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

New Sonnar 180/2.8
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 12:59 am    Post subject: New Sonnar 180/2.8 Reply with quote
The Sonnar finally came in. I've been inspired by Orio's and others' images
from the Sonnar, and it just seems that it could be a valuable lens to
have in the quiver. I understand that it excels in portraiture, but I'll be
happy to use it for images of my beloved alpine flowers. I won't necessarily
have to push myself through wet leaves to get close-in to the subject as
much as with a 90 or 50. And, I understand that the bokeh is first-class.

So, I'm excited to try it out.

I don't have any images out of the lens yet, but here are a couple of the
new lens itself, right after unpacking.

Don't mind:
1) The crappy images
2) The slicked-down after-shower hair
3) The sunburned nose from sun reflecting from snow
4) Or the apparent lack of a smile! I am actually VERY happy all the time!

What a MONSTER. Shocked

I need to find out where I can get an adapter for the tripod screw.

Even the CASE was a monstrous surprise. Haha!



[url=http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/201010/big_65_Holding_with_Pentax_ZX5N_2.jpg]



Last edited by Laurence on Fri Oct 29, 2010 5:19 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 1:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Congratulations Larry!
I realize you got a Jena Sonnar. Since you commented on my images I was under the impression that you were after the Contax version. Doesn't matter, your Jena lens will even be better than the Contax at infinity setting (at least this is my experience). Have fun and report with pictures!


PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 1:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I wonder which is heavier, your lens or my CZ Jena 200/2,8 M42. Looks same size to me. tripod collar... I need that too.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 1:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
IAZA wrote:
I wonder which is heavier, your lens or my CZ Jena 200/2,8 M42. Looks same size to me. tripod collar... I need that too.


Sonnar 180 is heavier (I had both)


PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 1:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Wow...very impressive looking lense. Can't wait to see some samples.

I'd buy one just to hang off my body. Laughing


PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 4:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Congratulations Larry!
I realize you got a Jena Sonnar. Since you commented on my images I was under the impression that you were after the Contax version. Doesn't matter, your Jena lens will even be better than the Contax at infinity setting (at least this is my experience). Have fun and report with pictures!


Sorry Orio, I didn't mean to infer that I was looking for the Contax version.
I am surprised that there would be differences between the
versions though. Do you know what those differences are?

I notice that the multi-coating seems very well done, with the
reflections showing shades of magenta and green, similar to my
Pentax-A medium format lenses.

Workmanship is rock solid and smooth. All markings are engraved
and filled with paint. The focus ring is wide and nicely damped.
Aperture ring is tactile and positive. In short, the mechanical trappings
all equal to what I would expect from Zeiss.

Can't wait to use the lens on my Pentax 645, although my first images
will be with the little Pentax ZX-5N 35mm and its M42 adapter.
My 645 will be the primary camera for the Sonnar. I think this lens will be
eminently hand-holdable in bright conditions, thanks to the fast f:2.8
wide open aperture. Of course, I won't be packing this lens on a 10
day hiking trip, but if it gives good results, I won't hesitate to take it on
shorter hikes.

I've loaded the ZX-5N with Velvia, and will start shooting the
roll tomorrow, so that I can get an idea of sharpness and bokeh.
I hope that this is a good lens that has been built to pass quality
control standards. Final negotiated cost of the lens was $246, which seems fair.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 4:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
TBaker wrote:
Wow...very impressive looking lense. Can't wait to see some samples.

I'd buy one just to hang off my body. Laughing


I totally agree! In fact, if this lens turns out to be less than stellar in
performance, I can always just keep it mounted and visible, at least to
look like I know what I'm doing! Very Happy


PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 6:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I see it is the black multicoated version. The copy variation is evidently greater among them than with the zebras due to lesser quality cemented triplets allowed through QC due to economics. I hope it turns out to be a diamond!

One question about the black version - I have the zebra, and during closer focusing distances the aperture closes soomewhat. Is the black version close-focus-corrected in that the one can use f/2.8 at the minimum focus distance? If it is, I think I will want to get yet another Sonnar into my collections - no, not to replace the 200/2.8 which is great, but to complement it Wink


PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 7:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Aperture remains wide open on my MC version. Why did they stop the lens down in earlier versions?


PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 7:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
congrats Laurence! look like new


PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Congrats, a beauty of a lens! Very Happy

And your house appears to be located somewhere in the jungle? lovely Laughing


PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 11:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Laurence wrote:

Sorry Orio, I didn't mean to infer that I was looking for the Contax version.
I am surprised that there would be differences between the
versions though. Do you know what those differences are?


