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

Communist 135mm Sonnars comparison
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 8:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Two years ago I tested one copy of MC Sonnar vs. one copy of MC Jupiter in contrasty scene at f/3.5. The Sonnar had a slight lateral CA, while the Jupiter hadn't. I thought it could be result of copy variation, but if you noticed something similar, maybe it's a nature of the lens design.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 11:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think copy variation is really an impacting factor in communist lenses, especially those from the 70s onwards.
Earlier ones seem much more standard-reliable, at least this is my personal experience.
With regards to the 135 Sonnar, my two aluminum 4/135 copies were both sharper, with less CA, and with a nicer bokeh, than the 3.5/135 MC that I later sold. I can not speak in absolute terms for the 3.5/135 MC, because Jena lenses at the time varied a lot from copy to copy. Several people appreciated the lens much, but some seem to complain about it also. On the contrary, I still have to read of a person that complains about the aluminium 4/135. This says something in my opinion.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 3:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
I think copy variation is really an impacting factor in communist lenses, especially those from the 70s onwards.
Earlier ones seem much more standard-reliable, at least this is my personal experience.
With regards to the 135 Sonnar, my two aluminum 4/135 copies were both sharper, with less CA, and with a nicer bokeh, than the 3.5/135 MC that I later sold. I can not speak in absolute terms for the 3.5/135 MC, because Jena lenses at the time varied a lot from copy to copy. Several people appreciated the lens much, but some seem to complain about it also. On the contrary, I still have to read of a person that complains about the aluminium 4/135. This says something in my opinion.


There are many more MC-versions in the circulation, than aluminium ones. This means many more complains.

Regarding copy variations - I can't complain about any of the Jena MC-lenses, other than the one 300/4 Sonnar, which had a sub standard element inside (mainly influenced bokeh).

What I don't like about the late CZJ-lenses is the use of plastic inside in places one would definitely want to use metal.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 3:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
no-X wrote:
Two years ago I tested one copy of MC Sonnar vs. one copy of MC Jupiter in contrasty scene at f/3.5. The Sonnar had a slight lateral CA, while the Jupiter hadn't. I thought it could be result of copy variation, but if you noticed something similar, maybe it's a nature of the lens design.


They both have slight laCA, but it is so little, that you don't really notice it without peeping the pixels. And it is trivial to fix.

Different light also impacts the amount of CA seen (regarding these test thoset I had a look at).


PostPosted: Mon Nov 01, 2010 3:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Anu wrote:
estudleon wrote:

All is like I said.

You can doubt all that you want to, but the things are like I said.

If the aperture is F/3,5 at infinity, when you close focus exists a lost of light, so the nominal aperture isn't the real one. I'm sorry. It's a bad idea of the physica. Shocked


Wrong. Please have a look at the definition of what aperture is, maybe wikipedia or something, you know focal lenght divided by the entrance pupil (the image of the aperture looked from front of the lens). It has nothing to do with the actual amount of light hitting the imaging device.

[/quote]

BAD. WRONG ONE MORE TIME

Oh Anu, you're wrong one more time. Please, think before write. You are confused. The aperture is relative. And the finality is let the light pass. Minor the aperture, minor the light that coming on the film/sensor.

When you focus to ie. More close focus, less light pass at the same aperture. To mantein constant the value of exposure you have to compensate the loss of light.

You don't understand how the mechanism is going on. Yours older posts say that. Confused when the aperture close when it opened. Shocked

When the aperture close it becomes more smaller. And when opened, the bigger the aperture in the lens. You can see it looking into the lens when you move the aperture ring.

Not ofended, please. It was said with only educational intentions.

Rino.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 01, 2010 8:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
estudleon wrote:


BAD. WRONG ONE MORE TIME


No, I am right. Yelling will not change that.
Quote:

Oh Anu, you're wrong one more time. Please, think before write. You are confused. The aperture is relative. And the finality is let the light pass. Minor the aperture, minor the light that coming on the film/sensor.


If I put extension tube behind the lens, the amount of light hitting the sensor will go down, but the aperture does not change because of this. Aperture is simply the ratio of focal length and the entrance pupil. It has nothing to do with how much light will hit the sensor/film. You're confused if you think otherwise. Aperture does not change if you put a neutral density filter in front of the lens, nor if you put extension tubes behind it.

Quote:

Not ofended, please. It was said with only educational intentions.

Rino.


Please try to understand the basics of optics because talking nonsense. Nonsese can be made sound more sensible after you learn the facts.

Good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number#Notation


PostPosted: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
estudleon wrote:
The aperture is relative. And the finality is let the light pass.


As a matter of fact neither is right, but Anu is a bit closer...

