Mine arrived today. Even after reading it it is still surprising how small/light it is when actually holding it. Focus was dead on with my M240. No light so no real pictures yet. Playing with OOF highlights revealed an interesting characteristic of the lens.
hiepphotog wrote:
This gotta seal the deal for a lot more people on the fence right now. I don't think the Sonnetar 50 is as good. This is the shortest, lightest fast 75.
The nearest comps I can think of are:
- the Lux 75, which is similar speed and FL but much larger, heavier and more expensive. I love the draw though.
- the 77 limited (which is a little slower, much harder to focus accurately, the focus rings turns pentax way, and with adapter it weighs over 400g). I don't like the draw as much. But it's cheaper.
- the Lux 75 apo, which is way better corrected, a stop slower and designed to do something else entirely. I don't prefer it for portraits.
- there's the Sony 85s, but the GM is huge. The FE 85 is still quite a bit bulkier and heavier than the Sonnetar, and I don't like the draw near as much.
- I owned Contarex 85 f2 I really liked, but that's much heavier, as expensive and a stop slower. And hard to find copies in decent condition.
- I owned a CZJ 80 1.8, which I liked but the colors weren't up to CY-era zeiss, and the bokeh was only ok and it was bigger with adapter. Sharpness and size were fine by me.
This lens is terrifically small when you actually use it. And the draw wide open is gorgeous I think.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
The nearest comps I can think of are:
- the Lux 75, which is similar speed and FL but much larger, heavier and more expensive. I love the draw though.
- the 77 limited (which is a little slower, much harder to focus accurately, the focus rings turns pentax way, and with adapter it weighs over 400g). I don't like the draw as much. But it's cheaper.
- the Lux 75 apo, which is way better corrected, a stop slower and designed to do something else entirely. I don't prefer it for portraits.
- there's the Sony 85s, but the GM is huge. The FE 85 is still quite a bit bulkier and heavier than the Sonnetar, and I don't like the draw near as much.
- I owned Contarex 85 f2 I really liked, but that's much heavier, as expensive and a stop slower. And hard to find copies in decent condition.
- I owned a CZJ 80 1.8, which I liked but the colors weren't up to CY-era zeiss, and the bokeh was only ok and it was bigger with adapter. Sharpness and size were fine by me.
This lens is terrifically small when you actually use it. And the draw wide open is gorgeous I think. ...Show more →
If size and weight is a priority, Pentax DA 70 LTD would be a great contender. With adapter, it's about as light but shorter. I really wish Pentax would do a mirrorless system since they seem to be the only one care about making a whole set of great pancake lenses.
sfogg wrote:
Mine arrived today. Even after reading it it is still surprising how small/light it is when actually holding it. Focus was dead on with my M240. No light so no real pictures yet. Playing with OOF highlights revealed an interesting characteristic of the lens.
Strange! Also interesting that the CoC's are not cut off at all towards the corners, which could indicate a larger image circle. Maybe it would work nicely on the 33x44 mm MF sensors?
Edit: Oh, maybe it's just because the images were shot at MFD? Then the image circle is larger, of course.
Makten wrote:
Strange! Also interesting that the CoC's are not cut off at all towards the corners, which could indicate a larger image circle. Maybe it would work nicely on the 33x44 mm MF sensors?
Edit: Oh, maybe it's just because the images were shot at MFD? Then the image circle is larger, of course.
Was shot a MFD but also it is a crop from a larger picture.
Thanks to a recommendation from @nehemiahphoto, I received one of these lenses today.
One note on filter size: if you take a 49mm filter and put it on backwards, it fits, and the hood screws into the filter. A 55mm lens cap fits on the hood (the hood is pretty short and doesn't offer a lot of protection by itself). I haven't played around with the coma settings, which seem similar in function to the Minolta 85mm Varisoft, and am leaving it at 3 for now. Amazingly small and light, and so far I'm loving it.
bjhurley wrote:
Thanks to a recommendation from @nehemiahphoto@, I received one of these lenses today.
One note on filter size: if you take a 49mm filter and put it on backwards, it fits, and the hood screws into the filter. A 55mm lens cap fits on the hood (the hood is pretty short and doesn't offer a lot of protection by itself). I haven't played around with the coma settings, which seem similar in function to the Minolta 85mm Varisoft, and am leaving it at 3 for now. Amazingly small and light, and so far I'm loving it.
Here's a photo I took with it this morning. I've been playing with the coma setting and it's currently at 2, which does make it hard to assess focus especially at close distances; I didn't quite nail it with this one (I was aiming for the farther tulip and focus is almost but not quite there). I'm going to set it back to 3, which is where I've always left it.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Thinking about trying this lens. Anyone still own it?
Was rather happy to have sold it.
What it does to light circles at f/1.5 (see @sfogg@'s post) was unacceptable for me.
Not my favorite MS-Optics lens.
BastianK wrote:
Was rather happy to have sold it.
What it does to light circles at f/1.5 (see @sfogg@@'s post) was unacceptable for me.
Not my favorite MS-Optics lens.
I have never seen such effect from another lens.
I wonder if the bokeh weirdness could be tamed by tweaking the coma setting on the lens.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I wonder if the bokeh weirdness could be tamed by tweaking the coma setting on the lens.
My experience with the Coma adjustment ring on 3 different MS-Optics lenses (1.1/50, 1.5/73, 2.4/135):
They don't do much towards actually improving/altering the image quality, but they can be used to slightly adjust (or totally screw up) the rangefinder calibration.
