MS Optics Sonnetar 73mm 1.5

[Jul]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Pleasuri err… Nap in town

 

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!

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Jul]

On 12/5/2018 at 12:49 PM, sinjun said:

Aperture ring on mine seems a little stiff (there are no click stops), so I need to hold focus with one finger whilst using the other to rotate aperture.

Loose aperture ring here, does not bother me, I just have to be careful not to move it unpurposely,

the focus ring won't turn with the aperture ring so long the aperture ring is not at the fully opened

or fully closed limit.

The coma adjustment ring IS stiff, hopefully there are two tiny holes on it where you can insert

whatever fitting tool you have to get a better grip and ease rotation.

[sinjun]

These variations in aperture ring tightness are consistent with the QC issues others have raised in connection with MS Optics - I'd definitely prefer it if mine were looser. Yes, there are holes in the coma adjustment ring - it's stiff on my copy too but I plan on leaving it alone. How do you find focus calibration for rangefinder (assuming you are using one)?

[Jul]

Just received it yesterday and it was used on the M9, so rangefinder only.

At the moment, I just tested it wide open and did not find a way

to have accurate focus with the rangefinder through the whole range

with a given coma adjustment ring setting.

 

It was set just beyond the "5" mark when I opened the box,

having read "3" is optimum, I set it to "3" and did some test,

focusing at 1m. resulted in substantial back focus, I set it back where

it was and now it has accurate focus from the minimum focus distance (1m.)

to at least 5m.(maybe more) but focusing far results in front focus.

 

If I had to choose, I would prefer to have accurate close focus

than accurate far focus wide open. Stopping down a little

might resolve the far focus issue and as I tend not to shoot

wide open landscapes anyway, maybe it is not that big a problem,

time (and use) will tell.

This one was focused at 5m.

 

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!

[0luke1]

Received mine yesterday.This is Sophie. Her face is black, which makes her difficult to photograph. This was taken at f4.5, No post processing at all. Compared with the shots I took with my summitar 50 f2, the colors were muted, but the bokeh was better. I wish my 75 summilux was handy, but the 73 is probably 33% the weight. I’m taking it with me on my next trip.

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 December 10, 2018 by 0luke1

[0luke1]

Here’s the summitar (1942 sn).

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!

[0luke1]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Btw, it was a variably cloudy day. 

[sinjun]

12 hours ago, Jul said:

Just received it yesterday and it was used on the M9, so rangefinder only.

At the moment, I just tested it wide open and did not find a way

to have accurate focus with the rangefinder through the whole range

with a given coma adjustment ring setting.

 

It was set just beyond the "5" mark when I opened the box,

having read "3" is optimum, I set it to "3" and did some test,

focusing at 1m. resulted in substantial back focus, I set it back where

it was and now it has accurate focus from the minimum focus distance (1m.)

to at least 5m.(maybe more) but focusing far results in front focus.

 

If I had to choose, I would prefer to have accurate close focus

than accurate far focus wide open. Stopping down a little

might resolve the far focus issue and as I tend not to shoot

wide open landscapes anyway, maybe it is not that big a problem,

time (and use) will tell.

This one was focused at 5m.

 

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!

 

Thanks for this information. 

Mine is on coma setting 3, and backfocusses about 2-3 cm at 1 m, front focussing with subject beyond about 5 m. I found changing coma setting to 5  largely fixed the back focus at 1 m but made front focus worse at longer distances. So these experiences seem not too different from yours. Because I find I take quite a lot of photos in the 5 m plus range with a foreground subject, I would rather leave at the coma 3 setting. I compensate by leaning back slightly before depressing the shutter release at close distances and by turning the focus barrel a tiny bit towards infinity at the longer distances. This might seem complicated but I don't mind too much. 

As well as the M9 I have a Kolari mod Sony A7s which it works very nicely on. 

[Selador]

Hello all-- 

I have one of these on the way, and I am very excited, having loved the 50/1.1 and 21/4, but before I pull the trigger on a protective filter, I am getting some conflicting information..

 

Is the filter diameter 49mm or 50mm? 

 

Thank you all for your help, and I can't wait to upload some examples!

[Jul]

49mm reverse mounted.

[dante]

Quote

On 12/9/2018 at 6:31 PM, Jul said:

It was set just beyond the "5" mark when I opened the box,

having read "3" is optimum, I set it to "3" and did some test,

focusing at 1m. resulted in substantial back focus, I set it back where

it was and now it has accurate focus from the minimum focus distance (1m.)

to at least 5m.(maybe more) but focusing far results in front focus.

 

 

I'm tracking down a similar problem where to get perfect focus to 1.5m, you get progressive front focus elsewhere. On the copy I tried, the lens was focused at infinity when at the physical focusing stop; the rangefinder was "past" infinity at that point.