As far as terminology goes, the aperture is the hole left by the diaphragm. Anu is a bit more right in that the f-stop number on our lenses is merely the calculated relation between the effective (i.e. projected) aperture diameter and the focal length.

What you describe is the t-stop number, a figure describing the effective light throughput (including aperture, reflections, glass transmission and any other odd losses) - which is not used on photographic lenses, but quite widespread on 35mm cine lenses.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 02, 2010 7:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
With most lenses, focusing closer is equivalent to adding an extension tube, i.e. it increases the distance between the entrance pupil and the sensor which is equivalent to decreasing the relative aperture. Some lenses, e.g., Contarex Planars, compensate for this by increasing the physical aperture when focusing closer in order to keep the relative aperture constant within the focusing range. However, for most lenses mounted on a camera the advertised f-value is strictly valid only when focused at infinity, and the greater the magnification at close focus, the greater the discrepancy, e.g., 2 stops at 1:1.

With a pinhole camera there is no conceptual problem, the f-value is always = the pinhole distance / the pinhole diameter. Adding optics to a pinhole does no magic in this respect, only the position and the diameter of the significant aperture change somewhat when the physical aperture is replaced by a virtual one, i.e., by the entrance pupil.

Veijo


PostPosted: Tue Nov 02, 2010 12:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I agree with Veijo's comments.

As with the 3.5/135 zebra having "automatic diaphragm compensation" I also have CZJ 2.8/35 "zebra" and CZJ 2.8/180 "star wars" which do the same. I think this clever feature died on later lenses because of "through the lens metering" of the more modern camera.

To make it clear the CZJ 3.5/135 MC lens like many others, does not indicate the correct effective aperture at all focus distances (only infinity), while the 3.5/135 zebra does, by opening the diaphragm as one focuses closer or when at wide open moves the aperture setting ring to indicate correct effective aperture.

estudleon wrote:
fergus wrote:
My zebra 3.5/135 indicates just under F/5.6 when full open at MFD. I note that the physical aperture opening does not change. Set the lens to infinity, open up aperture to 3.5, on focusing towards MFD the aperture setting ring moves, but aperture opening stays the same.


Surelly a bad repair, or so. The apertures may opening, like the ring does. I'm sorry, it seems to me that your lens aperture blades system is not good in that question.
I saw the blades mechanism moving as I close focus several, several times.

In your lens the focus system, when you close focus, moves the apertures ring but, inside the lens, the ring not moves the blades. There something goes wrong.

Rino.


Hi Rino

Please read my post again. I am taking about when the lens diaphragm is set wide open. It can't physically open any more so the aperture setting ring moves instead to indicate correct effective aperture. I can assure you my lens is fine, along with a few others that do much the same. If your lens is capable of an effective or indicated aperture of F/3.5 at MFD, then your lens is either very special or faulty Laughing


PostPosted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 10:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Anu wrote:
It took me for a while to realize that you had tested two MC-versions, several Silvers and a couple of Zebras as well the Soviets.

Actually I tested three MCs, three Silvers, two Zebras and the three Soviets.

Last edited by BRunner on Fri Nov 19, 2010 10:58 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 10:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
fergus wrote:
I agree with Veijo's comments.

As with the 3.5/135 zebra having "automatic diaphragm compensation" I also have CZJ 2.8/35 "zebra" and CZJ 2.8/180 "star wars" which do the same. I think this clever feature died on later lenses because of "through the lens metering" of the more modern camera.

To make it clear the CZJ 3.5/135 MC lens like many others, does not indicate the correct effective aperture at all focus distances (only infinity), while the 3.5/135 zebra does, by opening the diaphragm as one focuses closer or when at wide open moves the aperture setting ring to indicate correct effective aperture.

estudleon wrote:
fergus wrote:
My zebra 3.5/135 indicates just under F/5.6 when full open at MFD. I note that the physical aperture opening does not change. Set the lens to infinity, open up aperture to 3.5, on focusing towards MFD the aperture setting ring moves, but aperture opening stays the same.


Surelly a bad repair, or so. The apertures may opening, like the ring does. I'm sorry, it seems to me that your lens aperture blades system is not good in that question.
I saw the blades mechanism moving as I close focus several, several times.

In your lens the focus system, when you close focus, moves the apertures ring but, inside the lens, the ring not moves the blades. There something goes wrong.

Rino.


Hi Rino

Please read my post again. I am taking about when the lens diaphragm is set wide open. It can't physically open any more so the aperture setting ring moves instead to indicate correct effective aperture. I can assure you my lens is fine, along with a few others that do much the same. If your lens is capable of an effective or indicated aperture of F/3.5 at MFD, then your lens is either very special or faulty Laughing


Hi Fergus.

I don´t know what I had read in your post!! Embarassed

Your lens is OK, sure.

Thanks for the explanation.

