Maybe stray light (don't use without lense shade...) could be a reason for the bad performing of the 1940 version in the beginning of the thread.
According to price: Maybe the 1940 version has some attraction to collectors. The 1963 version might be the best of all versions while the cheapest in the market.
According to comparison: does it make sense to compare a lense with another one having only the focal length in common?
And a technical question: when using a lense on a D-SLR rather than on a system camera could'nt there be the risk of optical influence of e.g. the sensor cover which is not seen on the ground glass screen?
A main difference between the versions from 1940 and 1963 by the way is an additional flat lense which has been added to protect the diaphragm mechanism.
26.01.20: PS: Here https://kievaholic.com/LensTestsLongTele2/ I found a comparision of medium format lenses in the range of 250mm-300mm almost all sharing the P6 mount with the MC "Sonnar" and the Tair for medium format contained but unfortunately neither the 1949 version nor the 1963 version of the Sonnar. Within the low cost lenses I do not see a clear winner. If I'd see a winner it might be the Schneider Tele-Xenar 5.6/250mm which is quite rare.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum