pre-war sonnar

[Fall]

What are your all's opinions on a f2 pre-war sonnar? I'm about to purchase one, but don't know if i should spend a little bit more money, and go for the 1.5.. how does it compare to the 1.5? Besides flare if you have pictures, post them! maybe i should have posted this in rff, but people here use rfs too!

 

[darinwc]

In my opinion, there is no reason to spend the extra money on the 1.5.
None of the 1.5 sonnar types are sharp wide open as at f2.
In the daylight, using iso 100 film, at 1.5, even with a red filter, your shutter speed will need to be 1/2000.

 

[Frank53]

What are your all's opinions on a f2 pre-war sonnar? I'm about to purchase one, but don't know if i should spend a little bit more money, and go for the 1.5.. how does it compare to the 1.5? Besides flare if you have pictures, post them! maybe i should have posted this in rff, but people here use rfs too!

I have the post war 1.5 and all I know they are both great lenses and you are never going go see any difference between the two on a picture, especially not when posted on a website, where most lenses will look the same. Those differences are mostly based on emotion, so do what you think is right. How much is the price difference anyway?
Regards,
Frank

 

[darinwc]

BTW the f2 is the same lens design as the f1.5.
I have both but I don't think I have any side by side comparisons. Mine are both post war though. I don't remember offhand if the design changed. I know the biogon changed for the iia iiia cameras. I think there was some problems getting glass for the post war versions. Check Dante Stella's site.

 

[Ian Grant]

My experience with pre WWII lenses is that the more air/glass internal surface the lower the contrast, a Sonnar won't be too bad because despite being 7elements they are in 3 groups so only 4 internal air/glass interfaces comparable in this respect to a Tessar.

Personally I'd go for a post WWII T coated version, the CZJ T coating was very effective, there is a very noticeable difference in contrast and improved shadow and highlight detail with a coated lens. I tested a CZJ 150mm T coated Tessar alongside an uncoated pre WWII uncoated Tessar.that I used for about a year, and also used othevuncoated and T coated CZJ lenses including a 58mm f2 T Biotar so talking from experience.

Ian

 

[Fall]

My experience with pre WWII lenses is that the more air/glass internal surface the lower the contrast, a Sonnar won't be too bad because despite being 7elements they are in 3 groups so only 4 internal air/glass interfaces comparable in this respect to a Tessar.

Personally I'd go for a post WWII T coated version, the CZJ T coating was very effective, there is a very noticeable difference in contrast and improved shadow and highlight detail with a coated lens. I tested a CZJ 150mm T coated Tessar alongside an uncoated pre WWII uncoated Tessar.that I used for about a year, and also used othevuncoated and T coated CZJ lenses including a 58mm f2 T Biotar so talking from experience.

Ian

Oh. Well I'm definitely going to try to go for post war. I would like the reduced contrast, but reduced shadow detail is a killer. I print large, so bad negatives look worse on prints than on scans. Thanks Mr. Grant, you always give me some good insight

 

[Fall]

Now I just have to find one. The bay is crazy right now. Looks like I'll have to be a waiting.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I've been using an uncoated 1936 collapsible Sonnar as a "standard" lens for going on 3 years. A bit wonky wide open, as sharp as anyththing at f:4. Requires a very efficient shade, as does any uncoated lens.
The f:1.5 version is just as good, maybe even better, at max. aperture.
These are not modern lenses, a 50mm f:2 Nikkor H is vastly better wide open (and far less expensive) than either Sonnar, however the Sonnars have an appeal (and look) all their own.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Of course coated lenses will have more contrast, but the old Sonnars are pretty nice. I have a pre war 1.5 with clean glass that is impressive. I think a lot of the lousy images from old lenses are from those that aren't clean or have scratches.

 

[trendland]

What are your all's opinions on a f2 pre-war sonnar? I'm about to purchase one, but don't know if i should spend a little bit more money, and go for the 1.5.. how does it compare to the 1.5? Besides flare if you have pictures, post them! maybe i should have posted this in rff, but people here use rfs too!

What are your all's opinions on a f2 pre-war sonnar? I'm about to purchase one, but don't know if i should spend a little bit more money, and go for the 1.5.. how does it compare to the 1.5? Besides flare if you have pictures, post them! maybe i should have posted this in rff, but people here use rfs too!

