SLR C Sonnar 50/1.5 equivalent

[paulfish4570]

zuiko 50/1.8, hp5, f1.8:

[paulfish4570]

zuiko 50/1.8, arista premium 400/tri-x, f1.8:

[Speedfreak]

Could anyone please post some c-sonnar shots which dont look just like any other fast 50mm? I seriously doubt anyone could blind pick the sonnar from random samples.

Aperture, focus, distance, lighting, type of background ... all that matters far more than brand or formula. No?

[mfogiel]

This has been shot at F8.0, yet there is some special roundness and luminoaity to this picture:

07111705 by mfogiel, on Flickr

F 3.4

07111504 by mfogiel, on Flickr

f4.0 with flash

R.V. by mfogiel, on Flickr

same:

A.& M. by mfogiel, on Flickr

wide open:

ASPETTANDO LA METRO' by mfogiel, on Flickr

F 5,6

MILANO CHE LAVORA by mfogiel, on Flickr

F 4.0

DOG FOR SALE, SARLAT by mfogiel, on Flickr

wide open:

ON MY RAINY WAY TO WORK by mfogiel, on Flickr

f 4.0

M.S. by mfogiel, on Flickr

f 2.8

20094408 by mfogiel, on Flickr

wide open

07110512 by mfogiel, on Flickr

wide open

07120711 by mfogiel, on Flickr

[mfogiel]

Some more:
F 2.8

2008100504 by mfogiel, on Flickr

F 4.0

20092008 by mfogiel, on Flickr

F 2.8

20092102 by mfogiel, on Flickr

F 2.8

F2,8 by mfogiel, on Flickr

F 5.6

20092331 by mfogiel, on Flickr

wide open

"FRIEND'S HOUSE#1" by mfogiel, on Flickr

F 5.6

2008020307 by mfogiel, on Flickr

wide open

07120608 by mfogiel, on Flickr
F 4.0

M.K. by mfogiel, on Flickr

wide open

20092935 by mfogiel, on Flickr

F 3.4

2008080312 by mfogiel, on Flickr

F 2.8

2008080401 by mfogiel, on Flickr

F 2.8

20090322 by mfogiel, on Flickr

F 8.0

FALLING by mfogiel, on Flickr

wide open

POWAZKI #18 by mfogiel, on Flickr

There is a turning point around F 5.6, and by f 8.0 this lens becomes very sharp, but never in a manner comparable to a Makro Planar for example. At wider apertures, the unsharpness gradient becomes absurd - at f 2.8 from 1.5 meters you get a background blur like shooting at f 1.4. Then, there is this mix of soft and contrasty, as if you were using a softar, but without the highlight bleeding. This lens is simply unique for portraiture.

[Drago]

sooo much 3D here. zeiss are known for it, but that lens has plenty of it.
and nice examples of what the sonnar is capable of

[f16sunshine]

Well, I can say that the lens I suggested (sonnar Takumar f2/58mm in m42 mount) will not give you results like the photos below. The C sonar does for my eye render more like a DG than an old classic Sonnar. Look for a Zeiss 50 f1.4 for this sort of crisp 3D rendering and contrast.

These are Beautiful!

[anerjee]

Lovely pictures! I have this lens and it is the one lens that keeps me on the M system.

How do you remember the exact aperture on all of this stuff? I can only make out wide open or stopped down. Not f/4 vs. f/3.4.

Originally Posted by mfogiel

Some more:
There is a turning point around F 5.6, and by f 8.0 this lens becomes very sharp, but never in a manner comparable to a Makro Planar for example. At wider apertures, the unsharpness gradient becomes absurd - at f 2.8 from 1.5 meters you get a background blur like shooting at f 1.4. Then, there is this mix of soft and contrasty, as if you were using a softar, but without the highlight bleeding. This lens is simply unique for portraiture.

[wintoid]

Originally Posted by mfogiel

@wintoid
This shot is quite remarkable - do you remember at which aperture have you done it?

I don't seem to have a record of the aperture, unfortunately. I almost exclusively keep this lens at f/2 but it doesn't really look like f/2 to me.

TMY2 did a good job here though, almost looks like digital right, but with better dynamic range.

[wintoid]

These were at f2...


Tony by wintoid, on Flickr


Luncheon by wintoid, on Flickr

[Argenticien]

Originally Posted by f16sunshine

There is the Sonnar Takumar f2/58mm. It's an M42 lens and quite tiny.
I have one I bought for about $200 on an old Pentax which is quite a bit for an old Reflex "normal". It definitely has that sonnar "look".
It is the only reflex Sonnar "Normal" lens. Rare but not impossible to find.
I don't have any sample photos online. Mine has a stiff Focus and needs cleaning. Here is a flickriver.

http://www.flickriver.com/search/sonnar+takumar+58mm/

Some months ago I saw that so-called "Sonnar Takumar" (+ an unremarkable, common camera body) go for about USD 550 on shopgoodwill.com. I think the days of getting it for USD 200 are past, unless you unbelievably luckily stumble upon one being sold by someone who's got no clue at all what it is.
--Dave

[mfogiel]

It looks, like I have resolved the issue in an unexpected way: in a fit of GAS, I have bought the whole Hasselblad F system, in order to use it mainly with the Planar 110/2.
Will post some images in a few weeks, once everything arrives and I will have the time to test drive this...
I'd hope, to be able to do something comparable to this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/magda_a...16191511/show/
although I am sure, I won't have such beautiful models...

