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

Sonnetar
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Jan 30, 2015 3:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Grrrrrrrrreat!
I love Your point of view, Your pictures, Your Sonntar!
Thanks for sharing.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 30, 2015 7:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wanted to start asking "When will the lens arrive?" yesterday Smile

Thank you for the first images!
Looks like not a MTF wise "perfect" lens like the Otus 55, but a good tool with extreme speed and very lightweight.
I love non "perfect" lenses Smile


PostPosted: Fri Jan 30, 2015 12:51 pm    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 1:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No doubt about it - that Sonnetar fits perfectly into the evolutionary line of Sonnars. In fact, it renders just like a 1930s Sonnar 1.5/50 to my eyes, a little softer due to being 1.1 rather than 1.5 but the character is very very similar so I like it. The price is not bad at all either, considering how much a ZM Sonnar 1.5/50 costs new.

Bernhard, you should look for a 1960s or 1950s Jupiter-3 1.5/50, which is a copy of the Sonnar 1.5/50. I have one as well as an original Sonnar and the J3 is every bit as good. The Sonnar cost me 45ukp, the J3 cost me 45ukp with a beautiful Kiev IV with it.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 30, 2015 1:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:

Bernhard, you should look for a 1960s or 1950s Jupiter-3 1.5/50, which is a copy of the Sonnar 1.5/50. I have one as well as an original Sonnar and the J3 is every bit as good. The Sonnar cost me 45ukp, the J3 cost me 45ukp with a beautiful Kiev IV with it.


+1 for the J3, I got one (ltm, 1964, red P) in Russia this autumn, and it really works great if you're after that particular vintage sonnar look.

Samples from the sonnetar look indeed very good, and the little thing itself looks beautiful.
Time for samples showing the effect of the coma correction now :wink:


PostPosted: Fri Jan 30, 2015 5:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Edited

Last edited by bernhardas on Wed Jun 15, 2016 7:29 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Jan 30, 2015 10:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I had quite a few missed shots today as I struggled to learn the focus adjustment. But when it hits...


L1027479 by unoh7, on Flickr

I should add, this is f/1.6. The bokeh is unmistakable utterly classic 5cm sonnar style, but the color, which is untouched, is vivid as only very modern glass and coatings display. The shot also shows what an incredible color camera the M9 can be, and sometimes you will hear talk about how it's got "un-natural skin tones" or other such blather. The truth is the M9 WB, like many cameras, varies dramatically with the direction and nature of light source. But day in day out it gives me generally great colors; lenses of course will vary the result, and cleaner color than my A7: that's my own feeling. Smile

I'm hoping I can get the sonnetar to also put out decent landscapes at 5.6 and f/8, but that is a work in progress.

L1027484 by unoh7, on Flickr

I've been getting some pretty fuzzy edges, including in the shot above, but later today in testing they sharpened when I came off the infinity stop a tad. Smile


PostPosted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 6:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CCD sensor and old design lens......tell me, why do we need change exactly? Razz


PostPosted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 12:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

uhoh7 wrote:



Well, that proves that 5 elements is enough for f1.6 at least!

Judging by that example, this Sonnetar is probably a better buy than a ZM Sonnar 1.5/50!

Note to Gerard: Just a little patience to wait and see how 5 elements performed could have saved you a whole lot of embarrassment.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 1:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cyrano wrote:
CCD sensor and old design lens......tell me, why do we need change exactly? Razz


With modern CMOS you can use things like on-chip A-D conversion and multichannel readout. That means more frames per second and lower read noise. Some people like these things.

Berthele started his life as a designer working for Ernemann who were in the business of making stuff - to sell. So his fast lens designs - the Ernostars - enabled the production of the Ernamox camera, which was portable and could be used in natural light - or so the books tell me. Ernemann became part of Zeiss and Berthele improved his designs and Ernostars became Sonnars. Presumably - and I'm only guessing - Zeiss wanted to make "better" products so that they could make more money.

Had Berthele had access to "better" glass, coatings, aspherics, modern computational methods., etc. do you think he would have used them ?

Edit : inclusion of "modern" before "computational"


PostPosted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 1:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Well, that proves that 5 elements is enough for f1.6 at least!

Judging by that example, this Sonnetar is probably a better buy than a ZM Sonnar 1.5/50!

Note to Gerard: Just a little patience to wait and see how 5 elements performed could have saved you a whole lot of embarrassment.


It depends what you mean by "prove". It looks like a personal opinion to me.

Your message to Gerald assumes that he would share your opinion. We have no way of knowing that. His early posts have been removed and he is not allowed to make any more. So why are you writing to him?


PostPosted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 3:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why are you sticking your nose in?

I've told you before, you contribute nothing of value and instead, subtly troll by pointing out the most inconsequential errors in other people's posts.

