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

The horror, the horror
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 2:30 pm    Post subject: The horror, the horror Reply with quote
The beautiful horror.... today I got CZJ 200/2.8 Sonnar - what is horrible about this one may ask. Well, I'll tell you - last friday I got CZJ 180/2.8 Sonnar. Not horrible yet? Well, I am broke, I can't afford to buy lenses Smile

Anyhow, even though I've only taken a handful of shots with both lenses, it is already clear to me that the lenses have somewhat different character - to me the transition from razor sharp to silky bokeh is smoother on the 200, and more agressive in the 180. The 200 also has quite a bit more contrast and better color. Both are way sharper wide open than the only other 200mm lens I've ever had, the Sigma 70-200/2.8 EX zoom. Way sharper. They don't make lenses like this any more. The 200 is also more usable in a sense that it is smaller - I can just fit it into my toploader, while the 180 requires a backpack. And the 200 seems ever so slighty lighter. On the other hand 180 focuses quite a bit closer, though even the 2.2m of the 200 is not usually a big deal.

Anyhow, I do love both of the lenses. I really should sell one of them, but I'm not sure I want to part from either one. One really does need both 180 and 200 focal lengths, doesn't one? Wink

And here is a horrible monster with the new 200€ 200mm lens:



PostPosted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 2:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
At last, a duck thread... Laughing


PostPosted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 4:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
perfect shot!

tf


PostPosted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 4:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have no idea why Zeiss called the 200/2.8 a Sonnar, as its construction bears no relationship to the Sonnar type at all, but more akin to a modified Double Gauss, which was a bit strange to use on a lens of that specification.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 5:29 pm    Post subject: Re: The horror, the horror Reply with quote
Wonderful duck!

Anu wrote:
I really should sell one of them, but I'm not sure I want to part from either one. One really does need both 180 and 200 focal lengths, doesn't one? Wink


Well, one could ask: who really need both olive and sunflower oil in their kitchen, they are almost the same thing.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 5:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
bob955i wrote:
At last, a duck thread... Laughing


Ducks make the world a better place Smile


PostPosted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Seele wrote:
I have no idea why Zeiss called the 200/2.8 a Sonnar, as its construction bears no relationship to the Sonnar type at all, but more akin to a modified Double Gauss, which was a bit strange to use on a lens of that specification.


It does resemble the 300/4 Sonnar. I wouldn't call it a modified Double Gauss though; to me looks very different (but I do know next to nothing about this issue, I must admit). But how should Sonnar be defined? Does it have to have a cemented group of three elements? If so, then not even 135 would be a Sonnar.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
That's an excellent duck shot, I'm trying to equal shots as sharp as that, at about 200mm, on the cheap.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Anu wrote:
bob955i wrote:
At last, a duck thread... Laughing


Ducks make the world a better place Smile


Amen to that. Cool

@ Anu: Nice image by the way - I have the Sonnar 180 MC but never bothered too much about the 200 as the Fls are so close, but based on your comparison, I might have to reconsider.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Anu wrote:
Seele wrote:
I have no idea why Zeiss called the 200/2.8 a Sonnar, as its construction bears no relationship to the Sonnar type at all, but more akin to a modified Double Gauss, which was a bit strange to use on a lens of that specification.


It does resemble the 300/4 Sonnar. I wouldn't call it a modified Double Gauss though; to me looks very different (but I do know next to nothing about this issue, I must admit). But how should Sonnar be defined? Does it have to have a cemented group of three elements? If so, then not even 135 would be a Sonnar.


I have double-checked the Zeiss-published lens schematics, the 200/2.8 is definitely not a Sonnar construction, but more akin to Biotar, with 1-2:2-1 configuration. The 180/2.8 is a Sonnar, with 1-3:1, and the 300/4 a modified Sonnar as 1-1-1:2-1, but with the second and third elements almost touching. Of course the 135/3.5 or 135/4 is indeed a Sonnar as it is 1-2:1.