In general : The maths wich is a need for construction is done today via Computer simulation. But computers are real silly machines. They have to do the work with all possabilities for optical construction (some 100 million examples) and then compare the best option.Due to big Workstations (Super computers) it will work. But the time with such machines is real expensive. Zeiss engeneers during the 20th and after then - had to work with same of the best math genies of the world. So 40 - 60 of them rendered paralel some week (half a year) with the todays workflow of all silly posabilities they had to to with maths some 10.000 years.So modern construction make unpossible optical systems possible.If you compare an 1.2 or an 0.95 or an 1.0 lens today with a standart 1.4 - 1.8 the optical system it is a real great task - from the maths and from all parameters of manufacturing - quality/type of glass a.s.o. multicoating in addition to reach the same good characteristics .From my (general) understanding a high speed lens with 1.2 is more expensive therefore.Do you remember the kind of lousy zooms from the 80th ? Then had 6.0 - 6.8 (6.8 in Full tele).It was also possible to that time to construct/design them with a f 4 and with superb quality but not to that price.So what about your question : I have some doubts if your 1.5 version can have the superb characteristics of the 2.0 lens. Here some stated both are the same ? May be - but I would be not as sure - because in the pre wwII area they might not had the possibilitie to construct the 1.5 such good as a (relative normal 2.0).Try to inform about the original price of that lens (within that period) perhaps the price (and that have to be from my point) was 3 times higher in comparison.So if both lenses are realy from same quality it has to say : the 2.0 wasn't real extreme good - and the 1.5 was much more expensive.......

with regards

PS : from my point both lenses may be good lenses - but the 2.0
H A V E to be the better one (from the issue I mentioned to construction/design)

 

[Ian Grant]

Of course coated lenses will have more contrast, but the old Sonnars are pretty nice. I have a pre war 1.5 with clean glass that is impressive. I think a lot of the lousy images from old lenses are from those that aren't clean or have scratches.

I have a lot of lenses, I dread to think how many far more than cameras, but can talk from practical experience. I have pre WWII and more amazingly pre WWI lenses that were never mounted on lens boards or cameras until I acquired them, all off Ebay. I've similar new (old) shutter with un-marked aperture scales.

So my comments are based on testing "Optically perfect" uncoated lenses as good as the day they left the factories, no traces of haze or fungus, as well as using many others. These un-coated lenses are very good, but there's an order of magnitude to the contrast loss which is dependent on the number of internal air/glass interfaces. This is "THE MAJOR FACTOR" controlling contrast with un-coated lenses..

My 1913 90mm f6.8 Dagor is surprisingly not far behind my MC 90mm Grandagon in terms contrasts and equally as good as my 90mm f6.8 Angulons pre & post WWII. A Tessar is a step change behind, as is a Sonnar if un-coated that doesn't make them bad lenses, far from it but you need to be aware of the differences and that really needs to be seen by actually using them and comparing the results.

When asked how good a lens is Dan Fromm says "Ask it" he means try it for yourself and you can be amazed or equally disappointed.

If I was the OP I'd like to find a lens that is contemporary to the camera body, keeping costs down may be a Tessar or wait for the right pre-WWII Sonnar at a good price, and meanwhile get the best coated 50mm f2 or if very lucky f1.5mm post WWII lens you can at a decent price. I've not used a Kiev fit Jupiter 8 but I have printed images made with one and the lens was excellent.

Play the long game, maybe buy a coated Jupiter 8 as a stop gap, gives you time to watch and wait for a bargain Sonnar, and they do appear usually on Forums like this one.

Ian

 

[RJ-]

What are your all's opinions on a f2 pre-war sonnar? I'm about to purchase one, but don't know if i should spend a little bit more money, and go for the 1.5.. how does it compare to the 1.5? Besides flare if you have pictures, post them! maybe i should have posted this in rff, but people here use rfs too!

Hi there,

I presume you're referring to the standard 5cm Zeiss Sonnar for the Contax pre-war rangefinder?

Trying to find a rear lens cap for a 5cm f2 collapsible Sonnar, I ended up with around 4 different versions, including a pre-war rigid f1.5 5cm Sonnar. I suppose I'm not particularly interested in sharpness when shooting 35mm format: there's always large format for this criterion. Still, not the most straight forward solution for one of those rare earth original Sonnar lens caps.

The uncoated f1.5 Sonnar I'm finding, is spectacular. Comparing it to a modern Zeiss ZM mount f1.5 Sonnar T*, it still holds a particular period charm - the softness of light rendering and the draw around the subject which has an elegance not found in the later modern rendition. The f2 Sonnar, collapsible and rigid versions, pre-war and post-war, all have micro-differences. Of the 5 different Sonnars in this focal length, I've not yet found a lemon.

In contrast, the Summicron LTM 5cm f2 first generation 1950's lens, flares horrifically compared to the uncoated pre-war Sonnar. Perhaps it's a design issue with the lens; the lack of coating; the lack of a lens hood or a combination. None of the Sonnars are going to define detail as sharply as a Voigtlander 50mm f1.5 Contax/Nikon rangefinder mount. The period Sonnar probably remains one of the decades long lenses which were vaunted due to its optical quality - also for the Contax rangefinder, the absence of a helical left the lens uncomplicated with less moving debris and parts. Alas - as sharp as the Voigtlander Nokton f1.5 50mm is, this lens mount is riddled with challenges which make it rather impractical on a Contax rangefinder. It probably is the sharpest lens for 35mm Contax rangefinders ... if it can be focussed accurately.

Image below from the 5cm rigid pre-war Sonnar f1.5 at f1.5. This isn't black and white film - it's cross-processed tungsten. The lens is fine - the photographer less so. In zero degree weather, suddenly it becomes apparent hand-holding the metal brick of a Contax II without gloves, it feels like holding a large ice cube.

Kind regards,

RJ

 

[Ian Grant]

Strange RJ, I have one of the early 1950's 50mm f2 Summicrons and I've never had any flare when using it.

Ian

 

[RJ-]

Hi Ian,

Any lens will flare... when pushed.

Perhaps not Zeiss T* lenses - these are without peer.

1955 Summicron 5cm f2. It's in incredible condition compared to the older pre-war Zeiss Sonnar which doesn't flare quite like the Leica lens. I've been trying to convince myself that the Leica lens is an acquired taste. This image was shot around 2004 btw.

RJ

 

[Fall]

Hi there,

Wow RJ what a cool shot! you have a lot lenses, too bad you don't want to get rid of any of them . Funny, i've never had flaring problems from any lens, except one... The lens on my ikoflex.. Man it flares a lot, but i love it anyway. Even my 30's exacta lens doesnt flare, well, not so much. Maybe i just never shoots on sunny days

 

[Fall]

I really love that picture, can i steal it and use it as my phone screen saver?

 

[RJ-]

Hi Fall,

Feel welcome. It's hosted on Flickr - and I've just checked the long list of rights which any Flickr user signs away his image to in any case.

I recall seeing only glare through the squinting viewfinder and shooting into the light, it was shot with a fast shutter speed walking past. At first the wonky horizon really troubled me (landscape photographers are obsessed with multi-spirit levels and horizons). Gradually, the metaphor of the fountain of love, and the young couple tipping over with the light flaring like Eros wounding, convinced me to leave it in its imperfect state.

The second image was shot on a IIIf - great little camera - until the 10 year cycle cloth shutter failure. The pre-war Contax II has a better reliability rate for its age than the Leica IIIf - the shutter tapes are easier to replace than the shutter blind and the rangefinder robustness is incredible.

I gather your Ikoflex isn't a flare free Tessar then. You should cross a few Sonnar f2 & f1.5 5cm lenses easily - they do seem to come with bodies in varying need of restoration. The multicoated Jupiter 8 f2 lens is a competent lens sometimes.



RJ

 

[Fall]

You should cross a few Sonnar f2 & f1.5 5cm lenses easily

actually, i've found none which are reasonably priced/not filled with haze, fungus, or scratches. I found an f2 attached to a body without haze, fungi, and scratches however its 150 dollars, and has a bunch of large spots of dust inside it, have no other idea of how to describe it. I guess i'll buy it. I really need to get shooting again, but i will have to disassemble this thing because i print big, and know this will show up i just now it...

 

[Fall]

uff im so confused now. I shoot slr occasionally, and my favorite lenses are the slower ones.. f2, and the older f2.8.. Better contrast and sharpness, or better yet, apparent sharpness.. I'm just not familiar at all with the performance of these lenses. I actually print my negs, so maybe i should aim for post war, but then it's soooo expensive. Uff why is this such an expensive racket ahah. If anything. I will acquire something, and will be sure to post back at a later date with some images with whatever decision i make.

 

[RJ-]

I found an f2 attached to a body without haze, fungi, and scratches however its 150 dollars, and has a bunch of large spots of dust inside it, have no other idea of how to describe it. I guess i'll buy it.

Are you sure about this? Vintage lenses often require more patience to work with and to find.

I presume you're not in Europe, where Contax rangefinder Sonnar 5cm lenses are more abundant - as well as being hybridised with Contax-Kiev-Jupiter Sonnar origins.

How large are your printing expectations from the Sonnar? In the hey day of film, it was comfortable pushing enlargements to 20x30 inch optical prints as well as C and R type prints since the phenomenal fine grain of slow film reveals the detail (Technical Pan, Positive Release Emulsion, Panatomic X et al).

Perhaps the large dust spots and the consequence on overall contrast control flares up a worry.

With respect to the post-war Contax-Zeiss Sonnars - I presume you've done your research and found some reports of balsam separation from the inter-war and post-war specimens to watch out for. Have you tried using a Jupiter-3 or -8 in the meantime to get a feel for the lens' design?

