Performance of Rollei Sonnar 2.8/40

thmk · 12-04-2004

Hello, today I stumbled over the fact that Robert White in UK sells the Rollei Sonnar 2.8/40 separately without the Rollei 35 RF for just 199 GBP (excl. VAT). Maybe I am too stupid to use a search engine but I could not found that much information how this lens performs in real life. Most things I found were related to the built-in version of the small Rollei 35s but I specifically want to know about the new LTM version. Is there anybody out there to help? Currently I am torn between the new Voigtländer 1.4/40, the Summicron-M 2/50 and the Rollei lens as the main lens on a Bessa R3a and try to gather as much information as I can get.
Thanks for your help.

rover · 12-04-2004

Huck Finn has the Rollei 40. I am sure he will see this thread and be able to share his thoughts. I have seen some of his prints made with it, they were sharp and showed very good color. His user opinion will mean more for sure.

furcafe · 12-04-2004

I have the lens & it's a fine optic. It strikes me as having a little more contrast than the 40/2 M-Rokkor (my only other 40mm Leica-compatible lens), but I have no idea whether that's due to the different lens designs or the more modern coatings on the Sonnar. Not much else to say. I've never used 1 of the little Rollei 35s, so I have no idea how this lens compares to that version.

Here's a photo.net thread on the Sonnar:
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-...?msg_id=0083Sd

Quote:

Originally posted by thmk
Hello, today I stumbled over the fact that Robert White in UK sells the Rollei Sonnar 2.8/40 separately without the Rollei 35 RF for just 199 GBP (excl. VAT). Maybe I am too stupid to use a search engine but I could not found that much information how this lens performs in real life. Most things I found were related to the built-in version of the small Rollei 35s but I specifically want to know about the new LTM version. Is there anybody out there to help? Currently I am torn between the new Voigtländer 1.4/40, the Summicron-M 2/50 and the Rollei lens as the main lens on a Bessa R3a and try to gather as much information as I can get.
Thanks for your help.

Huck Finn · 12-05-2004

Hi, thmk, I am very pleased with the Rollei Sonnar. Superb optic for its intended use as a candid lens. Contrasty & sharp edge to edge. Build quality is excellent, focus is smooth. This lens just does not flare in my experience although I have not yet pushed it to the limit in that regard. It is compact & balances very nicely on a Bessa R2. Its mount is actually LTM, but it comes with an adapter included & the combination works fine. The new 40/1.4 & the older Leica/Minolta 40/2 lenses are true M-mounts. I'm sorry that I do not have the ability to post photos, but you can check Mike Elek's website below for a review of the Rollei 35 RF & an accompanying picture. The price you quoted (199 GBP or $387 USD) is an excellent price - the best I've seen anywhere. Good luck with your decision.

www.host.fptoday.com/melek/pages/cameras.html

Huck Finn · 12-05-2004

tmhk, I'm sorry that I was in a rush this morning when I posted, but I would like to elaborate on my comment a little bit. As I mentioned above, the 40/2.8 Sonnar was developed as a candid lens, a people lens. Although it is generally very sharp, there is a little softness in the resolution of very fine detail - something which can be quite flattering to your human subjects who might not want a blemish rendered quite so perfectly. This contrasts with a lens like the Leica 50 Summicron, which is sometimes described as "painfully sharp" because it is so good in resolving even very fine details. For some purposes, of course, such resolution is preferable.

One of the advantages of a 40mm lens is that, like other wide angles, it has great depth of field - even as compared to a 50. Again, this makes it very useful for shooting candids because it is easy to estimate or pre-set focus & to then be able to shoot quickly in situations involving people. To use the lens in this manner means a preference often for aperture settings of f/5.6 or smaller to maximize depth of field for quick shooting & accurate focus. When you need them, f/4 & f/2.8 are there. It is for this type of shooting that this lens shines. I find that for low light shooting or for situations when I want shallower depth of field, I'm more likely to use my 50 Summicron.

The Rollei 40 Sonnar will work well with the R3A because the 1x magnification allows for use with both eyes open & therefore a more spontaneous kind of shooting to capture "the moment." However, if the R3A is the camera of choice in order to take advantage of greater precision in focusing for shallow depth of field or in low light, a lens with a wider maximum aperture would be preferable.

Cheers

thmk · 12-05-2004

@Huck Finn
Many thanks for your comments on the lens. It really helps me in my decision. Currently I am more into static subjects when using a normal lens so the Summicron seems to be a better choice for my needs. For people photography I mostly use a 90mm lens.

I also want to thank the others who answered to my question that fast. I really like this forum