C-sonnar!
p.29 #1C-sonnar!
Yes! From ‘perfect’ RF focus, I can accurately focus at f1.5 by very slightly turn the focusing ring counter clockwise. For f/2.8 I go the opposite direction. (Clockwise from perfect focus)
It’s more challenging but it works. Of course no issue using EVF.
Bertrick wrote:
My Sonnar C is optimized at f/2 and I learned to do what Fred is describing above to refocus it a bit at f/1.5. I found I could do that (by knowing how far off the "rangefinder perfect" needed to look) more consistently than the lean-forward-a-bit method. My Sonnar 50mm in Nikon rangefinder mount version is optimized at who knows what? The arguments about whether it was ever really made for Nikon mount or Contax mount confuse the issue too.
This lens in either mount is a major reason that I switched to Sony mirrorless years ago. Now there is no...Show more →
It’s more challenging but it works. Of course no issue using EVF.
Bertrick wrote:
My Sonnar C is optimized at f/2 and I learned to do what Fred is describing above to refocus it a bit at f/1.5. I found I could do that (by knowing how far off the "rangefinder perfect" needed to look) more consistently than the lean-forward-a-bit method. My Sonnar 50mm in Nikon rangefinder mount version is optimized at who knows what? The arguments about whether it was ever really made for Nikon mount or Contax mount confuse the issue too.
This lens in either mount is a major reason that I switched to Sony mirrorless years ago. Now there is no...Show more →
Sep 04, 2021 at 11:19 AM
p.29 #2C-sonnar!
The C Sonnar is fantastic on an M film camera, because you just shoot. Once I gave up worrying about focus shift all my pics came out great. Film is much more tolerant to focus shift than digital (at least in my use film M vs digi M).
There are so many other variables in play when you are out actually taking pics instead of inside performing focus tests, that things work out.
There are so many other variables in play when you are out actually taking pics instead of inside performing focus tests, that things work out.
Sep 04, 2021 at 12:24 PM
p.29 #3C-sonnar!
Desmolicious wrote:
The C Sonnar is fantastic on an M film camera, because you just shoot. Once I gave up worrying about focus shift all my pics came out great. Film is much more tolerant to focus shift than digital (at least in my use film M vs digi M).
There are so many other variables in play when you are out actually taking pics instead of inside performing focus tests, that things work out.
I strongly disagree with this. Both my Sonnars show enough shift when shot wide open that film photos are not usable. I remember being quite disappointed my first couple rolls. So I shoot two CV lenses, 35/2 and 75/1.5. Zero focus shift, everything looks great on film.
Maybe if mine was optimized for f2, it would be usable at 1.5 as film is more forgiving
The C Sonnar is fantastic on an M film camera, because you just shoot. Once I gave up worrying about focus shift all my pics came out great. Film is much more tolerant to focus shift than digital (at least in my use film M vs digi M).
There are so many other variables in play when you are out actually taking pics instead of inside performing focus tests, that things work out.
I strongly disagree with this. Both my Sonnars show enough shift when shot wide open that film photos are not usable. I remember being quite disappointed my first couple rolls. So I shoot two CV lenses, 35/2 and 75/1.5. Zero focus shift, everything looks great on film.
Maybe if mine was optimized for f2, it would be usable at 1.5 as film is more forgiving
Sep 04, 2021 at 12:40 PM
p.29 #4C-sonnar!
nehemiahphoto wrote:
There are so many other variables in play when you are out actually taking pics instead of inside performing focus tests, that things work out.I strongly disagree with this. Both my Sonnars show enough shift when shot wide open that film photos are not usable. I remember being quite disappointed my first couple rolls. So I shoot two CV lenses, 35/2 and 75/1.5. Zero focus shift, everything looks great on film.
Maybe if mine was optimized for f2, it would be usable at 1.5 as film is more forgiving
Where is yours optimized? I luckily don't see the issues you do.
