Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/03/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Oh, yeah. Sonnar is nothing more than a trade name. Contax is currently a big abuser of the Sonnar name. Even the 90/2.8 G-Sonnar is not a Sonnar. It's an Ernostar, but since Contax can use the name Sonnar it does. Konica sells almost exactly the same use but uses the name "Ernostar" (whose trademark was apparently abandoned 75 years ago) to describe it. Of course the Ernostar/Sonnar difference may be more semantic, but still, Contax hasn't made a real Sonnar for G or in a compact since maybe the original T in 1985. Also, why the hell would you want the name to be Sonnar for a 35mm lens? Wouldn't you want "Biogon?" At least in the old school, that's the great wide-angle. Sonnars are great in the 38 to 40mm range: you have the T Sonnar 38/2.8, the Rollei HFT-Sonnar 40/2.8, the original Zeiss Tenax 40mm f/2, and (I believe) the Contaflex TLR. All were great fun. Even the 40/2.3 on the XF-35 wasn't that bad (the camera was, though). Dante Mark Rabiner wrote: > Ken Iisaka wrote: > > > > What's interesting is that despite the "Sonnar" name, it is not in the > > Sonnar configuration, which can be described as a modified Triplet, with > > cemented doublet, or triplet in the middle, and a singlet, or a cemented > > doublet in the back. The configuration is pretty unique, though resembles a > > Tessar, with a cemented doublet behind it. > > > ><Snip> > Sonnar has a better ring to it than Tessar, Ken! > 35 has a better ring to it than 38 as well. > I think money is the issue. To sell lots of cameras. > I find the overall look of the camera appealing. > I expect the results to be quite good and the price right. > I've got a jacket pocket that needs a camera in it. > Terminator 3 is coming up! > > Mark Rabiner > Portland, Oregon > USA > > http://www.rabiner.cncoffice.com/