[k__43]

I don't think there is a lens like the Sonnar 50/1.5 for SLRs. But if you are looking for a lens that has strong characteristics and is really good for portraiture you should definitely try a Helios 44, they are dirt cheap and awesome!

that said .. I prefer my ZM c-sonnar over my Helios 44m (and my M2 over my pentacon)

[sparrow6224]

The closest lens I can think of for an SLR to what you're talking about is the Rokkor 58mm f/1.4. (I have no knowledge of the religiously worshipped f/1.2 version...). Another lens that, as you stop down, sharpens considerably from a dreamy wide aperture look is the Ai-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.2. I love that lens. Of course now you have a Hasselblad so fugget about it.

[CK Dexter Haven]

I've had a few 203FEs. Great camera, but i never fell in love with the 110/2. It's sort of a semi-legendary lens, but i didn't like my results with it. A little soft and the bokeh wasn't as consistently good as i would have expected. I do have a framed print by Hiroshi Watanabe though, shot with the 110. He's a great photographer who mostly shoots with the 110.

I think you might really be happy with the 150/2.8 FE Sonnar, though. THAT is a nice piece of work.

[redisburning]

Originally Posted by sparrow6224

The closest lens I can think of for an SLR to what you're talking about is the Rokkor 58mm f/1.4. (I have no knowledge of the religiously worshipped f/1.2 version...). Another lens that, as you stop down, sharpens considerably from a dreamy wide aperture look is the Ai-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.2. I love that lens. Of course now you have a Hasselblad so fugget about it.

both of these are front focused (my fault, this was my first day with this lens), so please keep that in mind. this lens is actually fairly reasonable at f1.2. these are just so you can get an idea of how this lens does people wide open. if you look where the plane of best focus is you'll see that it's better than acceptable wide open, it's downright usable:


Untitled by redisburning, on Flickr


Untitled by redisburning, on Flickr

[buzzardkid]

Nikkor pre-AI 105/2.5 and 58/1.4.

I shoot both on the D3100 (fully manual, not even the meter works) and they are nice... and not all that expensive too. I bought either of them for around EUR 135, shipping in EU included... The 105 even came with caps, hood and bubble for that price...


This was with the 58/1.4. Just an alley cat, but I love the rendering!

[mfogiel]

@CK Dexter Haven
I have bought the Sonnar as well, I have been surprized to see how compact it is.
@redisburning
While I was lookiung for an SLR version of Heliar 75/2.5, which I like a lot on Leicas, I saw, that the only reasonably priced copy in Europe, was for Minolta mount, then I saw an add for a Minolta body+58/1.4 for 130 EUR, and I ended up buying both...
I have acquired quite a bunch of gear in the last few weeks, and now I'd like to do some selection and testing, hoping to post any interesting findings here.

[rfaspen]

Well, I haven't seen the Zeiss 50mm 1.8 Planar for Rolleiflex mentioned here. I think it was available in a Nikon F mount too (which I'd rather have). This was the lens that "taught" me portraiture and the only reason I keep a Rolleiflex SL35 body around. My memory is awful, but I think this lens beat the supposed sonnar Jupiter-3 on my LTM gear, at least when shooting mid-wide (2.8), but I haven't pulled it out for a while....

[sparrow6224]

mfogiel -- one of your shots, from Flickr, I thought was the Zeiss ZM 50mm for Nikon, not an RF. Was I mistaken? the Hasselblad Zeiss I long for is the 120 Makro -- beautiful.

Also, one of the first replies to your OP mentioned the Elmarit-R 60/2.8 Macro. I want to toss in a nother vote -- an amazing lens. But does not render like a Sonnar I don't think. The notable quality is sharpness. The transition to OOF I would describe as intelligent, rather than lovely. Not ugly or nervous, just sound.

Lastly, no one has mentioned this fact, but among the Nikon 105s, which are really stunning, a certain number of the early F (non-Ai) versions were actually Sonnar designs. Went over to double Gauss in 1971 which (I think) is same time as introduction of F2. Don't know if they are related. The SNs 100xxx to 287xxx are sonnars. After, it jumps to 400xxx and anything at or above that is a double gauss. I have one of each but haven't tested them against one another to compare. Yet.

[sparrow6224]

PS I hope you DO come back and post the new stuff. You do marvelous work.