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

Sonnetar
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2015 8:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bernhardas wrote:


[You insist on going on about the same boring narrative by narrowing the discussion to the parameter of sharpness. (Bizarrely at 1m distance)


You may not have realized that my arguments were about how the performance of a Sonnar lens degrades rapidly with the variation of focus distance.

On the "same boring narrative" about sharpness, you should note that most of the efforts of designer at Leica, Zeiss, Nikon, Canon, etc., are all about to incessantly increase the sharpness of their lenses. Making a sharp lens is difficult and expensive. Making a soft lens is easy and inexpensive. Anyone makes a soft lens, but no lens manufacturer became famous or rich by making soft lenses. Think about it.


Last edited by Gerald on Mon Jan 26, 2015 8:53 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2015 8:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ultrapix wrote:

That is fine once that you have realized that some solutions may be technically bad; honesty never found those words in advertising of lenses, even when they are toy lenses Very Happy


Not a suprise that they "hide dirt under the carpet" in such cases.

Sometimes (every time?) lenses advertisements are just fantasies (lies?). Let me give an example by comparing what the respective manufacturers of the Sonnetar 50mm F1.1 and the Summilux-M 50mm F1.2 claim on these lenses. Please take a look at the curves below:

Summilux 50mm F1.2:


Sonnetar 50mm F1.1:


As Erwin Puts says, the Summilux-M 50mm F1.2 is one of the most famous Leica lens. One of its notable features was to have TWO aspherical surfaces. In contrast, the Sonnetar 50mm F1.1 uses only spherical surfaces, and has one optical element less than the Summilux. Strangely, if you look at the MTF curves for 40 lines/mm for wide open, you will come to the conclusion that the Sonnetar is the best lens! Do you believe such a thing? Come on!


PostPosted: Tue Jan 27, 2015 12:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

memetph wrote:
Ultrapix wrote:
memetph wrote:

What is wrong for me is the analogy with photography and lenses. His mistake is that many amateur photographers want to create a picture.
They can be very happy with a technicaly bad lens.
Real audio fans , I say "real"with purpose, try to reproduce the experience of a concert . It is simply a different purpose.


That is fine once that you have realized that some solutions may be technically bad; honesty never found those words in advertising of lenses, even when they are toy lenses Very Happy

I don't understand your point . Why do you speak about advertising. ?


Sorry. I mean that using low-fi tools could be fine for creative purposes, but the buyer should be always aware of what is going to pay. Since advertising won't probably go in depth about lenses weakness (even when those could be inspiring), that is what forums are for.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 27, 2015 12:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You are perhaps right, Gerald, but if... If raindrops were perfect lenses, the rainbow did not exist. Very Happy


PostPosted: Tue Jan 27, 2015 3:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Salgado, Puts and Ming Thein would all puke if they saw how they were being used in such banal and simplistic dogma.

Gerald, if you want to start a thread about the lenses you think are the best, or the philosophy of photography, start one. This is a thread about one lens which you don't like, based on a total lack of understanding and experience.

Why do you insist on shitting all over lens threads with your stupid pretentious blather? "Oh this lens is no good, you should have this other lens (which i've never even seen)". Then you post utterly ridiculous references like Ken Rockwell or irelevant diagrams to justify your totally off topic attack.

You don't like the lens, we get it. Go away and make some threads of your own to preach your gospel.

And what the hell do you have an utterly irrelevant Salgado shot up in a thread about the Sonnetar?

Mods, this is pollution of the topic totally beyond the pale. Please remove the shot.
TY

rudolfkremers wrote:
Gerald wrote:
In general, people who embark on this type of boat are those with little technical knowledge, but a lot of money to spend.


There it is again! Condescending irritating judgement/trollbait.
You can't help yourself can you. You MUST find a way to express a sense of superiority.

Are you going to infect a lot more threads with this kind of forum poison, like you have lately? If so I think I will pass on this forum as it has no ignore function. This is seriously putting me off reading threads here, and as a result contributing. You probably don't care at all that you are having this impact, but just in case you weren't aware; your forum etiquette is appalling.