Desmolicious wrote
The C Sonnar is fantastic on an M film camera, because you just shoot. Once I gave up worrying about focus shift all my pics came out great. Film is much more tolerant to focus shift than digital (at least in my use film M vs digi M).There are so many other variables in play when you are out actually taking pics instead of inside performing focus tests, that things work out.
Maybe if mine was optimized for f2, it would be usable at 1.5 as film is more forgiving
Where is yours optimized? I luckily don't see the issues you do.
Sep 04, 2021 at 12:51 PM
p.29 #5C-sonnar!
Check if your copy has shims. If it does, try removing the thinnest one. However if needs a thin shim, you can make one out of aluminum foil.
To test this, shoot a target with your rangefinder and check the accuracy comparing RF with the back LCD. Place your target at 1m. Mine is optimized for f/2 but f/1.7 is almost the same.
This stuff is more noticeable on the 40MB M10-R.
What I love about the 50 F1.5 Sonnar is the high level of contrast on axis and the low optical vignetting compared to other fast 50mm lenses. (even rendering, round bokeh even towards the edges)
nehemiahphoto wrote:
There are so many other variables in play when you are out actually taking pics instead of inside performing focus tests, that things work out.I strongly disagree with this. Both my Sonnars show enough shift when shot wide open that film photos are not usable. I remember being quite disappointed my first couple rolls. So I shoot two CV lenses, 35/2 and 75/1.5. Zero focus shift, everything looks great on film.
Maybe if mine was optimized for f2, it would be usable at 1.5 as film is more forgiving
To test this, shoot a target with your rangefinder and check the accuracy comparing RF with the back LCD. Place your target at 1m. Mine is optimized for f/2 but f/1.7 is almost the same.
This stuff is more noticeable on the 40MB M10-R.
What I love about the 50 F1.5 Sonnar is the high level of contrast on axis and the low optical vignetting compared to other fast 50mm lenses. (even rendering, round bokeh even towards the edges)
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Desmolicious wrote
The C Sonnar is fantastic on an M film camera, because you just shoot. Once I gave up worrying about focus shift all my pics came out great. Film is much more tolerant to focus shift than digital (at least in my use film M vs digi M).There are so many other variables in play when you are out actually taking pics instead of inside performing focus tests, that things work out.
Maybe if mine was optimized for f2, it would be usable at 1.5 as film is more forgiving
Sep 04, 2021 at 12:52 PM
p.29 #6C-sonnar!
Desmolicious wrote:
There are so many other variables in play when you are out actually taking pics instead of inside performing focus tests, that things work out.I strongly disagree with this. Both my Sonnars show enough shift when shot wide open that film photos are not usable. I remember being quite disappointed my first couple rolls. So I shoot two CV lenses, 35/2 and 75/1.5. Zero focus shift, everything looks great on film.
Maybe if mine was optimized for f2, it would be usable at 1.5 as film is more forgivingWhere is yours optimized? I luckily don't see the issues you do.
2.8
nehemiahphoto wrote
Desmolicious wrote
The C Sonnar is fantastic on an M film camera, because you just shoot. Once I gave up worrying about focus shift all my pics came out great. Film is much more tolerant to focus shift than digital (at least in my use film M vs digi M).There are so many other variables in play when you are out actually taking pics instead of inside performing focus tests, that things work out.
Maybe if mine was optimized for f2, it would be usable at 1.5 as film is more forgiving
2.8
Sep 04, 2021 at 12:53 PM
p.29 #7C-sonnar!
Bertrick wrote:
My Sonnar C is optimized at f/2 and I learned to do what Fred is describing above to refocus it a bit at f/1.5. I found I could do that (by knowing how far off the "rangefinder perfect" needed to look) more consistently than the lean-forward-a-bit method. My Sonnar 50mm in Nikon rangefinder mount version is optimized at who knows what? The arguments about whether it was ever really made for Nikon mount or Contax mount confuse the issue too.
