Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/04/05
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]It's entire possible that the Sonnar simply isn't a good performer wide open. If I use it as a street lens (during the day), the softness at 1.5 would not be a problem, but with a couple of Summiluxes available at that aperture, I tend to just leave the Sonnar behind. Jeffery On Apr 5, 2010, at 10:55 AM, Lluis Ripoll Querol wrote: > Hi Jeffery, > > I've followed your comments about focus shift, I think my lens don't show > such problem, well it is not a very good perfomer at 1.5. What I'm very > surprised too is what you tell about your Sonnar Russian copy, I suppose > you are talking about the Jupiter 3, I've saw this lens on e-bay between > 80 to 150$, I've never decided for it because I already have the Sonnar > and on the other hand I've always heard that it is no easy find a good > Russian lens, maybe you should buy 2 or 3 to be sure to have a good one. I > didn't know this Bessa Contax, it looks as a lovely camera. > > Maybe you already know this link: > http://www.zeisscamera.com/first.shtml > > Cheers > Lluis > > > El 03/04/2010, a las 3:11, Jeffery Smith escribi?: > >> I have an aluminum or some God-awful alloy Russian-made 50/1.5 Sonnar >> that focuses better than the Zeiss M lens, as does the Contax C lens on >> my Contax. In retrospect, it would have been wiser (by about $750) for me >> to buy Stephen Gandy's Bessa Contax mount camera body and put the old >> Zeiss lens on it. The Zeiss site says that they 50/1.5 improves at 5.6 >> and smaller. Is there any lens that doesn't look pretty good at 5.6 and >> smaller? I've got a great 50/3.5 Heliar for that. I do like the OOF >> aspects of the Sonnar. That said, it seems to be an outdoor lens. >> >> Jeffery >> >> >> On Apr 2, 2010, at 7:58 PM, Greg Lorenzo wrote: >> >>> >>> hopsternew at gmail.com writes in part: >>> >>>> The Sonnar was interesting. This sample appeared very well made like >>>> all of >>>> this series that I have handled or owneed. Of course Zeiss themselves >>>> say >>>> that it is meant to be a reproduction of a classic design, it does focus >>>> shift and it has its own distinct character. >>> >>> I tried out a Zeiss ZM 50/1.5 for a few days after finding I quite liked >>> my Soviet made copy with my M film cameras. The new Zeiss lens being of >>> better build quality then the Soviet lens. To my surprise I found the >>> Zeiss lens to be soft/soft/soft to about f4. Nothing coming out in sharp >>> focus. Thinking my eyes were the problem I put the Soviet lens on for a >>> few shots on the next roll and problem solved I had sharp focus from >>> f1.5 to 4. >>> >>> Didn't buy the Zeiss lens and now I have two Soviet 50/1.5 lens as I >>> found one NIB which was made in 1963 (reportedly a good year for these >>> lenses). >>> >>> Greg Lorenzo >>> Calgary, Canada >>> _________________________________________________________________ >>> The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your >>> inbox. >>> http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_3 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information