I think the Summitar looks soft low contarst even with the hood. The summicron I like. The elmar and tessar look similar to me I don't mind either. I just hate leica summarit so I sold it . I like summaron 3.5cm I tink its a little soft but I still like it.
I have sonnar on rollei 35s and indeed they are very different. I bought the rollei after fall in love with low price and saturated colors.
But I think Summitar is like an old painting , I agree with smoothness and low profile colors but its degrades , so long degrades and relief effect and night performance is not with sonnar. If you took intense colors film , a slide film and sonnar is so good but not classical feeling , its like wall mural modern.
I love with Contax , Biogon.
I'd agree with that description about the 6-element 50/2 Sonnar design, from my limited experience (mostly with the Nikkor-HC version in LTM), but the 7-element 50/1.5 with slide film strikes me as very "classical"-looking. It depends greatly on the lighting, though; looking quickly over the shots I've used it for, I find that my favorites are either from hazy days or in oblique lighting. On a bright sunny day, the Nikkor seems to handle the contrast in a more "right"-looking way. All IMHO, of course, and with a lot of other confounding variables.
Originally Posted by Mustafa Umut Sarac
San Diego, CA, USA
The lady of the house has to be a pretty swell sort of person to put up with the annoyance of a photographer.
-The Little Technical Library, _Developing, Printing, And Enlarging_
I saw a polaroid shot of a garden angel at the last page of Ansel Adams catalog with Hasselblad Sonnar and it was very elegant and classical.
I bought rollei with mixed feelings but it was not that. I took my lifes strongest colors with that lens on fuji. Densest blacks and colors. But it gives a noise in dark very beatiful.
Extremelly opposite lens with Leica.
Its good to know your 50/1.5 is very good.
I read elsewhere that the f1.5 sonar renders a different look then the f2 sonar. I don't see it but I rarely shoot wide open.
The f2 is six elements and the f1.5 is 7 elements added in the front right?
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
The rear cell of the f:1.5 is a triplet, in the f:2 it is a doublet. Both the f:1.5 and the f:2 have four internal surfaces, this was important before lens coatings were widely applied.
Originally Posted by randy6
P.S. "sonar" is an underwater locating system using sound. "Sonnar" is the lens; it comes from the German 'sonne'; sun.
contax iia vs leica iiif
Love my 50/1.5 Sonnar, it's a pretty late one. Really nice signature on my IIa:
Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh
I found an old pre-war 50/2 Sonnar too. Not used much yet but it looks uncoated. Should be fun to see what I get from it. And compare to my 50/1.5 Summarit which is also old and pre-war. Use that on my IIIf.
Last edited by Richard Sintchak (rich815); 11-14-2013 at 01:49 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Here are a couple for observation. The Jena 50/2 is no slouch but, IMHO, the 50 1.5 outshines between 2.8 and 5.6, and the full open f1.5 painterly "look" or "glow" is not quite attainable with the the F2 Sonnar. Still, they are both wonderful lenses to use.
Opton Sonnar 50 / 1.5 wide open at about 1m on Tri-X @1600
Jena Sonnar 50/2 wide open at about 1m on Ektar 100
EDIT: I should add that I use a 1A or 1B skylight on every lens, so the warmth in these photos is not accurately representative of these lenses sans filter.
I had a couple Summarits, mine were very clean. They were a bit 'weird' wide open, but withal a good example of the double Gauss type. AFAIK, the Summarits were all coated postwar examples of the prewar uncoated Xenon which was actually made for Leitz by Schneider and a real handful as regards flare.
Originally Posted by rich815
My prewar f:2 Sonnar was pretty well behaved, use it with a good shade and I bet you'll really like it.
The f:1.5 version is somewhat of an anomaly, actually being regarded as better than it's slower sibling!
I think the old Sonnars are aptly named, there's something bright and cheerful about them. I see this in my J-8 as well.
This is really nice, I would steal a bank to get same quality from my Sonnar 40mm. Honestly talking , I left photography for 10 years because I had no Leica and than I bought Leica Mini Zoom. Its extremelly costly to pay the postage fees for Pyro , HC110 and Tri X and I bought an Bolex camera with 2500 frames for 11 dollars. There are few suppliers of film for that camera and I am still looking for film.
I think this is similar to what I got from Sonnar. We accept that Richard made it.
But you will find more details at the horizon with Leica, Richard and less grain. And rendition of Leica would pop up the details even more on bridge. Your image is in my mind as all other good zeiss pictures. You will have less contrast - Zeiss looks like cyan separation newspaper print- but more romantic feel.