[Leica] new 1.5 50 Sonnar

[mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)]

> I thought it was a re-creation of the classic one. Recall this caveat:
> http://www.auspiciousdragon.net/photowords/?p=952
> 
> The Olympus E-1, or the Grundig/Eton/Tecsun E-1?
> 
> On 10/3/07, A. Lal <alal@duke.poly.edu> wrote:
>> Hi Jeffery,
>> 
>> The new Sonnar is a completely different design from the original. I would
>> very much like to see CZ introduce  modern lenses for the C mount: 50/1.4
>> Planar, 21/25/28mm  wides and a portrait lens.
>> 
>> By the way, did you get yourself a second E1 yet?
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Akhil
> 
"his lens ?draws? your subject in a fine, flattering manner and is therefore
ideally suited for portraiture. It renders a sharpness that is slightly
rounded, being less aggressive than in contemporary lens designs, but at the
same time not soft in its rendition.

Many famous portraits of glamorous and prominent people during the 1930?s
used this technique to great effect. These images are characterized by
portraying the person in a shining, nearly celestial way. This effect is
very well balanced and not exaggerated; therefore many viewers see it in a
subconscious way. The trained observer, however, understands the underlining
technique and enjoys the results."


This is the round about way many people over the internet years have
described flawed optics from "the day". Its baloney spread real thick. Maybe
I'm thinking about the Mayo.
And they get away with it easier because of the baloney about portrait
optics needing to be not too sharp or good or as younger than the model its
photographing.
Its all total hogwash; cold cuts.
As lens design goes: It's a good because its bad.  That's the simple logic
we're looking at here.
They didn't have computer optical design or the glasses we have now or the
experience or the coatings we have now but lets just go back there and say
it was a good thing. Because the image comes out all fuzzy.

You want the lens which renders an image of the highest quality regardless
of what you're photographing. The Grand Canyon or Old ladies.
I don't need to get all excited about re introducing an optic which was way
too fast for its time. The first fast lens out of the gate.
...Which then got Leica thinking they had to come out with something to keep
up with the Zeiss's so they came out with their first miserable 1.5.
I hear the Zeiss was better. For whatever that's worth.

Its an f2 lens but opens up to 1.5 for romantic effect!?!?!?
No!! its an f2 lens which completely falls apart at f1.5!

I think we admire a lenses fingerprint not because its a smudge.

Me I'm more fond of looking at the flaws which are NOT THERE.

I like the look a 90 APO ASPH gives me.
Love those flaws; the ones you can't see.
Because they're not there.

Mark William Rabiner
rabinergroup.com