The classic Sonnar has to be a modified triplet with markedly assymetrical configuration, and one or more of the triplet groups as a cemented group of considerable thickness.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 7:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nice shoot from a nice lens! This lens was my first one on DSLR still have it Wink


PostPosted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 8:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Seele wrote:

The classic Sonnar has to be a modified triplet with markedly assymetrical configuration, and one or more of the triplet groups as a cemented group of considerable thickness.


http://www.luciolepri.it/lc2/marcocavina/articoli_fotografici/Bertele_Sonnar/00_pag.htm

This amazing site has a massive page dedicated to Sonnars with a million (well, almost) diagrams. Quite a few do not fit into this narrow definition of Sonnar. I'm not saying it is a wrong definition as I doubt there is a proper definition of what is a "Sonnar". Maybe the community should begin categorizing lenses properly into groups, like the biologist do with species Smile


PostPosted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 8:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nice shot of the duck. I also have recently gotten the Sonnar 200mm. I like it though I have not used it quite a lot yet.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 10:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
All the duck love made me think of a song - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8yx4k4tzqE

It seems Zeiss use some of their names for philisophical or even marketing reasons, as well as technical. The original definition according to their page -

http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/Contents-Frame/C4B1A59613632D9DC1257226005F6AB7

Yet, the latest lens I bought from them differs even from their own description in that its a 16-35mm wide angle zoom called a Vario-Sonnar. huh. I'd suggest it was because it was a steady 2.8 and referring more to the 'sonne' aspect, but even their budget conscious, variable aperture model zoom is called the same *shrug*.

K.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 12:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Anu wrote:

http://www.luciolepri.it/lc2/marcocavina/articoli_fotografici/Bertele_Sonnar/00_pag.htm

This amazing site has a massive page dedicated to Sonnars with a million (well, almost) diagrams. Quite a few do not fit into this narrow definition of Sonnar. I'm not saying it is a wrong definition as I doubt there is a proper definition of what is a "Sonnar". Maybe the community should begin categorizing lenses properly into groups, like the biologist do with species Smile


Anu,

I am well aware of that webpage. To be realistic it is impossible to say a certain design type has to adhere to some strict criteria; if you look at a Sonnar 50/2, with 1-3:2 configuration and say it is a Sonnar, then you would think the 85/2 as one but the 50/1.5 isn't, for it has 1-3:3 construction. Then you would say the 85/2 isn't because, unlike the 50/2 it has the negative element at the back of the rear group but the 50/2 has a positive element at its; there's really no end to it.

Likewise, if we consider a certain construction is of a certain type then you have to allow for further developments. For instance, the classic Double Gauss design, as started by Dr Rudolph's original Planar, has each of the inner negative groups as a negative cemented doublet to form a "buried surface". Variations based on this type can be using a single negative element in lieu of one of them, such as replacing the one at the front like the Rolleiflex Planar, or the one at the back like the Schneider Xenotar and Zeiss Biometar, or splitting one of the positive outer elements into a pair of positives, or turning it into a positive cemented doublets. The permutations are endless, but yet they are still recognisable as having been derived from the same design source.

This also means that it is terribly difficult to make an iron-clad definition of what a "Sonnar" design is; what I said in my previous post is probably as encompossing as it can get. But then you might have to call it the Ernostar type, and yet the Gunlach Ultrastigmat predated the Ernostar, using a similar configuration too. Arthur Cox did a pretty good job at making definite classifications of lens types by design, but there are many grey areas too.

Starting from two different points, two designers might end up with similar designs: When Warmisham tried to turn the Cooke Triplet into a symmetrical lens (Aviar) he split the middle negative into a pair of negative elements, which made it closer to the Dialyte type of lens such as von Hoegh's Dogmar etc. While most people think of the Tessar as a Cooke Triplet with its rear positive replaced by a cemented doublet, Rudolph did not arrive at this design by following this route, but replaced the back half of the Unar by that of a Protar, neither of them had anything to do with the triplet.

thePiRaTE,

The Zeiss site is meant to be "the horse's mouth" but it's not totally reliable, there are a bit of "spin" too: the name "Sonnar" was NOT coined by Zeiss at all, but was used by Contessa-Nettel for its own lenses of somewhat ordinary construction; after the 1926 amalgamation, the intellectual properties of the constituent companies became Zeiss' so the name was re-used.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
This is very interesting. Thank you for sharing your knowledge!


PostPosted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 9:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
This lens looks very nice. I have two 200's at the moment that rarley get used. Sad
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1