Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Olympic Sonnar 4/300 a disappointment
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 7:26 am    Post subject: Olympic Sonnar 4/300 a disappointment Reply with quote

Some days ago I get a Zeiss Olympic Sonnar 4/300 lens, manufactured around 1961-1964, with Q1 logo. Quickly I tested against my Tair-3s, manufactured in 1987. Attila said before, the Sonnar unsharp, and has horrible CA, the tair better, but I thought maybe this would be a better copy...
Here are the results, shot distance around 30-35m:

Sonnar f4:


Sonnar f4.5:


Sonnar f5.6:


Sonnar: f8:



Tair f4.5:


Tair f5.6:


Tair f8:


Conclusion: Tair has better resolution and contrast, with better CA controlling (look that horrible CA on sonnar f5.6 and f8!), lighter weight, automatic diaphragm, overall better lens than Zeiss Olympic Sonnar 4/300, and price 3x less! So I kept the tair for its performance


PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 8:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have also noticed some faults wide open on my Sonnar MC version.

But WOW... that Tair is amazing wide open.

I have to get me one of those.

/Jan


PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 8:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think the tair is focused on the front wall and the sonnar is front focused nowhere
even at f8 I don't find any focused point with the sonnar
do you focus with chipped adapter ?


PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 10:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just as a side note, the Sonnar 300 is not the Olympia Sonnar.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 12:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The focus point was the same: The big crack point of the concrete on the upper side of the chimney, not the wall! I used tripod, and a Nikon D80 with split screen. The body indicates the correct focus point and controlled with split screen, so the misfocusing is impossible.
The tair is sharper at wide open than sonnar at f8.

The Zeiss lens was the Olympic version of 4/300.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 1:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orio wrote:
Just as a side note, the Sonnar 300 is not the Olympia Sonnar.


Orio, What avatar!!!!

Wanderfull

Beautyfull girl (well, I suspect it) .


PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 1:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

horvlas wrote:
on the upper side of the chimney, not the wall!

yes, I was meaning the chimney and I called it wall by mistake

sorry if I offended you but most of internet lens test are badly focused
in this case the sonnar could be defective


PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 1:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't want to sound picky, but the true Olimpia Sonnar is the 2.8/180.
The 300mm lens is a later design, it's always a Sonnar (like many other lenses by the way), but it's not the same lens that was launched for the Berlin Olympics.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 1:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orio: Yes now I understand that you're saying, but I definied the lens by this:

http://www.mflenses.com/index.php/Carl-Zeiss-Jena-DDR/Carl-Zeiss-Jena-Olympic-Sonnar-300mm-f/4-Lens-Review.html


At the lens gallery:
http://www.mflenses.com/gallery/v/german/zeiss/sonnar/olympic_sonnar_300mm/

Maybe defective, maybe not, you can see the same unsharp and horrible CA pictures as mine at the lens gallery! Just click pink flowers on the tree. (Attila's copy)


PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 1:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CA is the drawback of Sonnars, and the longer the focal lenght, the more visible the problem.

This is the reason why Zeiss Oberkochen often preferred the Tessar design for their long teles even in the quite recent Contax line (see for instance Tele-Tessar 200, Tele-Tessar 400 and the outstanding Apo-Tessars 450 and 600). Leica made the same choice (the Telyts are Tessar designs).

Tair is even simpler than Tessar, it is a triplet.

Actually Zeiss Ob. also designed a custom Apo-Sonnar 1700mm, but that was for a super rich client and I think the cost of the lens is more or less the cost of my house Shocked


PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 2:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orio wrote:


Actually Zeiss Ob. also designed a custom Apo-Sonnar 1700mm, but that was for a super rich client and I think the cost of the lens is more or less the cost of my house Shocked


A hell of a lot more than your house unless you are surprisingly rich ... I know who it was built for - one of the sheikhs here in Qatar. I doubt if it has ever been used (or is even really usable).


PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 2:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PaulC wrote:
Orio wrote:


Actually Zeiss Ob. also designed a custom Apo-Sonnar 1700mm, but that was for a super rich client and I think the cost of the lens is more or less the cost of my house Shocked


A hell of a lot more than your house unless you are surprisingly rich ... I know who it was built for - one of the sheikhs here in Qatar. I doubt if it has ever been used (or is even really usable).


The most expensive chromatic aberrations ever known to mankind! Laughing


PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 5:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nice one! Laughing

The sheikh got done for stealing somewhere between US$200 million and US$500 million from the Emir (depending which version you like to believe) ... I'm not sure what he needed it for but the lens might have something to do with it.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 5:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've just noticed rather obvious sharpening "jaggies" on the f2.8 image from the Tair (top of the cement, top left on chimney), while I'm not seeing those on the f5.6 Sonnar image. Have all these images been processed in the same way?


PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 5:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, the same minor sharpening added for all pictures. Same postprocessing parameters for all pictures! With this minor sharpening, differences more visible between them.
I think on sonnar pictures you can't see this jags, because unsharpness covers it. I strictly observed that same WB, exposition, focus point, post processing for all shot to make a real comparsion.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think 4/300mm Olympic Sonnar done by Carl Zeiss Jena in those years when their engineers were in Russian captivity. This is explain why they have huge difference. 180mm was done by Jena best engineers they issued for Olympic Games. I think 300mm f4 MC black one is a trully powerful lens they are not comparable, BUT Olympic Sonnar is very , very rare highly collectible item.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 8:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mine is the black MC Sonnar.
It is sharp enough but suffers from CA wide open. The Tair seems to be a better choice.

crop


/ Jan


PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 8:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wormhandler wrote:
Mine is the black MC Sonnar.
It is sharp enough but suffers from CA wide open. The Tair seems to be a better choice.

crop


/ Jan


Only wide open?


PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 10:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am not sure on the apartures used on my pictures. But it seems to show up even stopped down to 5.6.
I will try to take some pictures under controlled circumstances and post the results.

/ Jan


PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 11:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Comparing both lenses at f/4.5 and 100%, first of all the Tair has far better contrast. The Sonnar shows bad veiling flare, as well as general smeariness with no real fine detail and poorly rendered texture.

Also looking at the objects in the background, the Sonnar has fairly bad axial CA (dark green and some purple which should not be there) while the Tair has some, but much less.

And yes, the Tair is sharper also.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 12, 2009 6:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

With this sonnar CA more visible when stopped down. Look at f8 the left concerte side of the chimney.


PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2018 7:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This thread really shows what a single reviewers-opinion is worth on the internet. It means nothing really, as we all know...
But as long that it's the only review on the internet it means everything, to us all...

I have two of these Carl Zeiss Sonnar (Olympia) 300mm f/4 lenses. I tested my latest aquired one and I do NOT agree at all with the conclusions in this thread.
Just judge for yourself.

All pictures are JPEG's taken wide open (f/4), out of hand (no tripod used) with a Sony A7II (I just took a few pictures of the same subject and simply selected the best one).
Straight out of the camera, no post-editing done at all (except if mentioned), no in-camera sharpening either, 100% crops (my apologies for the different size, I cropped them freehand).

The first picture is the least sharp, but I am rather sure that it's slightly front-focussed.




Now, tell me if that is sharp or not.

About the same picture as the above (wide-open as well) but this time with a very small amount of post-editing (just like the thread-starter did !), to have a correct compairison:



One more, also wide-open etcetera:



Another dull brick-shot. This time a double one, taken with my two copy's of this lens (also JPEG's, wide-open, no post-editing done etcetera).
I sure can't see any difference between them.

Edit: For the fun of it just measured the distance on Google-maps (satellite-view) and the pictures of this brick wall are taken at a distance of 115 meters. Not bad huh?
Edit 2: I just noticed that there is a fly sitting on the hinge (upper-right corner of the picture) and if you look carefully you can see that one of it's wings is damaged.



If I find the time I will post some pictures taken with my copy's of the Tair 3s as well.


Last edited by Lucse on Sun Aug 05, 2018 1:17 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Sat Aug 04, 2018 9:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

horvlas wrote:
Orio: Yes now I understand that you're saying, but I definied the lens by this:

http://www.mflenses.com/index.php/Carl-Zeiss-Jena-DDR/Carl-Zeiss-Jena-Olympic-Sonnar-300mm-f/4-Lens-Review.html


At the lens gallery:
http://www.mflenses.com/gallery/v/german/zeiss/sonnar/olympic_sonnar_300mm/

Maybe defective, maybe not, you can see the same unsharp and horrible CA pictures as mine at the lens gallery! Just click pink flowers on the tree. (Attila's copy)


These pictures in the 'lens gallery' look VERY unsharp indeed.

They have a maximum size of about 3000 X 2000 pix.
At that size, are these the full size pictures? Crops? Or resized?


PostPosted: Thu Dec 05, 2019 10:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Do you know what is max coverage of Olympic Sonnar 300mm? 6x6?


PostPosted: Fri Jan 24, 2020 9:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pancolart wrote:
Do you know what is max coverage of Olympic Sonnar 300mm? 6x6?


Yes 6x6. To my knowledge it was mounted however by a special adapter to the PraktiSix or by respective changes (https://zeissikonveb.de/start/objektive/wechselobjektive1950er/carl%20zeiss%20jena.html).