RJ

 

[Fall]

balsam separation

unfortunately zeiss, being the overachieving-way ahead of every one else engineers they were, used a synthetic polymer (heat resistant polymer..) to cement their lens elements. If this was a non-coated early leica lens ( leica's early coatings are too soft for me to think about touching), i'd just take it apart, separate the elements, clean the haze, and re-cement with balsam and use it. However, I have no idea how to separate the elements in these zeiss lenses, well i do, but the chemicals needed i refuse to work with, unless i could find a better less-toxic depolymerizing agent.

I print 16x20, it's my favorite size. Yes.. I'm worried about the dust in the lens due to lack of contrast control. I wouldn't be worried if it wasn't a non coated lens, but there are just such large particles, that it makes me feel quite uncomfortable. I often shoot in low-contrast situations, so...

I've honestly thought of buying some russian lenses, as i know i could easily repair them but the "cleaning marks", aka coating damage is rampant among such specimens, and i don't know, they give a very cold look to photographs, weird, but it's my feeling about them. I adore the way zeiss and leica glass render images... If only there was a way to use leica glass on contax bodies.. mmm

Edit: changed an "an" to an "a"

 

[E. von Hoegh]

unfortunately zeiss, being the overachieving-way ahead of every one else engineers they were, used a synthetic polymer (heat resistant polymer..) to cement their lens elements. If this was a non-coated early leica lens ( leica's early coatings are too soft for me to think about touching), i'd just take it apart, separate the elements, clean the haze, and re-cement with balsam and use it. However, I have no idea how to separate the elements in these zeiss lenses, well i do, but the chemicals needed i refuse to work with, unless i could find a better less-toxic depolymerizing agent.

I print 16x20, it's my favorite size. Yes.. I'm worried about the dust in the lens due to lack of contrast control. I wouldn't be worried if it wasn't a non coated lens, but there are just such large particles, that it makes me feel quite uncomfortable. I often shoot in low-contrast situations, so...

I've honestly thought of buying some russian lenses, as i know i could easily repair them but the "cleaning marks", aka coating damage is rampant among such specimens, and i don't know, they give a very cold look to photographs, weird, but it's my feeling about them. I adore the way zeiss and leica glass render images... If only there was a way to use leica glass on contax bodies.. mmm

Edit: changed an "an" to an "a"

This thread is full of errors and nonsense.
Working backwards.
Zeiss lenses, prewar, were cemented with balsam. They did use an epoxy/polymer cement postwar, I do not know the date.
Leitz was using an epoxy type cement by 1946, according to my Summitar of that date which I bought here cheap due to separation, I repaired it myself separating the front doublet by soaking in MEK. Toxic, yes, just put it in a jar and cap it. The coatings on that lens are pristine and do not seem delicate.

F:2 Sonnars are 6 elements, f:1.5 Sonnars 7 elements.

 

[Fall]

Can you give a citation for the pre war sonnars f1.5 being balsam? I thought Leica lenses used balsam for quite a while, I hadn't known they used a synthetic material until the 1950'a. Thank you for this information. I'm always open to being wrong. Simply I was told zeis was using this polymer in pre war sonnars. There's an article somewhere here on the internet where focal point is cited as to his process of separating the sonnars, pre and post. As to the other "nonsense", would you kindly adress it? This thread is permanent here, and it wouldn't be could if other curious people to find and read falsehoods, which would cause them misadventures.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Can you give a citation for the pre war sonnars f1.5 being balsam? I thought Leica lenses used balsam for quite a while, I hadn't known they used a synthetic material until the 1950'a. Thank you for this information. I'm always open to being wrong. Simply I was told zeis was using this polymer in pre war sonnars. There's an article somewhere here on the internet where focal point is cited as to his process of separating the sonnars, pre and post. As to the other "nonsense", would you kindly adress it? This thread is permanent here, and it wouldn't be could if other curious people to find and read falsehoods, which would cause them misadventures.

No, I cannot give a "citation", only firsthand experience.
Correcting internet posts a task akin to that of Sysiphus. I'll do it once, and once only.
Post numbers as #.
#2 the f:1.5 prewar Sonnar is as good as the f:2 wide open. Personal experience.
#4 f:2 Sonnar is 6/3, f:1.5 is 7/3.
#10 gibberish. 1.5 Sonnar was about 1/3 the cost of a new Ford V8 coupe, 1936. I have original Zeiss price lists from '35 and '36, they came with my '36 Contax II along with the original bill of sale, all original accesories, and provenance.
#12 picture looks like nothing my Sonnars have ever done.
My 1946 Summitar flared less, before it was repared.
#17 Ten years for a cloth shutter? Bullshit.
You are correct, bad information should be refuted.