This lens in either mount is a major reason that I switched to Sony mirrorless years ago. Now there is no...Show more →
With the Amedeo S to M adapter my Nikon S-mount 50/1.4 and 50/2 lenses focus with perfect accuracy on my Leica M bodies.
My Sonnar C is optimized at f/2 and I learned to do what Fred is describing above to refocus it a bit at f/1.5. I found I could do that (by knowing how far off the "rangefinder perfect" needed to look) more consistently than the lean-forward-a-bit method. My Sonnar 50mm in Nikon rangefinder mount version is optimized at who knows what? The arguments about whether it was ever really made for Nikon mount or Contax mount confuse the issue too.
This lens in either mount is a major reason that I switched to Sony mirrorless years ago. Now there is no...Show more →
With the Amedeo S to M adapter my Nikon S-mount 50/1.4 and 50/2 lenses focus with perfect accuracy on my Leica M bodies.
Sep 04, 2021 at 06:37 PM
p.29 #8C-sonnar!
genji wrote:
This lens in either mount is a major reason that I switched to Sony mirrorless years ago. Now there is no focus shift at all!.With the Amedeo S to M adapter my Nikon S-mount 50/1.4 and 50/2 lenses focus with perfect accuracy on my Leica M bodies.
which do you like better?
Bertrick wrote
My Sonnar C is optimized at f/2 and I learned to do what Fred is describing above to refocus it a bit at f/1.5. I found I could do that (by knowing how far off the "rangefinder perfect" needed to look) more consistently than the lean-forward-a-bit method. My Sonnar 50mm in Nikon rangefinder mount version is optimized at who knows what? The arguments about whether it was ever really made for Nikon mount or Contax mount confuse the issue too.This lens in either mount is a major reason that I switched to Sony mirrorless years ago. Now there is no focus shift at all!
.which do you like better?
Sep 05, 2021 at 10:52 AM
p.29 #9C-sonnar!
genji wrote:
With the Amedeo S to M adapter my Nikon S-mount 50/1.4 and 50/2 lenses focus with perfect accuracy on my Leica M bodies.
This fits with how the lens was marketed, as a Nikon S. In my case, I found it among my Dad's lenses and really did not know what it was when I was shooting on a Leica M8.2. After some Googling, I figured it was a S mount and I already had the Voigtlander close focus adapter, so I got a Voigtlander S to M mount, and stacked that on the close focus adapter and I works very well on my Sony A7ii and A7iii. I have read excellent comments about that Amedeo adapter! I think the Nikon S mount Sonnar 1.5 was an afterthought when Cosina was making the Sonnar C. I have read that it is exactly the same optics, just a different mount.
With the Amedeo S to M adapter my Nikon S-mount 50/1.4 and 50/2 lenses focus with perfect accuracy on my Leica M bodies.
This fits with how the lens was marketed, as a Nikon S. In my case, I found it among my Dad's lenses and really did not know what it was when I was shooting on a Leica M8.2. After some Googling, I figured it was a S mount and I already had the Voigtlander close focus adapter, so I got a Voigtlander S to M mount, and stacked that on the close focus adapter and I works very well on my Sony A7ii and A7iii. I have read excellent comments about that Amedeo adapter! I think the Nikon S mount Sonnar 1.5 was an afterthought when Cosina was making the Sonnar C. I have read that it is exactly the same optics, just a different mount.
Sep 05, 2021 at 03:23 PM
p.29 #10C-sonnar!
Fred Miranda wrote:
Check if your copy has shims. If it does, try removing the thinnest one. However if needs a thin shim, you can make one out of aluminum foil.
To test this, shoot a target with your rangefinder and check the accuracy comparing RF with the back LCD. Place your target at 1m. Mine is optimized for f/2 but f/1.7 is almost the same.
This stuff is more noticeable on the 40MB M10-R.