The Carl Zeiss Jena version was made in East Germany and is optically closer to the original Olympia Sonnar. It is also a "true Sonnar" lens and the weight and size prove it (lots of glass especially in those cemented elements.)

The Contax version was made in West Germany and it's not the original Olympia Sonnar design, although of course it is derived from it. Like someone else already noted, it's more like an Ernostar type of design, although optically it behaves like a Sonnar and this is why the Zeiss people called it that way. The Contax version is much less bulky and a lot lighter. It also features a floating element that provides CFC (close focus correction). Therefore it is more suited for portraits than a lens that is optimized for infinity.

I have and keep both versions East and West because they are both beautiful lenses and I feel that they also are different. I would surely use the East version for long distance shots at it seems to give sharper images than the Contax version when shot at infinity. For portraits I would use the Contax version because it seems to offer clearer detail in the close range (no doubt due to the floating element).
Both lenses have common shortcomings (they both provide some CA in high contrast situations) and common virtues (both provide gorgeous bokeh).
All in all they are both excellent lenses, I would be in a hard time if I had to choose one over the other.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 12:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Anu wrote:
I see it is the black multicoated version. The copy variation is evidently greater among them than with the zebras due to lesser quality cemented triplets allowed through QC due to economics. I hope it turns out to be a diamond!

One question about the black version - I have the zebra, and during closer focusing distances the aperture closes soomewhat. Is the black version close-focus-corrected in that the one can use f/2.8 at the minimum focus distance? If it is, I think I will want to get yet another Sonnar into my collections - no, not to replace the 200/2.8 which is great, but to complement it Wink


I had the same problem in pancolar 50mm lens. The repairman told me the following:

The aperture system into the lens, has a large pin to be drive from the aperture ring in the outside of the lens.

When the pin isn't in the right position (can be something curved) the blades run when you close focus the lens.

Easy to be fixed, can do by yourself too.

Rino.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 3:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
The Contax version is much less bulky and a lot lighter. It also features a floating element that provides CFC (close focus correction). Therefore it is more suited for portraits than a lens that is optimized for infinity.


I doubt that the CZJ Sonnar is optimized for infinity. Few lenses are. I guess it is optimized into the middle distances - for action sports and such. But for really close focusing the floating elements do help.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 3:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
estudleon wrote:
Anu wrote:
I see it is the black multicoated version. The copy variation is evidently greater among them than with the zebras due to lesser quality cemented triplets allowed through QC due to economics. I hope it turns out to be a diamond!

One question about the black version - I have the zebra, and during closer focusing distances the aperture closes soomewhat. Is the black version close-focus-corrected in that the one can use f/2.8 at the minimum focus distance? If it is, I think I will want to get yet another Sonnar into my collections - no, not to replace the 200/2.8 which is great, but to complement it Wink


I had the same problem in pancolar 50mm lens. The repairman told me the following:

The aperture system into the lens, has a large pin to be drive from the aperture ring in the outside of the lens.

When the pin isn't in the right position (can be something curved) the blades run when you close focus the lens.

Easy to be fixed, can do by yourself too.

Rino.


It is not a problem, but a feature of this lens. It is the same with many older CZJ lenses, like Zebra 300/4 and Silver Sonnar 135/4 as well as the Zebra 180/2.8. I imagine the older lenses also have this unfortunate feature, though don't knor for sure.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 3:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Anu wrote:

I doubt that the CZJ Sonnar is optimized for infinity. Few lenses are.


Actually, it's the contrary, based on what is commonly read on the net and in the magazines, most lenses are optimized at infinity, except for macro lenses.
For sure, Zeiss lenses (at least western Zeiss) are sure to be optimized for infinity, except for macro lenses, because Zeiss declared it openly. Even the Planar 1.4/85, which common sense would intend for portrait use, is optimized at infinity. I'm sure that Klaus will confirm about this if you ask him.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Anu wrote:

I doubt that the CZJ Sonnar is optimized for infinity. Few lenses are.


Actually, it's the contrary, based on what is commonly read on the net and in the magazines, most lenses are optimized at infinity, except for macro lenses.
For sure, Zeiss lenses (at least western Zeiss) are sure to be optimized for infinity, except for macro lenses, because Zeiss declared it openly. Even the Planar 1.4/85, which common sense would intend for portrait use, is optimized at infinity. I'm sure that Klaus will confirm about this if you ask him.