Don't mean to discourage you from getting the lens though, maybe you will like it more than I did,
but for me, owning the VM 75mm 1.5, I saw no reason to keep the 73mm 1.5, not even for its smaller size.
BastianK wrote:
My experience with the Coma adjustment ring on 3 different MS-Optics lenses (1.1/50, 1.5/73, 2.4/135):
They don't do much towards actually improving/altering the image quality, but they can be used to slightly adjust (or totally screw up) the rangefinder calibration.
Don't mean to discourage you from getting the lens though, maybe you will like it more than I did,
but for me, owning the VM 75mm 1.5, I saw no reason to keep the 73mm 1.5, not even for its smaller size.
Perhaps what they call 'coma' adjustment is just a RF coupling adjustment similar to what TTA provides?
Fred Miranda wrote:
Perhaps what they call 'coma' adjustment is just a RF coupling adjustment similar to what TTA provides?
Not quite, actually.
When using those "coma adjustment rings", which in case of the 1.1/50 and 1.5/73 means nothing but slightly unscrewing the rear element/group,
you do change the optical formula a bit (which doesn't happen with the 7a/TTA lenses with a rangefinder adjustment ring).
With the 50mm 1.1 and 135mm 2.4 I checked if different settings improve the coma performance but that wasn't really the case.
For the 73mm 1.5 you actually need a very thin camera spanner to adjust that ring (at least it was rather stiff on my sample), so I didn't fiddle with it overly much.
I also have my doubts that the effect you see at f/1.5 is actually coma, as it even occurs in the center of the frame and is stronger in the midframe versus the corners.
And it goes away completely on stopping down to f/2.0 (over all of the frame) whereas the coma around point light sources changes only slightly between f/1.5 and f/2.0.
I don't have a really great explanation what it is though. Maybe SA, maybe some internal reflections that are blocked by the diaphragm on stopping down, maybe a combination of all of that.
BastianK wrote:
Not quite, actually.
When using those "coma adjustment rings", which in case of the 1.1/50 and 1.5/73 means nothing but slightly unscrewing the rear element/group,
you do change the optical formula a bit (which doesn't happen with the 7a/TTA lenses with a rangefinder adjustment ring).
With the 50mm 1.1 and 135mm 2.4 I checked if different settings improve the coma performance but that wasn't really the case.
For the 73mm 1.5 you actually need a very thin camera spanner to adjust that ring (at least it was rather stiff on my sample), so I didn't fiddle with it overly much.
I also have my doubts that the effect you see at f/1.5 is actually coma, as it even occurs in the center of the frame and is stronger in the midframe versus the corners.
And it goes away completely on stopping down to f/2.0 (over all of the frame) whereas the coma around point light sources changes only slightly between f/1.5 and f/2.0.
I don't have a really great explanation what it is though. Maybe SA, maybe some internal reflections that are blocked by the diaphragm on stopping down, maybe a combination of all of that....Show more →
I own the lens, and I have a slightly different take (going from memory). Yes it does change the spacing of the rear element as you are unscrewing it essentially. I didn’t need a spanner on my copy, but it is pretty stiff so you have to be careful if you use a pen or something like that (which I have without issue). I can’t remember where I saw it, but the rear element being moved changes the performance at a set distance. Therefore it changes the bokeh and overall the image—it’s appreciably softer. When I tripod tested it a couple years ago when I first fiddled with a coma settings, there is an appreciable difference in softness. I’m not sure if it is coma, a combination, or spherical abrasions. To me it appears like increased SA. The lens can already be a bit difficult to focus, when you switch the Coma setting it gets a whole lot less contrasty.
I will see if I can find my crops, If not, I can do a couple samples on a tripod over the weekend if two are curious. Also, I don’t know what the affect is on the bokeh either, but it’s pretty odd and can be annoying. As an aside, the Sonnetar offers excellent coverage on the GFX oddly.
The reason to own the Sonnetar, aside from the size, is that it offers a completely different image than the CV 75/1.5. That’s the biggest reason to own MS-Optical lenses in my opinion. Second is size. Every one of them is overpriced, underperforming with poor ergonomics of the four I have owned when compared objectively. But the images are very unique. I really like the 73 images despite some drawbacks.
My main complaint with the lens is that it keeps falling apart, but I keep a screwdriver in my bag to tighten the screws; I should just put a small dab of loctite on the ones that come loose but I don't want to risk getting that stuff near the optics.
I agree about the coma adjustment: it's easy enough to do (I have a blunt metal probe from an old dissecting kit that works perfectly) but it can have a huge impact. But once you find the sweet spot it can have beautiful bokeh; see for example:
There's a new 50mm Sonnetar from Miyazaki as well, but I'm not tempted. I'm pretty happy with the 73, especially for portraits, despite it being a bit hard to focus.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
The reason to own the Sonnetar, aside from the size, is that it offers a completely different image than the CV 75/1.5. That’s the biggest reason to own MS-Optical lenses in my opinion. Second is size. Every one of them is overpriced, underperforming with poor ergonomics of the four I have owned when compared objectively. But the images are very unique. I really like the 73 images despite some drawbacks.
I fully agree with this. I own 4 MS-Optics lenses.
They are very light, ergonomically mostly poor (often an understatement...), sometimes fall apart in 6-7 pieces, they can under certain conditions be rather underwhelming but when used under the right conditions they can give very pleasing and unique results.
They definitely also have a learning curve but I am glad they exist.
Also interesting that the CoC's are not cut off at all towards the corners, which could indicate a larger image circle. Maybe it would work nicely on the 33x44 mm MF sensors? 
