Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > Optics Theory -

Optics Theory - This forum is aimed towards the TECHNICAL side of photographic OPTICS THEORY. There will be some overlap by camera/manufacturer, but this forum is for the heavy duty tech discussions. This is NOT the place to discuss a specific lens or lens line, do that in the appropriate forum. This is the forum to discuss optics or lenses in general, to learn about the tech behind the lenses and images. IF you have a question about a specific lens, post it in the forum about that type of camera, NOT HERE.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 02-13-2013   #41
furcafe
Registered User
 
furcafe's Avatar
 
furcafe is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Washington, DC, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 4,303
Maybe improved coatings accounts for the revival of the Ernostar (e.g., 90/2.8 "Sonnar" in G mount), too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ferider View Post
Just find it interesting that in the 50s, glass was used in the middle of the front triplet, to avoid air/glass surfaces (and achieve the above mentioned flare resistance), while with today's coating technology, the C-Sonnar doesn't need this.

Roland.
__________________
Five a Second. Chicago's Bell & Howell Co. (cameras) announced that it would put on sale this fall the world's most expensive still camera. Its "Foton" will take five 35-mm. pictures a second, sell for $700. Bell & Howell, which has found that "families of both low and high incomes now spend over $550" for movie equipment, hopes to sell 20,000 Fotons a year.
--Facts And Figures, Time magazine, Monday, October 4, 1948
My Photoblog

My Flickr stream

My RFF Gallery

My Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-13-2013   #42
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by goamules View Post
When the light goes down today I'm going to try to shoot my next phase; open aperture focused at infinity. I always hear this or that lens is "optimized for [close up, infinity]" and I need to see it.

Do people mean, simply, that the lens is calibrated to be most accurately in focus on a rangefinders mechanism either near, or far? I just don't get it.
Some lenses deliver maximum resolution close up; some at infinity; and some at (for example) 3-5 metres. Even with floating elements it's difficult to optimize for more than one distance.

Rangefinder coupling and focus shift are separate issues from the above.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-13-2013   #43
Mark C
Registered User
 
Mark C is offline
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 406
I agree Roger. But that is the question. Which are people talking about? My impression is that in these sonnar discussions people are talking almost entirely about focus accuracy.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-14-2013   #44
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark C View Post
I agree Roger. But that is the question. Which are people talking about? My impression is that in these sonnar discussions people are talking almost entirely about focus accuracy.
Mine too: sorry for 'explaining' what you already knew, but you can never be sure on line what someone else knows.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-14-2013   #45
Heru Anggono
Registered User
 
Heru Anggono is offline
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by ferider View Post
All LTM Nikkor 50/1.4 copies are Sonnars.

Nikkor 50/1.5:



Nikkor 50/1.4:



The Olympic RF Nikkor 50/1.4 (all black, S mount only) was a double Gauss (as is the modern S-mount re-incarnation).

Nikon stretched the Sonnar design in 1950 to open it up to 1.4 and claim the fastest RF 50 record ....

Which I believe is where the flare comes from Garrett. If you close the Nikkor down less than half a stop, the veiling flare disappears (vignetting at infinity on full frame, too), and contrast and resolution pick up dramatically.

When you zoom in, say, f1.7 and up, you should see that the Nikkor has noticeably higher center resolution than the other two lenses.

Also, regarding a previous question, the Canon is typically optimized for middle apertures (f5.6 or so), while the Nikkor is optimized for f1.4. Of course, on an M body, you can control this via the use of a different LTM adapter. Then again the contrast changes so much when opening up further than f2, that focus shift is hardly noticeable for any of those lenses.

Cheers,

Roland.
While we're on the topic. Is there any perceptible visual difference between traditional Sonnar design (3 groups) compared to modern Sonnar design? Modern Sonnar such as:

- Zeiss 50mm f/1.5 ZM (6 elements, 4 group)
- Konica M-Hex 90mm f/2.8 (5 elements, 4 group)
- Contax G 90mm f/2.8 (5 elements, 4 group)
- Zeiss C/Y 85mm f/2.8 (5 elements, 4 group)

Perhaps moving from traditional 3 groups design to 4 groups removes the characteristic/signature of a Sonnar lens?
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-15-2013   #46
goamules
Registered User
 
goamules is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,816
That's a good question, but I only have the classic versions of Sonnars.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-15-2013   #47
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
 
sevo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
Posts: 6,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heru Anggono View Post
Perhaps moving from traditional 3 groups design to 4 groups removes the characteristic/signature of a Sonnar lens?
The middle lens in the front group was supposed to be a anti-flare measure in pre coating days, and probably can be replaced by an air space with impunity, now that we multicoat.

The other design changes that they made will have more impact - even more so as optical designers have a more ugly name for "Sonnar characteristics": Design flaw.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-15-2013   #48
kermaier
Registered User
 
kermaier's Avatar
 
kermaier is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Northern New Jersey
Posts: 1,681
The M-Hex 90/2.8 is an Ernostar, not a Sonnar.

