Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/03/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 11:24 AM 3/30/98 -0800, Adam wrote: >Roger Hicks in his book "A History of the 35mm Still Camera" Focal Press 1984 >ISBN 0-240-51233-2 > >In his brief blurb on the Sonnars: >"It was left to Zeiss to introduce a really fast triplet derivative. They did >this in 1932 with the f/2 and f/1.5 Sonnars. The f/2 has a single front glass, a >triplet centre, and a doublet rear, and the f/1.5 has a triplet rear. Because >they are still essentially triplets, with only six glass-air surfaces, they are >still adequately contrasty, but they pay for their simplicity in other ways. The >f/2 is a good deal more than acceptable, and by f/5.6 or f/8 the initially >rather poor edge definition sharpens up considerably. The f/1.5, on the other >hand, is sharp enough centrally but never really pulls in the edges" > >There was an article in LHSA Viewfinder a while back (forget by who) on another >Sonnnar clone, the 50/1.4 Nikkor, in which the author describes the same problem >at the edges, even stopped well down. > >Has this been your experience with the Sonnar and Jupiter? No. Roger and I have FAXed each other on this and related points. That is his experience; it isn't mine, nor, for that matter, is it consistent with Kingslake's analysis of the design. The 1.4/50 Nikkor is, of course, more than a "clone": it is an outright theft of the Zeiss design, used unlawfully but with the permission of the Allied occupation authorities which was supposed to make it "all right". Of course, it does no such thing, morally: a theft is a theft, and a thief is a thief. Canon and Nikon built their reputations on larcened goods. Marc msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315 Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!