I specifically signed up to this place because of the friendly nature of the posts, and the sense of community here. Too bad that seems to be going down the drain.


Exactly. It is really unbelievable Gerald is allowed to hide behind a generally good liberal forum moderation, and bombard everyone with cliches as a means to get attention and attack his windmills.

Gerald wrote:
ZoneV wrote:


Only 5 elements, Sonnar design - I would see Petzval and Double Gauss more suited - but hey, the images look good.
Probably that Leica 50mm f/1.4 is not only good, but very good?
Furthermore I found at first glance nothing on their website stating the lens to be very good in terms of MTF, distortion...

From an optical and mechanical point of view, Leica lenses are excellent. The Summilux 50mm F1.4 is the most sold Leica lens, what makes sense in my point of view. According to Leica, the distortion is less than 0.5%, which is well below the average for standard lenses. The problem of Leica M lenses are their obscene prices and the outdated concept of the entire M system.

duckrider wrote:

Here are some utterances unsettling me:
To judge over a lens which is not in my hands only about the number of lenses does not make sense in my opinion:
Holgon 15mm e.g. has three elements and is not known as a lousy product for the job it had to do. Wink

We have to give our thanks to Miyazaki-san and Kobayashi-san, President of Cosina who did run the risk to invest into unsuable products, not sure if they would bring investment back.
Success did prove they did right!

Cosina is becoming an optically irrelevant company, at least for optical products sold in the consumer market. I admire more a company like Tamron that has launched a lens that promises to be fantastic: the Tamron SP 15-30mm f / 2.8 Di VC USD. Compared to the complexity and performance of such a lens, the Hologon is a child's play.


What the hell are these silly pompous musings about utterly unrelated lenses and companies doing in a thread about the MS-Optical Sonnetar?

Gerald is basically telling us all to forget MF lenses al together and buy Tamron AF glass: which is fine opinion somewhere. But not in this thread.

What really has me aghast is how Gerald, by use of google, actually has some people thinking he knows anything about lenses or photography. He is not even very good at google. Any fool can read Puts and pretend to be an expert. Gerald has a pitiful collection of glass and utter lack of experience to match: that is fine as well: we've all been there and some very smart and nice people are there now, but they are not going about telling us what to think about everything.

Lastly: i have no problem with respectful disagreement or banter. I don't expect the the 1K 190gram sonnetar to be superior to the 10K 900gram .95 Noctilux. I do expect it to be one tenth the weight and capable of utterly unique rendering. Smile

I'm very excited about the Sonnetar and love the craftsmanship and it's relation to the history of photography, namely, what might be considered the best all around lens for 135 film for twenty years:


DSC06958 by unoh7, 1937 Zeiss CZJ 50/1.5

Even the 435 gram CV 50/1.1 is far too heavy for me to carry day to day (as I already stated very early in thread), So all Gerald's odes to prefect lens design are utterly meaningless because the lens must be big. He doesn't understand the most basic photographic concept: What is the best camera? The one you have with you. IE the one you will take everywhere. I can take the Sonnetar everywhere. I would not take an Otus anywhere.

That's just me. I don't join threads about the Otus and tell people how stupid they are to drag a huge lens around---I don't have to because most Otus owners don't even take it out often LOL

Gerald's dogma is utterly blind to what we really love about lenses: variety. And if you have not noticed, his dogma is deaf as well as blind. He cannot take the different views of others into account at all. He believes its all down to equations which he, as an enginneer, is the only one who understands.

Of course light and lenses can be described by equations, but they are legion and varied and deep and evolving. If Gerald really cared about them he would not have time to torture us here with his aspherical propaganda. He would be studying and experimenting and publishing.