What I love about the 50 F1.5 Sonnar is the high level of contrast on axis and the low optical vignetting compared to other fast 50mm lenses. (even rendering, round...Show more →
There are so many other variables in play when you are out actually taking pics instead of inside performing focus tests, that things work out.I strongly disagree with this. Both my Sonnars show enough shift when shot wide open that film photos are not usable. I remember being quite disappointed my first couple rolls. So I shoot two CV lenses, 35/2 and 75/1.5. Zero focus shift, everything looks great on film.
Maybe if mine was optimized for f2, it would be usable at 1.5 as film is more forgiving
No shims…
Check if your copy has shims. If it does, try removing the thinnest one. However if needs a thin shim, you can make one out of aluminum foil.
To test this, shoot a target with your rangefinder and check the accuracy comparing RF with the back LCD. Place your target at 1m. Mine is optimized for f/2 but f/1.7 is almost the same.
This stuff is more noticeable on the 40MB M10-R.
What I love about the 50 F1.5 Sonnar is the high level of contrast on axis and the low optical vignetting compared to other fast 50mm lenses. (even rendering, round...Show more →
nehemiahphoto wrote
Desmolicious wrote
The C Sonnar is fantastic on an M film camera, because you just shoot. Once I gave up worrying about focus shift all my pics came out great. Film is much more tolerant to focus shift than digital (at least in my use film M vs digi M).There are so many other variables in play when you are out actually taking pics instead of inside performing focus tests, that things work out.
Maybe if mine was optimized for f2, it would be usable at 1.5 as film is more forgiving
No shims…
Sep 05, 2021 at 03:38 PM
|
p.29 #11C-sonnar!
nehemiahphoto wrote:
To test this, shoot a target with your rangefinder and check the accuracy comparing RF with the back LCD. Place your target at 1m. Mine is optimized for f/2 but f/1.7 is almost the same.
This stuff is more noticeable on the 40MB M10-R.
What I love about the 50 F1.5 Sonnar is the high level of contrast on axis and the low optical vignetting compared to other fast 50mm lenses. (even rendering, round bokeh even towards the edges)
There are so many other variables in play when you are out actually taking pics instead of inside performing focus tests, that things work out.I strongly disagree with this. Both my Sonnars show enough shift when shot wide open that film photos are not usable. I remember being quite disappointed my first couple rolls. So I shoot two CV lenses, 35/2 and 75/1.5. Zero focus shift, everything looks great on film.
Maybe if mine was optimized for f2, it would be usable at 1.5 as film is more forgivingNo shims…
Difficult to adjust without disassembling the lens. If you add a shim to it, it will not adjust the focus shift towards wide open. Zeiss should have used shims to make this adjustment easier for us.
If I had mine optimized for f/2.8 like you do with your copy, I would send it to Zeiss. I'm happy with the f/2 setting though and feel it's a good compromise.
If you use it adapted to a mirrorless body, it's a non-issue.
Fred Miranda wrote
Check if your copy has shims. If it does, try removing the thinnest one. However if needs a thin shim, you can make one out of aluminum foil.To test this, shoot a target with your rangefinder and check the accuracy comparing RF with the back LCD. Place your target at 1m. Mine is optimized for f/2 but f/1.7 is almost the same.
This stuff is more noticeable on the 40MB M10-R.
What I love about the 50 F1.5 Sonnar is the high level of contrast on axis and the low optical vignetting compared to other fast 50mm lenses. (even rendering, round bokeh even towards the edges)
nehemiahphoto wrote
Desmolicious wrote
The C Sonnar is fantastic on an M film camera, because you just shoot. Once I gave up worrying about focus shift all my pics came out great. Film is much more tolerant to focus shift than digital (at least in my use film M vs digi M).There are so many other variables in play when you are out actually taking pics instead of inside performing focus tests, that things work out.