I must disagree. It would be silly to optimize them for infinity. Almost certainly most lenses, apart from floatingless macros, are optimized for somewhere between infinity and MFT to maximise image quality over the whole focus range. Ideally MFT and inifinity would provide roughly similar IQ, with the peak performance at neither extreme. I've never seen any information in the net to one direction or the other, but simply how optics function, and what would be logical, dictates how I feel about this, though I have no hard evidence what so ever.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm assuming that the lens and group distribution is similar - but not exactly
similar - between the Contax and Jena versions? Or does the floating
element make them quite a lot different?

I wonder why other makers would say "Sonnar" design, when it must be
obviously a Zeiss "trademark"?


PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 10:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Anu wrote:

I must disagree. It would be silly to optimize them for infinity.


Zeiss wrote:

Lenses reach their highest performance at the focus setting for which they have been optimized. This is normally infinity.


The above quote is from page 7 of the following PDF:

http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/ARRIUltraPrimesBrochure/$File/ARRI_UltraPrimes_brochure.pdf

But I have read the same concept stated in other places in Zeiss literature.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 10:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Laurence wrote:
I'm assuming that the lens and group distribution is similar - but not exactly
similar - between the Contax and Jena versions? Or does the floating
element make them quite a lot different?


Larry, if you scroll down this page:

http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Zeiss_.html

you will find the schemes of the Jena Olympia Sonnar (which should be the same in the modern 180s from Jena), of the Contarex Sonnar 180 (Oberkochen), and of the Contax Sonnar 180 (Oberkochen)

You will see that the triple cemented element, characteristical of the Olympia Sonnar, is not present anymore in the Oberkochen lenses. No doubt because of the advancement in coating technology, and with the goal of making more lightweight lenses, they opted for a slightly different design, closer to what the Ernostar was - Ernostar which was in fact the predecessor of the Sonnar.

The floating element - still absent in the Contarex version, and introduced with the Contax version - is a design solution that -to my knowledge- was first introduced in prime lenses by Erhard Glatzel in some Distagon lenses in the end of the 60s. OF course it optimizes the performance of the lens in the close range compared to a lens with fixed elements that is optimized for infinity. This innovation made it possible for lens designers to allow minimum focusing distances that were previously usually not allowed, in order not to allow users to obtained degraded performances from the lenses.

Laurence wrote:
I wonder why other makers would say "Sonnar" design, when it must be obviously a Zeiss "trademark"?


In fact no other maker has ever used the Sonnar trademark. They may have copied Sonnar lenses (such as the Russian Jupiters), but they always used different names.
Zeiss Jena and Zeiss Oberkochen are both Zeiss. So they could both use the name Sonnar, except in the cases decided by their regulation agreement that limited the commercialization of eastern lenses in the Western Europe and USA to lenses branded without the Zeiss name and the lenses trademark names.
There is no doubt that the East Germany Zeiss (who could claim the right on those names with equal rights) must have cashed a good amount of money from the Western Zeiss in order to sign that agreement.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 10:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I wish to see your new gem on your Pentax 645 Smile


PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2010 3:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Anu wrote:

I must disagree. It would be silly to optimize them for infinity.


Zeiss wrote:

Lenses reach their highest performance at the focus setting for which they have been optimized. This is normally infinity.


The above quote is from page 7 of the following PDF:

http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/ARRIUltraPrimesBrochure/$File/ARRI_UltraPrimes_brochure.pdf

But I have read the same concept stated in other places in Zeiss literature.


Good, since this brochure talks about lenses that are not meant for photography, but for film Smile . Considering the different requirements for film shooting, it might be sensible to have maximum performance at infinity.

However, for photographic lenses this would not be optimal vis-a-vis all-around performance, so I am still sceptical.

Also, please note that the brochure is a modern one - I'd love to see something from the good old days Wink


PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2010 8:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sort of on-topic, I think, regarding fitting the lens mount attachment to
my 1/4 inch tripod screw:

Does the tripod adapter take a 3/8 to 1/4 inch adapter insert, or is it a
7/16 to 1/4 inch adapter insert? Info would be greatly appreciated. I am
not home right now, or I would just find out using available screws I
have around the house.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2010 8:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio, Anu, et al: THANK YOU for the interesting dialog, and thank you
Orio for the great links. Smile


PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2010 8:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Congratulations, Laurence. Very Happy

You asked me for some pictures. I don't think you saw them.
Here they are : http://forum.mflenses.com/some-sonnar-2-8-180-shots-up-for-laurence-t28288,highlight,sonnar+180.html
Wink
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2