Instead he spends his time making up statements like this:
Quote:
...amateurs who imagine themselves great artists spend small fortunes on expensive but technically mediocre lenses, precisely because they believe these lenses bring artistic value to their mediocre photos


That's me, of course. Smile

Everyone thinks I imagine myself a great artist? I don't imagine myself an artist at all. For me photography is a personal and family diary. I am curious about lenses and I like to play with them, hopefully to enhance my photo journal to my own taste, which is evolving as I experience the work of other shooters beyond the obvious "great men". I like to share my lens experience with others who are interested, who can take or leave it as they choose; as opposed to Gerald's sociopathic quest for control thinly veiled by would-be expertise. As to the money, is spending a grand on a Sonnetar somehow less worthy than spending a grand on car repair? Gerald thinks Leica prices are obscene? I think his relentless domineering waste of our time with his dogmatic fantasy is obscene.

Compare Gerald's message: The Sonnetar is a stupid inferior lens which you should never consider.

To my message: Here is the Sonnetar. Had you ever heard of it? Here are some interesting things about it. Hopefully, here are some images. Smile What do you think? Here's how it's striking me. Oh, look what it does in this situation. etc.

Now you know about it. Maybe you even want one Smile Maybe not, it's OK.

Well obviously this thread is off topic to a degree unfair to someone wanting to know about the lens. So when the MS-Optical 50/1.1 Sonnetar comes I will start another thread with proper title, the basics, and real samples. Gerald's feelings will be forever documented in this thread, which I will reference at the outset of the new one, including a synopsis of Gerald's disapproval of the lens in neutral language.

There is one thing Gerald could do to show he is not totally deaf and devoid of all respect for others: leave the new thread alone. It's not like we don't know his thinking on the subject. Post more here if he wants. I'm pretty sure he does not have this kind of self-control, but I'm officially begging he try.

What would be really nice is if he would just make his own threads and discussions for awhile, and leave his victims in peace. But I notice he does not make many threads of his own, but simply feeds off, and attacks, the curiosity of others. Yuck.

Why is it that people who know everything can't learn anything?

PS Moderation: I'd prefer this thread not be deleted, but remain available for reference, if possible. Otherwise the new clean thread may just take us over the same ground. TY, sirs Smile


PostPosted: Tue Jan 27, 2015 9:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Can we see some pictures from the lens? Sounds like an interesting find.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 27, 2015 11:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mo wrote:
This is an unusual lens that many of us may never get to see or use ourselves.


Indeed, it is a unique lens, and all innovation that tries to bring something new to the tool box should be welcomed.

Enough of bashing the lens before it's even surfaced, let's instead, look forward to seeing how it actually does perform when it's available.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 27, 2015 11:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So are we getting images any time soon? I, for one, perfectly see where Gerald is coming from and expect a poor technical performance from this lens.

On the other hand, technical imperfections do not mean that the lens can not be enjoyed. One of my favorite lenses has very obvious flaws. So I see that side of an argument as well.

The proof of a pudding is in the eating. So let's see what this lens really can do in practical terms.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 27, 2015 12:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fermy wrote:
So are we getting images any time soon?


Yes!


PostPosted: Tue Jan 27, 2015 2:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I did clean thread with my best knowledge, if you still find any disrespectful part , please let me to know, I will delete it. Gerald got 2 weeks ban as well deserved 'gift' for lack of his social emotion level.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 27, 2015 3:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would like to try this lens but it is far over my budget...

P.S. MS-Optical made a small batch of this lens in chrome for Hong Kong market.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 27, 2015 5:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Looking forward to seeing some images - the lens looks like a lot of fun. As a side note, I like the idea of supporting small businesses / individuals like Miyazaki. It can be hard competing with the big companies.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 27, 2015 5:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The lens is not new. It's been around for a couple of years. There are over 700 pictures on Flickr. Charlie gives a link in his first post.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 27, 2015 5:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's a shame Gerald didn't look at some samples from this lens, then he'd see it performs very well:

http://www.japancamerahunter.com/2012/09/ms-optical-sonnetar-50mm-f1-1-test-pictures/

Quote:
I think Miyazaki san has done it again. He has come up with a quirky and interesting lens that, whilst not for everyone, is going to make certain shooters very happy. The colour rendering is very good and the aberration is much less than I would have expected.