Regards, Rino.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 10:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I updated the first post with latest set of images:
Quote:
UPDATE 19.11.
My final update. Added flare resistance test. This is not strong point of the sonnars, but keep in mind that this is truly extreme situation, sun directly in left top corner. Anyway the MC Sonnar seems to have some slight advantage.
Added close focus and CA test. There are no surprises to my previous tests. The MC and silver Sonnar holds the lead. Zebra retains the sharpness and contrast, but colors are distinctively warmer. Jupiters again suffer from worse coatings. I don't see significant differences in CAs and LoCAs. Pure resolvance power seems to be equal too.

In the end, you can't go wrong with any of them. It depends only on your budget and your will to do some PP. And don't forget, that I tested 12 different copies and only one of them was true lemon. So, if you don't have a 135mm east Sonnar in you collection yet, go for it!


PostPosted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 11:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
vilva wrote:
With most lenses, focusing closer is equivalent to adding an extension tube, i.e. it increases the distance between the entrance pupil and the sensor which is equivalent to decreasing the relative aperture. Some lenses, e.g., Contarex Planars, compensate for this by increasing the physical aperture when focusing closer in order to keep the relative aperture constant within the focusing range. However, for most lenses mounted on a camera the advertised f-value is strictly valid only when focused at infinity, and the greater the magnification at close focus, the greater the discrepancy, e.g., 2 stops at 1:1. Veijo


Yes. In 1:10 magn. the nominal aperture 4 is the effective 4,4. When the cams had not TTL, the aperture to use must be calculated.
There is an old article where Bob did an interview to the optic specialist of Zeiss when the last contarex was born. And the optic explained why the contarex did the metering taken a F/4 and a constant angle of 14°. And there he speacked about the rol of the mechanism of compensation in the zeiss lenses.
Even the contarex super had TTL, it needed the mechanism of compensation.
I shall look for it.
Rino.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 11:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
BRunner wrote:
I updated the first post with latest set of images:
Quote:
UPDATE 19.11.
My final update. Added flare resistance test. This is not strong point of the sonnars, but keep in mind that this is truly extreme situation, sun directly in left top corner. Anyway the MC Sonnar seems to have some slight advantage.
Added close focus and CA test. There are no surprises to my previous tests. The MC and silver Sonnar holds the lead. Zebra retains the sharpness and contrast, but colors are distinctively warmer. Jupiters again suffer from worse coatings. I don't see significant differences in CAs and LoCAs. Pure resolvance power seems to be equal too.

In the end, you can't go wrong with any of them. It depends only on your budget and your will to do some PP. And don't forget, that I tested 12 different copies and only one of them was true lemon. So, if you don't have a 135mm east Sonnar in you collection yet, go for it!


My MC copy was something warm, and my copies of the not MC not so warm, but like was said here, from copy to copy.....
And my zebras were sharper than my MC.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 20, 2010 9:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
estudleon wrote:
My MC copy was something warm, and my copies of the not MC not so warm, but like was said here, from copy to copy.....
And my zebras were sharper than my MC.

There are slight differences between MC Sonnars too. Copies with red coating seems slightly colder than the ones with purple coating.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 20, 2010 12:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
vilva wrote:
With most lenses, focusing closer is equivalent to adding an extension tube, i.e. it increases the distance between the entrance pupil and the sensor which is equivalent to decreasing the relative aperture. Some lenses, e.g., Contarex Planars, compensate for this by increasing the physical aperture when focusing closer in order to keep the relative aperture constant within the focusing range. However, for most lenses mounted on a camera the advertised f-value is strictly valid only when focused at infinity, and the greater the magnification at close focus, the greater the discrepancy, e.g., 2 stops at 1:1.

With a pinhole camera there is no conceptual problem, the f-value is always = the pinhole distance / the pinhole diameter. Adding optics to a pinhole does no magic in this respect, only the position and the diameter of the significant aperture change somewhat when the physical aperture is replaced by a virtual one, i.e., by the entrance pupil.

Veijo


The aperture number has nothing to do wiith the relative position of the imager and the entrance pupil. It is defined by the focal length and the size of the entrance pupil, and the entrance pupil is the image of the aperture as seen from the front of the lens. Ie. focusing distance does not have an effect on the f-number unless the focal length also changes. If we're talking about unit focusing lenses, this does not happen.

Close focusing does indeed lose light, but it does not change the aperture value.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 20, 2010 12:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
BRunner wrote:
estudleon wrote:
My MC copy was something warm, and my copies of the not MC not so warm, but like was said here, from copy to copy.....
And my zebras were sharper than my MC.

There are slight differences between MC Sonnars too. Copies with red coating seems slightly colder than the ones with purple coating.