Maybe if mine was optimized for f2, it would be usable at 1.5 as film is more forgiving
Difficult to adjust without disassembling the lens. If you add a shim to it, it will not adjust the focus shift towards wide open. Zeiss should have used shims to make this adjustment easier for us.
If I had mine optimized for f/2.8 like you do with your copy, I would send it to Zeiss. I'm happy with the f/2 setting though and feel it's a good compromise.
If you use it adapted to a mirrorless body, it's a non-issue.
Sep 05, 2021 at 04:00 PM
p.29 #12C-sonnar!
sebboh wrote:
This lens in either mount is a major reason that I switched to Sony mirrorless years ago. Now there is no focus shift at all!.With the Amedeo S to M adapter my Nikon S-mount 50/1.4 and 50/2 lenses focus with perfect accuracy on my Leica M bodies.which do you like better?
The smaller and lighter Nikkor-H.C 5cm f/2. The S.C 5cm f/1.4 is too soft and glowy wide open to be useful for my purposes. If I had the spare funds and the inclination I’d look for a copy of the reformulated 50mm f/1.4 “Olympic” version.
genji wrote
Bertrick wrote
My Sonnar C is optimized at f/2 and I learned to do what Fred is describing above to refocus it a bit at f/1.5. I found I could do that (by knowing how far off the "rangefinder perfect" needed to look) more consistently than the lean-forward-a-bit method. My Sonnar 50mm in Nikon rangefinder mount version is optimized at who knows what? The arguments about whether it was ever really made for Nikon mount or Contax mount confuse the issue too.This lens in either mount is a major reason that I switched to Sony mirrorless years ago. Now there is no focus shift at all!
.The smaller and lighter Nikkor-H.C 5cm f/2. The S.C 5cm f/1.4 is too soft and glowy wide open to be useful for my purposes. If I had the spare funds and the inclination I’d look for a copy of the reformulated 50mm f/1.4 “Olympic” version.
Sep 05, 2021 at 04:14 PM
p.29 #13C-sonnar!
Bertrick wrote:
This fits with how the lens was marketed, as a Nikon S. In my case, I found it among my Dad's lenses and really did not know what it was when I was shooting on a Leica M8.2. After some Googling, I figured it was a S mount and I already had the Voigtlander close focus adapter, so I got a Voigtlander S to M mount, and stacked that on the close focus adapter and I works very well on my Sony A7ii and A7iii. I have read excellent comments about that Amedeo adapter! I think the Nikon S mount...Show more →
The Amedeo adapter is expensive but the build quality is superb and it works perfectly, even converting the “wrong” Nikon/Contax focusing direction to the correct Leica direction. I also have LTM versions of the 5cm f/1.4 and 5cm f/2 which I used on an A7R2 with the Techart Pro.
genji wrote
With the Amedeo S to M adapter my Nikon S-mount 50/1.4 and 50/2 lenses focus with perfect accuracy on my Leica M bodies.The Amedeo adapter is expensive but the build quality is superb and it works perfectly, even converting the “wrong” Nikon/Contax focusing direction to the correct Leica direction. I also have LTM versions of the 5cm f/1.4 and 5cm f/2 which I used on an A7R2 with the Techart Pro.
Sep 05, 2021 at 04:19 PM
p.29 #14C-sonnar!
Fred Miranda wrote:
To test this, shoot a target with your rangefinder and check the accuracy comparing RF with the back LCD. Place your target at 1m. Mine is optimized for f/2 but f/1.7 is almost the same.
This stuff is more noticeable on the 40MB M10-R.
What I love about the 50 F1.5 Sonnar is the high level of contrast on axis and the low optical vignetting compared to other fast 50mm lenses. (even rendering, round bokeh even towards the edges)
There are so many other variables in play when you are out actually taking pics instead of inside performing focus tests, that things work out.I strongly disagree with this. Both my Sonnars show enough shift when shot wide open that film photos are not usable. I remember being quite disappointed my first couple rolls. So I shoot two CV lenses, 35/2 and 75/1.5. Zero focus shift, everything looks great on film.
