Carl Zeiss Sonnar vs Summicron

[blockend]

sounds like a rich -man's problem.

Yup. Or obsessives. Move up a format if things like that matter. Absolute sharpness in 35mm is like owning the world's largest Shetland pony.

Never understood the fuss about fast lenses for rangefinder cameras, either. Fortunately for camera shops, some people care.

 

[AgX]

You mean

-) fast lenses make only sense with SLRS, due to the brighter finder image, nonwithstanding effects on shutter speed or DOF?
or
-) fast lenses make no sense at rangefinder camera due to the rangefinder not being precise enough?

 

[blockend]

You mean

-) fast lenses make only sense with SLRS, due to the brighter finder image, nonwithstanding effects on shutter speed or DOF?
or
-) fast lenses make no sense at rangefinder camera due to the rangefinder not being precise enough?

I mean the nature of SLRs is that you view at full aperture*. This is generally held to be a disadvantage for composition**. However if the lighting conditions necessitate the widest possible aperture, being able to see how the scene will look photographed is a definite advantage***.
*Some SLRs allow you to view stopped down, with the disadvantage of a darkening screen. This makes focusing more difficult, or a multistage process of focusing, stopping down, opening up, re-focusing, etc
**A rangefinder or Galilean viewfinder allows everything in the frame to appear sharp. This is a useful, even vital compositional aid especially in rapidly moving arrangements of people. At wide apertures it can be a misleading representation of the scene as a whole.
***Depending on the maximum aperture of the lens, and its focal length, a reflex view may not be a disadvantage. For example my 28mm Nikon 3.5 AIS shows everything sharply. More difficult to focus precisely, but the DoF is so wide exact focus is irrelevant. Even my 28mm 1.8 has a focus ring shift of a couple of degrees between infinity and 5 ft.

 

[AgX]

Thank you, now I got your point.

But as you argue that a SLR at full aperture may lead to a misconception in composition, due to a limited DOF, a rangefinder may lead to the opposite, the misconception of high DOF.

A answer to this was the Praktina SLR. Not only the very first system-SLR, but it also incorporared in addition a Galilei-finder.

Also some SLRs had the DOF control at ones release-fingertip as most known the Prakticas with two designs on this matter.

 

[Dali]

Yup. Or obsessives. Move up a format if things like that matter. Absolute sharpness in 35mm is like owning the world's largest Shetland pony.

Never understood the fuss about fast lenses for rangefinder cameras, either. Fortunately for camera shops, some people care.

Fast lenses for rangefinder cameras are quickly heavy and bulky which goes against the rangefinder "philosophy". Also, they partially block the finder which is a nonsense to me.

 

[blockend]

a rangefinder may lead to the opposite, the misconception of high DOF.

True. Also rangefinders are delicate mechanisms that go out of whack easily compared to a Fresnel screen.

A answer to this was the Praktina SLR. Not only the very first system-SLR, but it also incorporared in addition a Galilei-finder

Good idea. You could always use a hotshoe finder of course.

Also some SLRs had the DOF control at ones release-fingertip

Yes, quite a few had spring mounted DoF buttons. I suspect they were rarely used as the screen darkened enough to make sharpness hard to tell.

For absolute speed a hyperfocal setting is hard to beat on scale, zone, rangefinder or SLR cameras. If focusing accuracy is paramount in low light, I'd choose an SLR not an uber expensive rangefinder lens.

 

[guangong]

During a 65 yr time span I have accumulated quite a bunch of 50mm lenses for various cameras, including collapsible Elmars for both ltm and M, Summicrons, Sonnars, etc. Never able to afford Summilux or faster Leica lens, I use a Voightlander Nokton. Since I shoot with the latter lens in such dingy lighted venues ( bars, poorly lit performance spaces), I doubt if the virtues of a slightly superior Leica lens would be noticeable in an actual photograph.
A 50mm lens doesn’t take up much space. I would keep both.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Somewhere on first page OP mentioned no color. I do bw on film most and for this reason I prefer Jupiter-3 over CV ZM Sonnar 50 1.5. Nokton 50 1.5 would be my second choice for bw. Both have better build, handling comparing to CV ZM lenses. IMO.
I also have tried all Crons 50 formulas. Those are build the best.

 

[Astyanaz]

It's amazing how quick a thread like this can come alive again.

 

[markjwyatt]

And if Cartier-Bresson had a Novar he would still be better than all of you. Isn't this kind of like deciding whether to get rid of your Michelangelo or your Raphael?

This is a great point. I would say it like painters arguing which brand of brush or paint to use, the recalling that Michelangelo and Rafael really had limited choices in their time (relative to today), but did quite well those choices.

 

[markjwyatt]

Can anyone comment on the idea of 35mm rangefinders having an advantage over SLRs optically (and getting the most out of optics) due to the lens not needing to be moved outward to make room for a mirror mechanism as is the case in SLRs? Clearly this need for shifting the lens outwards has been managed well by optical designers, but at what cost?

 

[bimmey]

The only way you can make an informed decision is to shoot each lens over a long period or many (100's) of rolls to fully understand the strengths and weaknesses of each lens for your photography. Having more than one 50mm lens does not make you a collector. Having lenses you don't use does.