Thanks. That explain why my copy produce warmish images.
Rino


PostPosted: Sat Nov 20, 2010 2:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Anu, I think maybe there is some misunderstanding. The actual focal length of a lens varies as the focus dial is turned. The stated value applies only when it is focused on infinity.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 20, 2010 2:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Anu wrote:
vilva wrote:
With most lenses, focusing closer is equivalent to adding an extension tube, i.e. it increases the distance between the entrance pupil and the sensor which is equivalent to decreasing the relative aperture. Some lenses, e.g., Contarex Planars, compensate for this by increasing the physical aperture when focusing closer in order to keep the relative aperture constant within the focusing range. However, for most lenses mounted on a camera the advertised f-value is strictly valid only when focused at infinity, and the greater the magnification at close focus, the greater the discrepancy, e.g., 2 stops at 1:1.

With a pinhole camera there is no conceptual problem, the f-value is always = the pinhole distance / the pinhole diameter. Adding optics to a pinhole does no magic in this respect, only the position and the diameter of the significant aperture change somewhat when the physical aperture is replaced by a virtual one, i.e., by the entrance pupil.

Veijo


The aperture number has nothing to do wiith the relative position of the imager and the entrance pupil. It is defined by the focal length and the size of the entrance pupil, and the entrance pupil is the image of the aperture as seen from the front of the lens. Ie. focusing distance does not have an effect on the f-number unless the focal length also changes. If we're talking about unit focusing lenses, this does not happen.

Close focusing does indeed lose light, but it does not change the aperture value.


I'm sorry, there was a mix-up in terminology in my reply: instead of "relative aperture" it ought to read "effective aperture", of course. Relative aperture is the f-value of the lens ( = FL/entrance pupil diameter), effective aperture is what must be used for exposure time calculations when focusing so close that the magnification differs significantly from 0, in which case also the pupil magnification ( = exit pupil diameter/entry pupil diameter) ought to be taken into account for asymmetrical lenses (all this also affects DOF calculations, BTW.) TTL metering at the working aperture or very close integration between the lens and the camera elctronics can, of course, take care of the discrepancy between the relative and the effective apertures.

Veijo


PostPosted: Sat Nov 20, 2010 2:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
peterqd wrote:
Anu, I think maybe there is some misunderstanding. The actual focal length of a lens varies as the focus dial is turned. The stated value applies only when it is focused on infinity.


This depends on the lens. For a rigid structure, unit focusing lens, where the whole lens head is moved to focus, the focal length doesn't change. For lenses with front cell or internal focusing, where most of the lens head remains more or less stationary when focusing, the focal length must change appropriately.

Veijo


PostPosted: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
vilva wrote:
For a rigid structure, unit focusing lens, where the whole lens head is moved to focus, the focal length doesn't change.

I see. So if the focal length remains the same, what is the term that describes the varying distance from the lens "centroid" to the focal point when the lens is at minimum focus distance? (I'm sure I didn't use the right word but I hope you understand.)


PostPosted: Sat Nov 20, 2010 8:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
peterqd wrote:
vilva wrote:
For a rigid structure, unit focusing lens, where the whole lens head is moved to focus, the focal length doesn't change.

I see. So if the focal length remains the same, what is the term that describes the varying distance from the lens "centroid" to the focal point when the lens is at minimum focus distance? (I'm sure I didn't use the right word but I hope you understand.)


This distance has no special name in common use as it doesn't have much, if any, practical significance for normal, complex lenses in photographic context, and furthermore the exact position of what you called centroid depends very much on the specific lens structure - with most lenses you cannot just take the midpoint between the front and the back surfaces of the lens and with some lenses you cannot even assume that it at all times remains at the same position relative to the surfaces.

Veijo


PostPosted: Sun Nov 21, 2010 9:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
OK thanks Veijo. I thought I could see a difference in understanding of the meaning of the terminology. It seems clear that if the diaphragm moves away from the film as the lens is focused on a closer subject, then the angle of view through the aperture, and therefore the amount of light reaching the film, is reduced, even though the aperture size and the dial setting remain constant. The only variable factor is the distance from the lens to the film, what some might know as the focal length.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 28, 2010 1:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Small update...

Just found some older real world CA tests... 100% crops from 14MPx images. The CA of both Sonnars is very low. For comparison I added same shot from Elmarit 2.8/135 @f4, which is stopped down one of best corrected 2.8/135 lens I've tested.

silver CZJ Sonnar 4/135 @f4


MC CZJ Sonnar 3.5/135 @f3.5


Leica Elmarit-R 2.8/135 @f4


Last edited by BRunner on Tue Dec 28, 2010 1:42 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Dec 28, 2010 1:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
BRunner wrote:
For comparison I added same shot from Elmarit 2.8/135 @f4


Is it v2 of the lens?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4