Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • 3 weeks later...

is the CV 40 Nokton f1.4 Classic

light & small

I enjoy using this focal length even more on the M9 than I did with the M8

the CZ 15 f2.8 Distagon is a beast of a lens, but optically outstanding

this lens is not focus coupled, making it a challenge to use at its wider apertures

the focus ring has a very short throw at distance, so this lens takes some learning to use well, but the results are well worth the effort

I endorse other contributor's enthusiasm for the CV 35 Nokton f1.2 (I have the first version)

whether the extra size is worth its extra speed is debatable, but it is the fastest 35 available for the M mount & a relative bargain, particularly considering its optical excellence

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jupiter3 50mm f1.5 followed by Jupiter12 35mm f2.8

 

I absolutely love the way these 2 lenses render images on the Monochrom!

(Total cost for both was about USD$180.00).

 

A random shot with the Jupiter 35mm & Monochrom.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited by michali
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

@Michali: Wonderful rendering indeed, I might have to look into one of those after all!

 

@sdk: Interesting that you have both of them - I heard a lot of praise for the 25mm, but less so for the 21mm - do you find there to be a big difference in practical use? I was tempted by the 25mm, but since the M9 doesn't have framelines for it, I just cannot get myself to use an external finder (besides the cost and having to buy a new thumbs-up with a cold shoe). Maybe 21mm is wide enough to make me change my mind. :)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the rendering of my Jupiter-3, both on film & also on the M8.

 

The ZM 25/2.8 is also a stunning lens, amazing rendering and ridiculously sharp (rivals my 50 Summicron).

 

If I need a proper wide, the CV 15mm is also VERY nice, especially when its low price & tiny size are considered!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the ZM 28/2.8 yet (unless I missed it). It's a great modern lens, very little distortion, and great colors.

 

A lot of people are saying ZM 50/1.5 Sonnar. I have a Summarit 50/1.5 that is awesome -- is the Sonnar a clone of the Summarit, or some other lens? (Just curious)

 

 

The Sonnar uses a, well Sonnar design.

 

The Summarit is based on a pre-war design by Taylor-Hobson Cooke. I believe it is a Planar variant. Leica had to license the design, because of patent issues with Zeiss and the Sonnar formula. Or at least that is how I remember it. Leica (Leitz) sold the lens as the Xenon 1.5/50 (pre-war)

 

 

The Zeiss Sonnar 1.5/50 was killing Leica from it's inception in the 1930's and it wasn't until after the war, when Japanese Sonnar clones appeared that there was serious competition. It was finally Nikon that beat Zeiss at their own game with their version of a sonnar formula 1.5/50. It was discoverd by David Douglas Duncan, who was on a stop over in Japan on his way to cover the Korean War. That was Nikon's big break and the rest is history.It really wasn't until the arrival of the first version of the Summilux 1.4/50 that Leica finally surpassed the Sonnar 1.5/50. Nikon followed up with their famous 1.4/50.

 

 

The Summarit is a coated version of the Xenon 1.5/50 and was released after the war. It evolved in to the 50 Summilux, of which there are a total of three optical versions (to pre-asph and the current asph)

Edited by thrid
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Sonnar uses a, well Sonnar design.

 

The Summarit is based on a pre-war design by Taylor-Hobson Cooke. I believe it is a Planar variant.

It's the Sonnar which is derived from the Cooke triplet. The Planar is based on the Double-Gauss design, which is very far away from the Cooke triplet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What are the advantages of each of these designs?

This I have wondered before, too. I don't know. From what I've read, the big picture seems to be like this (but it might be wrong):

 

Back in the times before World War II—i. e. before lens coatings and modern sophisticated glass types—the Sonnar design was considered superior but difficult to manufacture, hence expensive. The Double-Gauss design was easier to make (less stringent manufacturing tolerances) but slightly inferior in terms of performance.

 

In the decades after WW II, nearly all lens makers adopted the Double-Gauss principle for their medium-speed and fast-speed standard lenses because it has more degrees of freedom for improvements through coatings and, most importantly, new glass types. So after a while, the new Double-Gauss designs outperformed the old Sonnar design.

 

Today, even Zeiss ifself is using the original Sonnar design only for a reminiscence of a classic lens from the 1930s (C-Sonnar 50 mm 1:1.5 ZM) while their modern high-end fast standard lenses inevitably are Planars (= Double-Gauss). Non-standard Zeiss lenses bearing the 'Sonnar' name today usually are no classic Sonnar designs anymore; instead, the name has become more like a synonym for 'high-end lens'—see for example 'Vario-Sonnar' (vs. 'Vario-Tessar').

 

But then again, this is the picture formed in my head after reading (and interpreting) several sources. It might be inaccurate, incomplete, or even wrong. So anyone with better knowledge, feel free to add or to correct.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

... Non-standard Zeiss lenses bearing the 'Sonnar' name today usually are no classic Sonnar designs anymore; ...

My reading indicates the same and that they're like to be a derivative of the Ernostat design or a Sonnar front end married to a Double Gauss back end rather than a true 5/4 or 7/3 Sonnar design (the Sonnar design evolved from the Ernostat as I understand it).

 

Pete.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...