictably good throughout the range, but I personally prefer the look of the Sonnar from 1.5-2.8. I was trying to figure out why, as when zoomed in the FE55 bokeh is really smooth compared to the Sonnar, even with the Sonnar at f/1.7 to take the edge off of the rings. For me, it comes down to the round vs. cat's eye shape at the periphery. I'm just not a huge fan of the swirly look, and the Sonnar is one of the few bokeh character lenses I find appealing. Different strokes I guess.My wife and I spent a couple weeks in Spain, and my kit usually boiled down to either the A7II with a FE16-35 and FE55, or the A7m (Kolari vII) with the ZM25/2.8, ZM35/2.8, and ZM50/1.5. The AF combo is easy to shoot and the lenses have pretty predictable performance across the frame, best at f/5.6-8. The ZM's are tricky even with the mod, but I have to say that at the pixel level, carefully focused, the ZM25/35 combo is visibly better than the zoom, and I have a pretty good 16-35 copy even at 35mm.
I need to do a side-by-side of the ZM50 on A7m and FE55 on A7II, as I wonder if the ZM50 is giving up a bit with the unmodified sensor. However for evening photos, I carried the ZM50 on the A7II to take advantage of the IBIS and keep my shutter speeds up, and I was happy with mid to long distance "moody" shots from f/1.7-2.8 at night as long as I cropped to 4x5. The corners of the frame can indeed get ugly with this lens until well stopped down, and even then it can't touch the FE55.
I also have both Sonnar 55/1.8 and Sonnar 50/1.5C.
Resolution-wise throughout the frame, the 55/1.8 will always win but what drives me to shoot with the Sonnar 50/1.5C is better micro/macro contrast and colors. The 55/1.8 is sharp with a very pleasant bokeh but images can look at little muted by comparison. I have created a Lightroom preset that mimics the 50/1.5C 'look' for the 55/1.8. The changes are not big but there is a need for a custom linear curve, contrast, color and vibrance changes.
From my tests, the 50/1.5C is sharp enough at...Show more →
Excellent exposition Fred.
Nov 28, 2016 at 12:44 PM