The optimum aperture for bokeh looks to be 1.6-2 so I won't see much advantage over my old 1.5 Sonnars.

Sure is a pretty looking lens though.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 27, 2015 7:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fermy wrote:
So are we getting images any time soon? I, for one, perfectly see where Gerald is coming from and expect a poor technical performance from this lens...


Yes and no.
He compares the lens partly with old RF lens designs, or with SLR lens designs which are optimized for maximum sharpness/contrast, good distortion. A 50mm lens for mirrorless is much easier to make, cause there is no mirror.

I have the pleasure to work as optical engineer with a high-end optical design program with a big lens patent database, and some lens design literature and workshops as background. As mentioned I would first go a different route (Petzval oder Double Gauss Type) for such a lens. But from my lens design beginners point of view I would not state a lens is worthless cause it has only 5 lenses for a 50mm/1.1 - partly because I do not know the purpose of that particular lens design. Likely it is not intended as an Otus replacement for RF cameras.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 27, 2015 8:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TY so much Attila Smile

I will post samples in this thread as soon as I have a chance to shoot it, within a week I hope Smile


PostPosted: Tue Jan 27, 2015 9:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you get the chance, do a few comparison shots with your Sonnar 1.5/50 too.

The Miyazaki-San lens that really interests me is the tiny Perar 4/24, turn a Leica into a point n shoot! Smile


PostPosted: Tue Jan 27, 2015 9:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

uhoh7 wrote:
TY so much Attila Smile

I will post samples in this thread as soon as I have a chance to shoot it, within a week I hope Smile


Here endeth the debate.
No need for thanking IMO, there are no winners or losers.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 27, 2015 10:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Look forward your excellent images, rare opportunity to see them , thank you!


PostPosted: Wed Jan 28, 2015 2:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

uhoh7 wrote:
TY so much Attila Smile


So now we have the ridiculous position where we find 8 posts which make reference to Gerald before Gerald actually makes an appearance in the thread! You yourself give Gerald a "good kicking" - metaphorically of course. That's the nature of debate -sometimes. However those of us who were late to this thread - I caught a brief glimpse of Gerald's contributions before they were removed - are not in a position to judge whether your criticisms are justified or not. Are you not embarrassed by this situation?


PostPosted: Wed Jan 28, 2015 3:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Edited

Last edited by bernhardas on Wed Jun 15, 2016 7:31 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Jan 29, 2015 7:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

sichko wrote:
uhoh7 wrote:
TY so much Attila Smile


So now we have the ridiculous position where we find 8 posts which make reference to Gerald before Gerald actually makes an appearance in the thread! You yourself give Gerald a "good kicking" - metaphorically of course. That's the nature of debate -sometimes. However those of us who were late to this thread - I caught a brief glimpse of Gerald's contributions before they were removed - are not in a position to judge whether your criticisms are justified or not. Are you not embarrassed by this situation?

Just ignore anything i say about him that's left. Smile

I don't carry grudges anyway, but I'm not too keen on taunting trolling from anyone. I much prefer genial discussion, and you won't find me attacking respectful people whether they may disagree with me or not.

Photo forums run the gamut, from the incredibly rude behavior at DPreview, to the very genial atmosphere at the FM ALT forum. RFF can be a bit rough, but it's an indispensable reference. Most of us want a friendly atmosphere with alot of sharing, humor, with underlying support in spite of differences in taste.

This forum does not love high priced lenses, and some members really don't love Leica, but that's OK and I think that attitude is evolving a bit as the the prices for the M9 drop and we see the M glass at it's best more often.

Many really loved the 75 Summilux images, even though it's a Leica, and one that was going for 1500 in 2000, but 3500 now. G, however, attacked that lens from the start and implied I was pretty stupid to have bought it. You can read that thread and get a taste of our battle here.

