Contax T3 Sonnar lens equivalents in ZM/M mount

[Peter_S]

Hi!

Would somebody knowledgeable of the different Sonnar designs be able to make a good guess which of the ZM and Leica M lenses is closest to the Sonnar 2.8/35 in the Contax T3? I absolutely love the rendering of that lens for certain applications - the balance of smooth and vivid and bokeh wide open and sharpeness stopped down are just right.

I am looking specifically for 50mm equivalent, either as 35-40mm for M8 or 50mm for M6. Any ideas?

I have and love the ZM Sonnar C 1.5/50, which seems quite different though, particularly with slide film...(then again, the Sonnar C lens' character changes from f/1.5 to f/2 to f/2.8 and f/5.6).
Or is the Sonnar C the closest equivalent already? What about the Rollei Sonnar 2.8/40?

Best,
Peter

[David_Manning]

That's a pretty technical question Peter. I hope you get some good info.

It seems that I lose any lens' particular character as soon as I put the film on the damn scanner.

[morback]

I'm very interested in that too. My T3 was my champion for many years until I went Amish on my photography. I think I might even have asked the very same question here some years ago.

Would you say that the C-Sonnar draws reasonably close to the T3 when used in the 2.8-4 aperture range? Sometimes I feel the (new) Elmar draws pretty close to the T3, but it seems to swirl...

I cannot say that I have seen or experienced anything like the T3 in M.

Some Elmar examples I think are close to the T3:


arcadia beach 6 by visiondrawn, on Flickr


20060205_0226_Elmar-M50_M6_Ginza_Tokyo by *Leiss, on Flickr


Untitled by visiondrawn, on Flickr


20060205_0229_Elmar-M50_M6_Ginza_Tokyo by *Leiss, on Flickr

[BobYIL]

Originally Posted by Peter_S

Hi!

Would somebody knowledgeable of the different Sonnar designs be able to make a good guess which of the ZM and Leica M lenses is closest to the Sonnar 2.8/35 in the Contax T3? I absolutely love the rendering of that lens for certain applications - the balance of smooth and vivid and bokeh wide open and sharpeness stopped down are just right.

I am looking specifically for 50mm equivalent, either as 35-40mm for M8 or 50mm for M6. Any ideas?

I have and love the ZM Sonnar C 1.5/50, which seems quite different though, particularly with slide film...(then again, the Sonnar C lens' character changes from f/1.5 to f/2 to f/2.8 and f/5.6).
Or is the Sonnar C the closest equivalent already? What about the Rollei Sonnar 2.8/40?

Best,
Peter

Peter, I do not believe that a 35mm FL would have anything to do with the classical Sonnar design. The closest lens to what you are looking for is the C-Biogon 35/2.8 (also an upgrade to your Sonnar); incredibly sharp from corner to corner, smooth bokeh wide open (better than the Biogon 35/2), flare resistant and compact size. I have it and also the Sonnar ZM and the older Sonnar Opton; all different characteristics. Go with the C-Biogon, it's probably the best 35mm lens from Zeiss for RF, be it for film or digital, on your M8 it will be 50mm equivalent though. (In case you opt for something from Leica, then get a Summarit 35, exactly the same characteristics like the C-Biogon down to bokeh, both are the best 35/2.8 lenses for RF mount. Just FYI, the Summaron 35/2.8 is not that sharp @2.8 and the bokeh is not comparable to the other two, however it has a distinct signature and terribly sharp closed down. )

As for the 50mm equivalent: The ZM Sonnar is great starting from f2.8 down and you have it to see whether it's up to your expectations. However I would also be checking the Planar 50 ZM.

Note: With my experience the closest 35 to the Sonnar 50 ZM is the 35/1.4 Summilux-pre; both show similar characteristics (and deficiencies) at the first two stops.

[damonsong]

I love my T3, and have been wondering the same thing, Rollei Sonnar might different due to the HFT coating, T3 to me is extremely sharp and vibrant, none of the M-mount lens I currently own has similar quality...
Maybe someone who owns all of the lens mention above can kindly do a little comparison for us!

[whitecat]

Amazing the quality of this lens. A true work of art.

[Archiver]

Adding my voice to those who would like an answer to this question! The T3 is one of my favourite cameras but I am loathe to use it too much for fear of an expensive or impossible repair. An M-mount lens with the same look would be fabulous; I'm hoping that the C-Sonnar recreates the look of the T3's wonderful lens.

[jsrockit]

Have you asked Zeiss?

[Peter_S]

Hi! Thanks for all the replies! Martin, the last photo could be indeed from the T3, I like that a lot. Bob, the Biogon C 2.8/35 looks tempting. I had the 2/35, but the Sonnar C 1.5/50 on the M6 yielded better results (not film vs digital, but optics-wise), and I sold it with the M8. Now I miss the M8, but I am still looking for glass that matches my analog setup.

I think for my next trip/project the M8 with the Biogon C 2.8/35 and the Contax T3 could make a nice 50mm + 35mm travel combination. I may give that a try if funds allow.
So far I used the combination M6 and Sigma DP2s (stellar for landscape, but when people come into the picture the lens rendering seems dull) a lot, but I love the T3 so much I do not want to leave it at home anymore...but I need one digital in my bag and a digital M may make a lot of sense when paired with the T3 for the film work.

I will ask Zeiss too, though, good call.

[Peter_S]

Hi!