Maybe if mine was optimized for f2, it would be usable at 1.5 as film is more forgivingNo shims…Difficult to adjust without disassembling the lens. If you add a shim to it, it will not adjust the focus shift towards wide open. Zeiss should have used shims to make this adjustment easier for us.
If I had mine optimized for f/2.8 like you do with your copy, I would send it to Zeiss. I'm happy with the f/2 setting though and feel it's a good compromise.
If you use it adapted to a mirrorless body, it's a non-issue.
Yeah, I do shoot on film. It was bad on the m240 as well for WO shooting. Like I mentioned above, I should send it in to Zeiss and just pay a bit (and wait).
nehemiahphoto wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
Check if your copy has shims. If it does, try removing the thinnest one. However if needs a thin shim, you can make one out of aluminum foil.To test this, shoot a target with your rangefinder and check the accuracy comparing RF with the back LCD. Place your target at 1m. Mine is optimized for f/2 but f/1.7 is almost the same.
This stuff is more noticeable on the 40MB M10-R.
What I love about the 50 F1.5 Sonnar is the high level of contrast on axis and the low optical vignetting compared to other fast 50mm lenses. (even rendering, round bokeh even towards the edges)
nehemiahphoto wrote
Desmolicious wrote
The C Sonnar is fantastic on an M film camera, because you just shoot. Once I gave up worrying about focus shift all my pics came out great. Film is much more tolerant to focus shift than digital (at least in my use film M vs digi M).There are so many other variables in play when you are out actually taking pics instead of inside performing focus tests, that things work out.
Maybe if mine was optimized for f2, it would be usable at 1.5 as film is more forgiving
If I had mine optimized for f/2.8 like you do with your copy, I would send it to Zeiss. I'm happy with the f/2 setting though and feel it's a good compromise.
If you use it adapted to a mirrorless body, it's a non-issue.
Yeah, I do shoot on film. It was bad on the m240 as well for WO shooting. Like I mentioned above, I should send it in to Zeiss and just pay a bit (and wait).
Sep 05, 2021 at 04:34 PM
p.29 #15C-sonnar!
nehemiahphoto wrote:
To test this, shoot a target with your rangefinder and check the accuracy comparing RF with the back LCD. Place your target at 1m. Mine is optimized for f/2 but f/1.7 is almost the same.
This stuff is more noticeable on the 40MB M10-R.
What I love about the 50 F1.5 Sonnar is the high level of contrast on axis and the low optical vignetting compared to other fast 50mm lenses. (even rendering, round bokeh even towards the edges)
There are so many other variables in play when you are out actually taking pics instead of inside performing focus tests, that things work out.I strongly disagree with this. Both my Sonnars show enough shift when shot wide open that film photos are not usable. I remember being quite disappointed my first couple rolls. So I shoot two CV lenses, 35/2 and 75/1.5. Zero focus shift, everything looks great on film.
Maybe if mine was optimized for f2, it would be usable at 1.5 as film is more forgivingNo shims…Difficult to adjust without disassembling the lens. If you add a shim to it, it will not adjust the focus shift towards wide open. Zeiss should have used shims to make this adjustment easier for us.
If I had mine optimized for f/2.8 like you do with your copy, I would send it to Zeiss. I'm happy with the f/2 setting though and feel it's a good compromise.
If you use it adapted to a mirrorless body, it's a non-issue.Yeah, I do shoot on film. It was bad on the m240 as well for WO shooting. Like I mentioned above, I should send it in to Zeiss and just pay a bit (and wait).
I've played with this a little bit today. Here are my thoughts...
It's easy to make the optimization yourself. All you need is a lens spanner tool, like this one:
-- At your own risk --
1) unscrew the rear optical core by rotating the retention ring CCW with the spanner tool. It will come out very easily.