Certainly, as I've noted from the beginning, the Sonnetar is going to be a wild one, and it's probable limitations are denied by no one. It's patently obvious that "perfection" in super-speed glass means something huge, which in itself is a terrible limitation. The weight of the incredible .95 Noctilux is a giant downside. The Sonnetar looks to be an anti-noctilux Smile It's not huge, not aspherical, not modern in configuration (except glass and coatings), and it certainly won't be "perfect" Smile It also happens to be one tenth the price of the Noctilux.

All these things were a "given", but G felt a crusade was in order, as if no one understood a thing, and I was being sucked in by Japanese con-artists. G assumed I was an idiot, and I took that as license to expose his bottomless naivet in the history of manual focus lenses; diagrams he googled, nonwithstanding. My apologies to everyone, sans G.

Whatever. That's all pretty boring, but you brought it up.

I don't think the Sonnetar will be boring. Shocking possibly, but not boring Smile

Nikkor RF 5cm 50/1.4 (1954) wide open (a very close relative of the sonnetar)

DSC02274 by unoh7, on Flickr
above on A7r below on Nex5

DSC01279-1-2 by unoh7, on Flickr


DSC00605-1 by unoh7, on Flickr

Yes G knew everything about sonnars, except I don't think he ever shot any of the RF 50s which made the name famous. What do you call someone who tears apart a lens or camera he has never shot? Paper tiger, maybe. Smile Annoying, certainly, at least to those who've paid some dues trying to learn them.

L1007325 by unoh7, Nikkor on the M9 WO
Love it or hate it, there's nothing in the world the same as this sonnar, and I'm sure the same will be true of the Sonnetar. Very little PP there.

BTW this was the first f/1.4 lens.

DSC05544 by unoh7, on Flickr

and the build of the sonnetar is very much styled like the Nikkor. Huge numbers were made. Possibly 200,000, mostly Nikon RF mount, but quite a few in LTM, and Contax RF.

Most know the nikon mount was supposed to be an exact copy of the Contax mount, but errors made them different. 35s and wider will work fine on either.

Lastly, my 1937 sonnar on a red-dial Contax 3a

DSC00189-1 by unoh7, on Flickr
The first truly great fast 50. Smile


Last edited by uhoh7 on Thu Jan 29, 2015 8:42 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Jan 29, 2015 8:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

very nice images, I like them and good examples.

Agree about spiteful comments, it is not needed here Wink Fine with discussions of course
but it shoudl be done in a resopectful manner between adults; fanboys go elsewhere please Laughing


PostPosted: Thu Jan 29, 2015 8:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Edited

Last edited by bernhardas on Wed Jun 15, 2016 7:30 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Jan 30, 2015 12:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Guess What?


Untitled by unoh7, on Flickr

Some comment on the build: it seems outstanding.

The lens can take filters three ways, with exterior threads, interior threads and threads at the front of the hood. The M9 can only go to 4000, so for some of these shots there is a new 3 stop ND filter, reversed and screwed to the exterior threads, then the hood screws to the exposed threads of the 55 filter. You see the hood and filter in the foreground above, ready to screw on the external threads of the lens.

Caps are unusual: both screw over the elements. Rear cap is tiny and covers element only. Front cap came screwed to reversed hood, which was screwed to from of lens.

Stopless aperture is reverse of normal direction. Many blades, very smooth and heavy to turn. Focus is a bit lighter but well dampened. There is a small knob like the CV skopars. The entire lens turns with focus. Coma adjustment, I left as it came. This is also very dampened. Overall this is a very compact lens.

These are preliminary samples with mild PP which show performance at one coma setting only.

one of my first shots, WO of course:

L1027340 by unoh7, on Flickr

ND filter attached:

L1027359 by unoh7, on Flickr


L1027348 by unoh7, WO


L1027347 by unoh7, on Flickr

WO it def gets the glowy old school look going

L1027374 by unoh7, on Flickr


L1027393 by unoh7, on Flickr


L1027406 by unoh7, on Flickr

Let's start with these Smile Every shot above is at f/1.1