::Ari
__________________
M9-P, Fuji X100
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-15-2013   #49
furcafe
Registered User
 
furcafe's Avatar
 
furcafe is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Washington, DC, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 4,303
Hard to say definitively, since the newer lenses have different glass & are all multicoated.

Also, per kermaier, I think the Konica & CZ 90/2.8 are actually updated Ernostars (ancestor of the Sonnar, by the same designer, Bertele) &, as sevo indicated, are better corrected than the classic Sonnar. I have the CZ 90/2.8 in G mount, but haven't shot enough w/it over the years to form an opinion as to its Sonnar-like qualities. I have used the modern C Sonnar (in Nikon RF mount) extensively & it does seem to provide an updated (less flare, better-corrected) version of the Sonnar look.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heru Anggono View Post
While we're on the topic. Is there any perceptible visual difference between traditional Sonnar design (3 groups) compared to modern Sonnar design? Modern Sonnar such as:

- Zeiss 50mm f/1.5 ZM (6 elements, 4 group)
- Konica M-Hex 90mm f/2.8 (5 elements, 4 group)
- Contax G 90mm f/2.8 (5 elements, 4 group)
- Zeiss C/Y 85mm f/2.8 (6 elements, 4 group)

Perhaps moving from traditional 3 groups design to 4 groups removes the characteristic/signature of a Sonnar lens?
__________________
Five a Second. Chicago's Bell & Howell Co. (cameras) announced that it would put on sale this fall the world's most expensive still camera. Its "Foton" will take five 35-mm. pictures a second, sell for $700. Bell & Howell, which has found that "families of both low and high incomes now spend over $550" for movie equipment, hopes to sell 20,000 Fotons a year.
--Facts And Figures, Time magazine, Monday, October 4, 1948
My Photoblog

My Flickr stream

My RFF Gallery

My Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-16-2013   #50
thompsonks
Registered User
 
thompsonks is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 751
Could you please go back to JSU's early question and fill in the parts we don't know yet?

"It would help to know what camera, and if digital, are these out of the camera jpegs or RAW conversions, which would then prompt the question which RAW convertor is used?"

We know a 4:3 camera has given us images of center resolution, tone, and contrast. But I have old/new Sonnars and Nikkors, and their images resolve less and have gentler bokeh at wide apertures. Did some sharpening occur in making jpgs or in processing RAW files – or in jpg conversion to 'Save for Web'? ?

Anyhow thank you for comparing them. My personal preference so far is for the Jupiter and Nikkor. IMO the Canon looks too much like a modern lens that I'd use if I didn't like old Sonnars!

I appreciated the comment above, that the best evidence would come not from a cropped sensor, but from a chance to compare center with corners and with the whole image. My 1938 Sonnar has amazing center resolution, but has some difficulty in other respects.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-17-2013   #51
goamules
Registered User
 
goamules is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,816
I used a Panasonic G1, shot as JPGs, then posted on Flickr, which creates several sized JPGs. One size I linked to. I don't know what Flickr does when it creates them. If you go to my signature line link, you can find the original, larger images.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-17-2013   #52
thompsonks
Registered User
 
thompsonks is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 751
They look great in the large versions.

But again, and simply as JSU asked: "It would help to know ... are these out of the camera jpegs or RAW conversions, which would then prompt the question which RAW convertor is used?"
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-17-2013   #53
Heru Anggono
Registered User
 
Heru Anggono is offline
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 47
It would be great if we could include late version of Zeiss (Opton) 50mm f/1.5 Sonnar in the evaluation.

Just out of curiosity I double check on Zeiss Contax C/Y SLR lens:

- 85mm f/2.8 Sonnar
- 105mm f/3.5 Sonnar
- 135mm f/2.8 Sonnar

They're all 5 elements, 4 group design, so I guess most likely it is Ernostar as mentioned earlier, not actually a traditional Sonnar (3 group design).
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-25-2013   #54
Lightshow
Registered User
 
Lightshow is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 45
I believe the Helios 103 is also a Sonnar.
Thanks for shooting the comparison, I'm looking for a Canon 50/1.5(&28/2.8)to go with my set(35/2.8, 50/1.8, 100/3.5)
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2013   #55
jim_buchanan
Registered User
 
jim_buchanan's Avatar
 
jim_buchanan is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: California
Posts: 86
Great thread. Thanks to OP. and, yes it is difficult to interpret a comment when the word "optimized" is used.

I have a later Sonnar Opton in Sony NEX mount that is very interesting, but it is not full frame ready. Unless, Sony releases a full frame NEX.

I know it's not a Sonnar design, but I'm finishing up a Nikon Millenium Leica M mount build and am looking forward to using it on a NEX and hopefully a M9 soon. You don't hear too much about this lens, I guess due to the S mount. If it even comes close to the performance of the ultra expensive Summilux 50 ASPH, I will be happy.

Sorry, for veering slightly off Sonnar topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Some lenses deliver maximum resolution close up; some at infinity; and some at (for example) 3-5 metres. Even with floating elements it's difficult to optimize for more than one distance.