Once the ring comes off, the entire optical core can be separated. Great design, easy to maintain the lens. See image:
2) My lens copy (latest model) only had 2 shims and it was optimized for f/2. My first attempt was to remove one of the shims but it overshoots...meaning the stack gets too thin and the RF is no longer optimal for any aperture. So, I tried 1 original shim + a thinner one to get to f/1.5 optimization so I had to make a thin shim. (More on that below)
In your case, since your lens is optimized at f/2.8, your copy may have 3 shims, so if that’s the case, all you need to do is remove one of them to get to f/2 optimization. If you want to go f/1.5....read on...
3) You will need to manufacture your own shims. I did it with a soda can and heavy duty aluminum foil. The former is thinner than the original lens shim and the latter is for fine tuning if needed since it's so thin. (The foil shim was not even needed after all)
Here are some images showing the process:
Soda can. Beer works too! 
…easy material to find around the house that is easy to cut with regular scissors.
Top: Heavy duty aluminum foil, Bottom: Soda Can
-----
I wanted to optimize my copy for f/1.5 and as a first attempt, I left one original shim + a "soda can" one. This did the trick!!
My lens is now optimized for f/1.5. It may be what it takes for your copy as well or you can go the easier route and have it optimized for f/2 with 2 original shims.
If you send it to Zeiss they will probably remove two shims and add an additional thinner one. Very likely they won't use a soda can!
You can let them do it or do it yourself in about 20 minutes time. Let me know if you have any questions about this process.
Good luck, Fred
Fred Miranda wrote
nehemiahphoto wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
Check if your copy has shims. If it does, try removing the thinnest one. However if needs a thin shim, you can make one out of aluminum foil.To test this, shoot a target with your rangefinder and check the accuracy comparing RF with the back LCD. Place your target at 1m. Mine is optimized for f/2 but f/1.7 is almost the same.
This stuff is more noticeable on the 40MB M10-R.
What I love about the 50 F1.5 Sonnar is the high level of contrast on axis and the low optical vignetting compared to other fast 50mm lenses. (even rendering, round bokeh even towards the edges)
nehemiahphoto wrote
Desmolicious wrote
The C Sonnar is fantastic on an M film camera, because you just shoot. Once I gave up worrying about focus shift all my pics came out great. Film is much more tolerant to focus shift than digital (at least in my use film M vs digi M).There are so many other variables in play when you are out actually taking pics instead of inside performing focus tests, that things work out.
Maybe if mine was optimized for f2, it would be usable at 1.5 as film is more forgiving
If I had mine optimized for f/2.8 like you do with your copy, I would send it to Zeiss. I'm happy with the f/2 setting though and feel it's a good compromise.
If you use it adapted to a mirrorless body, it's a non-issue.
I've played with this a little bit today. Here are my thoughts...
It's easy to make the optimization yourself. All you need is a lens spanner tool, like this one:
-- At your own risk --
1) unscrew the rear optical core by rotating the retention ring CCW with the spanner tool. It will come out very easily.
Once the ring comes off, the entire optical core can be separated. Great design, easy to maintain the lens. See image:
2) My lens copy (latest model) only had 2 shims and it was optimized for f/2. My first attempt was to remove one of the shims but it overshoots...meaning the stack gets too thin and the RF is no longer optimal for any aperture. So, I tried 1 original shim + a thinner one to get to f/1.5 optimization so I had to make a thin shim. (More on that below)
In your case, since your lens is optimized at f/2.8, your copy may have 3 shims, so if that’s the case, all you need to do is remove one of them to get to f/2 optimization. If you want to go f/1.5....read on...
3) You will need to manufacture your own shims. I did it with a soda can and heavy duty aluminum foil. The former is thinner than the original lens shim and the latter is for fine tuning if needed since it's so thin. (The foil shim was not even needed after all)
Here are some images showing the process:
…easy material to find around the house that is easy to cut with regular scissors.-----
I wanted to optimize my copy for f/1.5 and as a first attempt, I left one original shim + a "soda can" one. This did the trick!!