 

[blockend]

Can anyone comment on the idea of 35mm rangefinders having an advantage over SLRs optically (and getting the most out of optics) due to the lens not needing to be moved outward to make room for a mirror mechanism as is the case in SLRs? Clearly this need for shifting the lens outwards has been managed well by optical designers, but at what cost?

It's a complex argument I'm not equipped to answer, but there are a number of potential weak spots in all film cameras that have been addressed with varying degrees of success. One is the flatness of the film plane. Contax went for a vacuum back on their last RTS iteration - no point having an optically stellar lens if the film isn't optimally placed. Helicoid focusing mechanisms can produce movement if they are worn or imperfectly made, especially in longer lenses. A millimetre of focus movement can be the difference between sharp and soft. The Contax rangefinder mount has no lens helicoid, all focusing is done on the camera body. Digital sensors collect light rays horizontally via the rear lens element, film is more forgiving of the angle of luminance.

I can't think of any reason why an SLR is at an optical disadvantage, bellows cameras in all formats separate the lens from the film plane. However rangefinder lenses have a size advantage, all other things being equal. Computer technology has allowed tiny smart phone lenses to be designed and built with excellent sharpness and contrast.

 

[AgX]

Can anyone comment on the idea of 35mm rangefinders having an advantage over SLRs optically (and getting the most out of optics) due to the lens not needing to be moved outward to make room for a mirror mechanism as is the case in SLRs? Clearly this need for shifting the lens outwards has been managed well by optical designers, but at what cost?

I can't think of any reason why an SLR is at an optical disadvantage, ...

Adding an optical group not designed to concquer faults in existing groups, but to achieve an additional effect (here extending rear focal distance), from my point of view must be regarded as additional source for aberrations. And data confirms my view.


However retrofocus design also has optically benefitial characteristics:
It reduces the rear projecting angle, by this reducing cos4-vignetting, and at sensor panes transmission effects.

 

[markjwyatt]

I found this thread here: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/how-much-better-is-rf-image-quality-over-slr.121915/

It seems to indicate that the main issue is with wide angle lenses (as well as RF cameras can be hand held at 1/8th sec. while SLRs require 1/250th; and there is absolutely no difference in IQ between RF and SLRs other than the fact that RFs are incomparably superior! Threads on this forum can be pretty humorous at times).

 

[markjwyatt]

...bellows cameras in all formats separate the lens from the film plane. ...

I tried to limit this to 35mm, but did think of that. I suspect this is related to size of the film plane

Adding an optical group not designed to concquer faults in existing groups, but to achieve an additional effect (here extending rear focal distance), from my point of view must be regarded as additional source for aberrations. And data confirms my view.

Yes, the crux of this issue is illustrated in RFs as the Contax IIa cannot accept the Biogon from the Contax II/III series because they thickened the shutter a little in the IIa. The original Biogon extended too deeply into the camera body to accommodate this without interference.

 

[markjwyatt]

...bellows cameras in all formats separate the lens from the film plane. ...

That is a good point, and why I started with 35mm thinking it is more of a film size issue, but you are correct that there are 35mm bellows cameras also (such as the Retina RFs). I suspect the bellows are used more to allow folding in these cases than a need to extend the lens out further than other RF 35mms, but I could be wrong (it may also depend on lens design).

 

[blockend]

That is a good point, and why I started with 35mm thinking it is more of a film size issue, but you are correct that there are 35mm bellows cameras also (such as the Retina RFs). I suspect the bellows are used more to allow folding in these cases than a need to extend the lens out further than other RF 35mms, but I could be wrong (it may also depend on lens design).

Retro focusing lenses for compacts like the Olympus clamshell designs managed to shrink things further. OTOH Mamiya TLRs retained fine optical quality at lens extensions long enough to require substantial exposure compensation. According to Nikon, the larger lens throat on their latest full frame digital - bearing in mind it's the same format as 35mm - allows for improved wide angle lens design, especially wide aperture versions. I suspect the IQ differences are at the optical extremes rather than run of the mill 35 to 135mm designs.

 

[AgX]

Retro focusing lenses for compacts like the Olympus clamshell designs managed to shrink things further.

The Olympus clamshell cameras just employ the opposite to retro-focus optical design.

 

[miha]

Exactly - reversed retrofocus is the term.

 

[blockend]

Exactly - reversed retrofocus is the term.

My mistake, retrofocus is a reverse telephoto lens.

 

[warden]

I don’t have any lenses that hold me back because of lack of quality. Both of the op’s lenses would be more than enough for my skills, but I happen to have the ZM sonnar. I really like that lens and wouldn’t dream of replacing it.

 

[markjwyatt]

I don’t have any lenses that hold me back because of lack of quality. Both of the op’s lenses would be more than enough for my skills, but I happen to have the ZM sonnar. I really like that lens and wouldn’t dream of replacing it.

I ahve the 50mm f/2 Sonnar on my Contax IIa. Some people say the f1.5 is superior beyond opening wider (and it does have an additional element), but I think I would try and get different lenses before I went out of my way for an f1.5. My dream list includes the 21mm Biogon and the 85mm Sonnar. The post war 35mm Biogon and a 135mm Sonnar would be reasonable also. I am curious to try the Triotars (e.g., 85mm or 135mm) also, but suspect they may not be as good (more for bubble bokeh). The Jupiter 9 may be a reasonable and fairer priced substitute for the 85mm Sonnar.