Rangefinder coupling and focus shift are separate issues from the above.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2013   #56
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 30,898
The old 50mm testing that I did years ago still provides useful side by side comparisons (done with Roland). It includes the Opton 50/1.5 that someone here asked about.



http://ferider.smugmug.com/Technical/Raids-50mm-Tests



__________________
- Raid

________________


http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2013   #57
gb hill
Registered User
 
gb hill's Avatar
 
gb hill is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: North Carolina
Age: 60
Posts: 5,871
It was Raid's test that made me buy a J3. Best of the lot in both examples. Properly shimmed (like mine is) to my Bessa R, thanks to Brian S. It's as good as the higher priced leitz lenses of the same era. Not a Sonnar but the I 26m is a killer lens too.
__________________
Greg
flickr
Bessa R & L
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2013   #58
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 30,898
Such "tests" are maybe not free of human {focus) error and/or lenses not being optimized, but they may be helpful for an overall feeling how some lenses perform. There was no digital camera used. Each lens had replicate test shots. Results were posted here, and people chimed in with their own experiences.
__________________
- Raid

________________


http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2013   #59
gb hill
Registered User
 
gb hill's Avatar
 
gb hill is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: North Carolina
Age: 60
Posts: 5,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by raid View Post
Such "tests" are maybe not free of human {focus) error and/or lenses not being optimized, but they may be helpful for an overall feeling how some lenses perform. There was no digital camera used. Each lens had replicate test shots. Results were posted here, and people chimed in with their own experiences.
I agree. It really is individuals choice of preference. I'm quite pleased with my lenses. I prefer test to be made out in the real world.
__________________
Greg
flickr
Bessa R & L
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2013   #60
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 30,898
This is also how I feel about it, Greg.
__________________
- Raid

________________


http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-07-2013   #61
jimithing616
James B - MPLS, MN
 
jimithing616's Avatar
 
jimithing616 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Age: 31
Posts: 45
Wow this test really helped me out. I am just now buying my first M from a member here, and I have been in heavy search for a nice 50mm lens that wont break the bank (as the M already has) ... I am only 24, but I have shot film SLR and fixed lens RF for a few years and I am really a huge fan of using the 50mm length, anyway, I was thinking the Jupiter wasn't going to be good enough to satisfy, I was in the market for the canon I THOUGHT, after seeing this I will save the 200 bucks. Anyone have a lead on one for a good price!! haha I am probably off to evilbay most likely! OP, Great test! helped me out ALOT. Thank you!
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-28-2014   #62
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 30,898
Is the Millenium Nikkor 50/1.4 also a Sonnar?
__________________
- Raid

________________


http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-28-2014   #63
furcafe
Registered User
 
furcafe's Avatar
 
furcafe is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Washington, DC, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 4,303
No, according to everything I've read (Rotoloni, et al.); haven't seen any diagrams, though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by raid View Post
Is the Millenium Nikkor 50/1.4 also a Sonnar?
__________________
Five a Second. Chicago's Bell & Howell Co. (cameras) announced that it would put on sale this fall the world's most expensive still camera. Its "Foton" will take five 35-mm. pictures a second, sell for $700. Bell & Howell, which has found that "families of both low and high incomes now spend over $550" for movie equipment, hopes to sell 20,000 Fotons a year.
--Facts And Figures, Time magazine, Monday, October 4, 1948
My Photoblog

My Flickr stream

My RFF Gallery

My Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Filter Thread Size for CZJ 5cm f1.5
Old 07-28-2014   #64
Michael Finder
Registered User
 
Michael Finder's Avatar
 
Michael Finder is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6
Filter Thread Size for CZJ 5cm f1.5

Some help please. I have acquired a CZJ 5cm f1.5 in LTM. It's a keeper and makes nice photos. Can anyone please advise what is the filter ring size? A a 41 is too large, and a 40.5 won't fit. Thanks in advance.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-28-2014   #65
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
 
xayraa33's Avatar
 
xayraa33 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,876
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Finder View Post
Some help please. I have acquired a CZJ 5cm f1.5 in LTM. It's a keeper and makes nice photos. Can anyone please advise what is the filter ring size? A a 41 is too large, and a 40.5 won't fit. Thanks in advance.

It should take a 40.5x0.5 mm diameter filter according to the Soviet era spec paper that came with the lens.

I have a modern Olympus UV filter on my J-3 lens right now and it happens to fits perfectly fine.

Check your lens for a slightly dented front rim or damaged threads, as these can cause filter mounting problems.
__________________
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-19-2018   #66
Alberti
Registered User
 
Alberti's Avatar
 
Alberti is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Holland
Posts: 423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Lime View Post
It's a Sonnar!
Sonnar is a household word now, thanks to a lot of discussions like this one which means under American law that the name can be used by any lens manufacturer . . .
__________________
Nil camera, sed usus (after an emblematic text)
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-19-2018   #67
Paul T.
Registered User
 
Paul T.'s Avatar
 
Paul T. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberti View Post
Sonnar is a household word now, thanks to a lot of discussions like this one which means under American law that the name can be used by any lens manufacturer . . .
It's still a registered trademark, eg:

https://www.sony.com/electronics/cam...nses/sel55f18z
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:44.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.