Therefore I prefer to simply ignore you.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 3:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sichko wrote:
cyrano wrote:
CCD sensor and old design lens......tell me, why do we need change exactly? Razz


With modern CMOS you can use things like on-chip A-D conversion and multichannel readout. That means more frames per second and lower read noise. Some people like these things.

Berthele started his life as a designer working for Ernemann who were in the business of making stuff - to sell. So his fast lens designs - the Ernostars - enabled the production of the Ernamox camera, which was portable and could be used in natural light - or so the books tell me. Ernemann became part of Zeiss and Berthele improved his designs and Ernostars became Sonnars. Presumably - and I'm only guessing - Zeiss wanted to make "better" products so that they could make more money.

Had Berthele had access to "better" glass, coatings, aspherics, modern computational methods., etc. do you think he would have used them ?

Edit : inclusion of "modern" before "computational"


Love those ernamox and fast lenses Smile

Yes, he would have used all the resources he could get.
But all those resources have produced monster lenses. He would have loved the fact his old sonnar was still the smallest by far Smile
And this lens does have modern glass and coating.

It's not either or, it's both the love of history and appreciation for the latest which drives my interest in lenses.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 3:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sichko wrote:
cyrano wrote:
CCD sensor and old design lens......tell me, why do we need change exactly? Razz


With modern CMOS you can use things like on-chip A-D conversion and multichannel readout. That means more frames per second and lower read noise. Some people like these things.

Berthele started his life as a designer working for Ernemann who were in the business of making stuff - to sell. So his fast lens designs - the Ernostars - enabled the production of the Ernamox camera, which was portable and could be used in natural light - or so the books tell me. Ernemann became part of Zeiss and Berthele improved his designs and Ernostars became Sonnars. Presumably - and I'm only guessing - Zeiss wanted to make "better" products so that they could make more money.

Had Berthele had access to "better" glass, coatings, aspherics, modern computational methods., etc. do you think he would have used them ?

Edit : inclusion of "modern" before "computational"


I've no idea what any of that actually means.
Anyway, twas a tongue in cheek comment, I happen to like the rich colours of a CCD sensor and the 'old' designs in a modern reincarnation still rely on the old design. I like that too. Wink


PostPosted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 4:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Looks like this thread passed my nose Wink
What a beautiful piece Uhoh, congratz! Good size, simple Sonnar design, lightweight, for a good price too. Very Happy

But almost too fast for me. These old designs gets very bloomy and dreamy above f/1.4 and more of an effect lens. Very interesting lens indeed, but I would rather stay with my slower classic Nikkor and Canon LTMs Very Happy


PostPosted: Sun Feb 01, 2015 1:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nordentro wrote:
Looks like this thread passed my nose Wink
What a beautiful piece Uhoh, congratz! Good size, simple Sonnar design, lightweight, for a good price too. Very Happy

But almost too fast for me. These old designs gets very bloomy and dreamy above f/1.4 and more of an effect lens. Very interesting lens indeed, but I would rather stay with my slower classic Nikkor and Canon LTMs Very Happy

Well, we can't have ALL the lenses, can we? LOL

Perhaps it's really a super-color (great glass and coating) f/1.5, with the option to go all the way to 1.1, and light enough to toss in a pocket and not even notice.

Can't wait to try it on my A7M, which arrives monday. Smile That will let me really play with the coma adjustment and forget calibration.


PostPosted: Sun Feb 01, 2015 2:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Stay focused guys on the OT...no more references to the past "discussion"....lets give this thread and lens a chance now the samples are in.


PostPosted: Sun Feb 01, 2015 3:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hopefully everyone realizes it's very easy to get to the Full size image from these Smile

F/1.6:

L1027392 by unoh7, on Flickr

f/4 or faster:

Stopped Table by unoh7, on Flickr

wide open:

L1027353 by unoh7, on Flickrlowl

The lens gets very glowy wide open, which masks somewhat, the possible fact it's not all that soft when you find something in the POF. Soft/Sharp has an entirely different meaning for me at 1.5 and faster. By 1.1 it is a relative matter.


PostPosted: Sun Feb 01, 2015 4:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you for samples!


PostPosted: Sun Feb 01, 2015 6:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

sichko wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Well, that proves that 5 elements is enough for f1.6 at least!

Judging by that example, this Sonnetar is probably a better buy than a ZM Sonnar 1.5/50!

Note to Gerard: Just a little patience to wait and see how 5 elements performed could have saved you a whole lot of embarrassment.


It depends what you mean by "prove". It looks like a personal opinion to me.

Your message to Gerald assumes that he would share your opinion. We have no way of knowing that. His early posts have been removed and he is not allowed to make any more. So why are you writing to him?

You are right but your last question needs no answer..