My lens is now optimized for f/1.5. It may be what it takes for your copy as well or you can go the easier route and have it optimized for f/2 with 2 original shims.
If you send it to Zeiss they will probably remove two shims and add an additional thinner one. Very likely they won't use a soda can!
You can let them do it or do it yourself in about 20 minutes time. Let me know if you have any questions about this process.
Good luck, Fred
Sep 06, 2021 at 12:37 PM
p.29 #16C-sonnar!
Fred Miranda wrote:
If you send it to Zeiss they will probably remove two shims and add an additional thinner one. Very likely they won't use a soda can!
you can get sheet metal shimming material of various thicknesses pretty cheap on amazon (or other places), if you don't want to go the soda can route.
If you send it to Zeiss they will probably remove two shims and add an additional thinner one. Very likely they won't use a soda can!
you can get sheet metal shimming material of various thicknesses pretty cheap on amazon (or other places), if you don't want to go the soda can route.
Sep 06, 2021 at 01:15 PM
p.29 #17C-sonnar!
sebboh wrote:
you can get sheet metal shimming material of various thicknesses pretty cheap on amazon (or other places), if you don't want to go the soda can route.
Thank you! Do you have a link for us? It's a good idea.
Fred Miranda wrote
If you send it to Zeiss they will probably remove two shims and add an additional thinner one. Very likely they won't use a soda can!Thank you! Do you have a link for us? It's a good idea.
Sep 06, 2021 at 02:01 PM
p.29 #18C-sonnar!
Fred Miranda wrote:
you can get sheet metal shimming material of various thicknesses pretty cheap on amazon (or other places), if you don't want to go the soda can route.Thank you! Do you have a link for us? It's a good idea.
here is one. there might be better/cheaper ones out there.
sebboh wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
If you send it to Zeiss they will probably remove two shims and add an additional thinner one. Very likely they won't use a soda can!here is one. there might be better/cheaper ones out there.
Sep 06, 2021 at 03:00 PM
p.29 #19C-sonnar!
That’s for the link! Not sure how easy it would be to cut brass. Probably can’t be done with regular scissors, not sure. Perhaps grinding will be needed for precision. Aluminum cans and foil paper sound cheesy but work quite well.
Either way the process is the same and work for many lenses.
sebboh wrote:
you can get sheet metal shimming material of various thicknesses pretty cheap on amazon (or other places), if you don't want to go the soda can route.Thank you! Do you have a link for us? It's a good idea.here is one. there might be better/cheaper ones out there.
Either way the process is the same and work for many lenses.
sebboh wrote:
Fred Miranda wrote
sebboh wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
If you send it to Zeiss they will probably remove two shims and add an additional thinner one. Very likely they won't use a soda can!Sep 06, 2021 at 06:41 PM
p.29 #20C-sonnar!
Fred Miranda wrote:
That’s for the link! Not sure how easy it would be to cut brass. Probably can’t be done with regular scissors, not sure. Perhaps grinding will be needed for precision. Aluminum cans and foil paper sound cheesy but work quite well.
Either way the process is the same and work for many lenses.
you can get sheet metal shimming material of various thicknesses pretty cheap on amazon (or other places), if you don't want to go the soda can route.Thank you! Do you have a link for us? It's a good idea.here is one. there might be better/cheaper ones out there.
they cut easy with scissors, even the carbon steel ones.
That’s for the link! Not sure how easy it would be to cut brass. Probably can’t be done with regular scissors, not sure. Perhaps grinding will be needed for precision. Aluminum cans and foil paper sound cheesy but work quite well.
Either way the process is the same and work for many lenses.
sebboh wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
sebboh wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
If you send it to Zeiss they will probably remove two shims and add an additional thinner one. Very likely they won't use a soda can!they cut easy with scissors, even the carbon steel ones.
Sep 06, 2021 at 11:36 PM