Heard back from Zeiss. Given the different constructions the ZM lenses were hard to compare to the T3 Sonnar, but indeed (as Bob mentioned) the Biogon C 2.8/35 was closest.
So I now I am seriously thinking about gettin one and buy back an M8, as I prefer 46mm over 35mm...gotta save some money

[nightfly]

Interesting discussion.

Wondering the same thing but in relation to the 35mm Tessar in the Yashica t4. Slow at 3.5 but I absolutely love the rendering of this lens on color film. The winder in my T4 is getting a bit funky and I'd love this lens on a more reliable camera.

[morback]

Originally Posted by Peter_S

Hi!

Heard back from Zeiss. Given the different constructions the ZM lenses were hard to compare to the T3 Sonnar, but indeed (as Bob mentioned) the Biogon C 2.8/35 was closest.
So I now I am seriously thinking about gettin one and buy back an M8, as I prefer 46mm over 35mm...gotta sae some money

So they have no answers on the 50mm? Neither Planar nor C-Sonnar are respectably close?

I just remembered another potential candidate. What of the Summarit 50/2.5?

[PrimeTime]

I recalled seeing something like this and was able to find it . . .

MS Optical Re-Worked Contax Sonnar
http://blog.livedoor.jp/fotoborse/archives/1585582.html

* I believe Bellamy Hunt @ JapanCameraHunter can get in touch with MS Optical
http://japancamerahunter.com/contact/

Hope this helps.

[Peter_S]

No word on a 50mm equiv. yet, Martin.
PrimeTime: Wow, many thanks, this is interesting! There are a few photo examples online taken with M7 and CL. 38mm would be perfect on the M8 (in theory anyways)...curious to see what JapanExposures and MS-Optical have to say.

[BobYIL]

Originally Posted by Peter_S

No word on a 50mm equiv. yet, Martin.
PrimeTime: Wow, many thanks, this is interesting! There are a few photo examples online taken with M7 and CL. 38mm would be perfect on the M8 (in theory anyways)...curious to see what JapanExposures and MS-Optical have to say.

The 38mm Sonnar of the T2 is a 5-elements in 4 groups design which is inferior to the 35mm Sonnar on the T3 (6-elements in 4 groups). Both have nothing to do with the nominal Sonnar design, actually Sonnar is not a wide angle design at all. Zeiss, probably could not find an appropriate designation for the compact camera lenses following the 4-element Tessar, and certainly wouldn't be calling them Planar (i.e. symmetrical double Gauss) so they called them Sonnar, a popular and nice sounding name.

The legendary wide angle non-retrofocal design of Zeiss is the Biogon; from pre-WWII era up until today, from 35mm up to Hasselblad and Linhof Biogons for 4X5.. The way we praise the small format Biogons, be sure that the MF and LF users too are saying the same.

[Peter_S]

Bob, your knowledge is very helpful, thank you.

Would you be able to say whether the ZM 50mm Planar (which I have not used), 45mm G Sonnar or ZM 50mm C-Sonnar are closest to the T3 "Sonnar" in design? The more I look into this the more I understand how much the T3 Sonnar and ZM C-Sonnar differ...
I have used the 45mm Planar on the G2, and do find myself missing that lens, but never used the G2 in a similar way I used the T3, so I cannot compare, but it seemed smoother overall when wide open.

[BobYIL]

Originally Posted by Peter_S

Bob, your knowledge is very helpful, thank you.

Would you be able to say whether the ZM 50mm Planar (which I have not used), 45mm G Sonnar or ZM 50mm C-Sonnar are closest to the T3 "Sonnar" in design?
I have used the 45mm Planar on the G2, and do find myself missing that lens, but never used the G2 in a similar way I used the T3, so I cannot compare, but it seemed smoother overall when wide open.

From coverage point of view, none of them.. These lenses are "normal" ones, the T3 Sonnar is a 35mm wide angle.. From the rendition point of view, if the closest lens to the T3 Sonnar is the C-Biogon 35/2.8 then its rendition equivalent for 50mm could be the Planar... (The C-Sonnar I have too however it's quite different; at the first two apertures rather like the Summilux 35/1.4 pre.)

45mm Planar: Very sharp however to be used only on the G-Contax bodies; conversion to M-mount expensive. Also bokeh is ... whereas the C-Biogon has smoothest bokeh of them all, the 50 Planar's bokeh is smooth too.

[ferider]

I'm sure the Rollei 40/2.8 HFT in LTM will be as close as you can get. Similar design, coating, etc.

You could try out a Rollei 35S to see how it behaves ....

[fuwen]

Originally Posted by ferider

I'm sure the Rollei 40/2.8 HFT in LTM will be as close as you can get. Similar design, coating, etc.

You could try out a Rollei 35S to see how it behaves ....

I use Rollei HFT and Contax T* and find that Rollei a bit colder and Contax a bit warmer. But the 40/2.8 HFT has a very sweet character and produce very sweet skin tone that I feel is a class of its own.

[morback]

I used to have the Planar before trading it for the collapsible cron. The Planar is nothing like the T3. No character. Just perfect and boring. But maybe I didn't give it a fair shake.

It did seem fishy to have a wide-angle called Sonnar.

[Peter_S]

Hm, found the same with the 2/35 Biogon on the M8, but upon re-inspection of some photos and of the few good keeper/prints, the light and setting and way I shoot digital was perhaps more the problem than the lens.

Originally Posted by morback

The Planar is nothing like the T3. No character. Just perfect and boring. But maybe I didn't give it a fair shake.