PostPosted: Sun Feb 01, 2015 7:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

uhoh7 wrote:
Nordentro wrote:
Looks like this thread passed my nose Wink
What a beautiful piece Uhoh, congratz! Good size, simple Sonnar design, lightweight, for a good price too. Very Happy

But almost too fast for me. These old designs gets very bloomy and dreamy above f/1.4 and more of an effect lens. Very interesting lens indeed, but I would rather stay with my slower classic Nikkor and Canon LTMs Very Happy

Well, we can't have ALL the lenses, can we? LOL

Perhaps it's really a super-color (great glass and coating) f/1.5, with the option to go all the way to 1.1, and light enough to toss in a pocket and not even notice.

Can't wait to try it on my A7M, which arrives monday. Smile That will let me really play with the coma adjustment and forget calibration.


"A7M"?, the one with changed/ thinner sensor top? If so, it will be interesting for sure as I have many wide angle RF lenses my self. Very Happy


PostPosted: Sun Feb 01, 2015 1:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

uhoh7 wrote:
The lens gets very glowy wide open, which masks somewhat, the possible fact it's not all that soft when you find something in the POF.


If the glow is due to Spherical Aberration (SA) it doesn't disappear at the point of focus (POF?). If the softness is due to SA that softness doesn't disappear at the POF.


Quote:
Soft/Sharp has an entirely different meaning for me at 1.5 and faster. By 1.1 it is a relative matter.


The meaning of words is usually decided by usage and consenus. In the photographic community the definition of sharpness/softness varies somewhat but it doesn't usually vary with aperture. Of course the value of sharpness/softness does - but that's different. If you choose to use words in ways which are not used within the community you will find it difficult to talk to that community.


PostPosted: Sun Feb 01, 2015 5:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sichko wrote:
uhoh7 wrote:
The lens gets very glowy wide open, which masks somewhat, the possible fact it's not all that soft when you find something in the POF.


If the glow is due to Spherical Aberration (SA) it doesn't disappear at the point of focus (POF?). If the softness is due to SA that softness doesn't disappear at the POF.


Quote:
Soft/Sharp has an entirely different meaning for me at 1.5 and faster. By 1.1 it is a relative matter.


The meaning of words is usually decided by usage and consenus. In the photographic community the definition of sharpness/softness varies somewhat but it doesn't usually vary with aperture. Of course the value of sharpness/softness does - but that's different. If you choose to use words in ways which are not used within the community you will find it difficult to talk to that community.


Re the glow: you tell me. If you have old fast lenses, you know the glow is most apparent on items in focus.

As to the meaning of sharpness. By the standard of sharpness at f/5.6, no lens on earth is sharp at f/1.1


PostPosted: Sun Feb 01, 2015 7:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

To my eyes this lens shows tons of spherical aberration, being the center focus way closer than the edges; this is the opposite of the Leica Summilux 35 M pre-aspherical (edges focus closer than the center), for instance, and it's not a trouble-less layout. Since DOF is double beyond the focus plane, front-focused edges can be easily recovered by stopping down, while back-focused ones can not in the same way. This tendency is clearly recognizable in the picture of the table on the snow: looking at the background, infinity edges are already almost in focus along the much closer table in the center. I'd say that is a suitable lens for portraits or tridimensional shooting, with a well defined character, but probably not in the same league of other ultrafast more complex design lenses. I would be glad to see a comparison with the similar priced/same speed Voigtlander.

Thanks for sharing.


PostPosted: Mon Feb 02, 2015 6:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ultrapix wrote:
To my eyes this lens shows tons of spherical aberration, being the center focus way closer than the edges; this is the opposite of the Leica Summilux 35 M pre-aspherical (edges focus closer than the center), for instance, and it's not a trouble-less layout. Since DOF is double beyond the focus plane, front-focused edges can be easily recovered by stopping down, while back-focused ones can not in the same way. This tendency is clearly recognizable in the picture of the table on the snow: looking at the background, infinity edges are already almost in focus along the much closer table in the center. I'd say that is a suitable lens for portraits or tridimensional shooting, with a well defined character, but probably not in the same league of other ultrafast more complex design lenses. I would be glad to see a comparison with the similar priced/same speed Voigtlander.

Thanks for sharing.

For the samples you have seen so far I would basically agree with your assessment, however as a final judgement, it is totally premature.

All the shots so far are with the coma adjustment used to calibrate the rangefinder. After trial and error it's set to the 4 meter setting. Coma ideal for 4 meters. But the adjustment ranges from 1m to infinity. To focus the m9 I would to do some serious guessing, but the A7M is another matter. It should be here Monday.

So we will to wait and see. But I very much enjoy the lens with results so far Smile And there is no overstating that the lens can travel, unlike the CV or any other superspeed except the Canon LTM 50/1.2., which is still twice the size and 100grams heavier, and at least as quirky. I love both of them. Smile


L1027656 by unoh7, on Flickr


L1027658 by unoh7, on Flickr


L1027687-2 by unoh7, on Flickr
Coma at 4m. 1st two are WO.


Last edited by uhoh7 on Mon Feb 02, 2015 7:09 am; edited 2 times in total