I suspect that the RF coupling has a constant error (i.e., it's back too far). I believe that the focusing ring grub screws control the relationship to the RF coupling (and the ones on the barrel just above control optical focus of the lens); I will report on whether that fixes the front-focus issue (I noted that on mine, the cam extended 0.05mm too far). This is probably a simple fix, but it is frustrating. The focus adjuster can't adjust for this because it can only change the focal length, not the RF point.

What is not infuriating is that when dialed in, the lens is sharp as hell close up, far more so than the 75mm Summilux, which lacks focus adjustment..

Dante

[james.liam]

This all sounds too crazy for a new lens that isn't inexpensive and issues abound. The new CV 1,5/75, also modest in size in comparison to the venerable Summilux, might be a simpler choice.

Edited November 15, 2019 by james.liam

[dante]

On 12/10/2018 at 7:15 AM, sinjun said:

 

Thanks for this information. 

Mine is on coma setting 3, and backfocusses about 2-3 cm at 1 m, front focussing with subject beyond about 5 m. I found changing coma setting to 5  largely fixed the back focus at 1 m but made front focus worse at longer distances. So these experiences seem not too different from yours. Because I find I take quite a lot of photos in the 5 m plus range with a foreground subject, I would rather leave at the coma 3 setting. I compensate by leaning back slightly before depressing the shutter release at close distances and by turning the focus barrel a tiny bit towards infinity at the longer distances. This might seem complicated but I don't mind too much. 

As well as the M9 I have a Kolari mod Sony A7s which it works very nicely on. 

This is exactly the behavior I observed. I don't see this as a distance lens, but what is mind boggling is that with easy adjustment of the focal length and reasonably easy adjustment of the RF linkage, there is no point at which the rangefinder focusing error is in the same direction. At 1.5m, things cross over from having to move the focusing ring 1mm closer to having to move it 2mm toward infinity. I did note that it looks like he hand ground the range of focusing on the cam, but it's not significant (for friction?). If I could get this to be consistent front or back focus along the range, I would know it was a RF cam error, which is very easy to fix.

I have not tried shimming the optical unit. But that's the only thing I haven't tried, so maybe that's it. There are no shims in there. What is interesting about how this lens is calibrated is that if you take the optical unit out, there is a black dot. Align the 3 to that, and then align the red marker in the lens to the dot and the 3. Miyazaki likely put these on a bench, test focused them to 73mm, and then marked them. I was wondering how he established the "normal" point.

One thing that is for sure is that this is a hella lens on an A6300. I get the sense reading the instructions, such as they are, that mirrorless is a big part of what this is for.

Dante

[sinjun]

Great lens on my Sony A7s too. From f4 and and smaller I find it very good for landscapes. At f1.5 I like its ability to throw background out of focus for subjects in the 5-10 m range. I also use on the M9 despite the focussing quirks you mention - somewhat more of a challenge but I get a reasonable hit rate. The other technique I use to get round the front focussing for subjects approaching me is to focus on them then wait a little to allow them to enter the in-focus zone. If the CV equivalent had come out earlier I might have got that instead, but this still beats it for size and weight.

[dante]

Ok, so it is improvable by shimming (I just actually used 3 square of thin adhesive rf-shielding copper foil in a 120 degree patten). Why was it not a surprise that the amount that cancelled 99% of the focus issues was ~0.05mm, the magic number that works for updating film-era lenses to digital Ms? 

So on this lens, things are eminently adjustable. Will take some time and attention, but Paris is well worth a mass. 

To James.Liam's question, I'd rather have a smaller, lighter lens that has a lot of adjustability than one with "tighter" quality control that if it is "good enough" for a manufacturer can't easily be made better. A fast 73 or 75mm lens is pushing the margins of what rangefinders are intended to do. Given the way most lenses are made,

- with anything other than a 50mm lens, you're almost always stuck with mismatches between lens focal length and the translation to the RF (the 51.6mm focusing rate), which is why for the 75/1.4, among others, Leica uses different helicoids matched to the precise focal length of the lens as manufactured. The MS sidesteps that by letting you change the lens FL at will.I am not convinced that Cosina is better at controlling focal length variances than Leica is, making it seem likely that there will be some degree of unpredictable variance across examples. I don't think they're making five or six different mounts/helicoids for a $900 lens.

- the further you get from Leica prices, the less adjustable RF cams typically are. I have 13 M and LTM lenses. Not surprisingly, they don't all line up at ∞ in the RF the same way. Most are not adjustable in any real way (the 105 Nikkor being a prime example of something that "is what it is" unless you want to improvise). Some are profiled. Some have to be shimmed. Better long lenses give you a degree of freedom in adjusting this independently of optical focus.

- If you want a short, fast Sonnar, the Voigtlander is never going to do.

 

 

[dante]

On 12/5/2018 at 3:17 PM, jdlaing said:

Pico,

The rear element is not adjustable on the 50 f/1.1

The adjustments are in the mount flange like Leica uses shims for.

Not to resurrect a long-dead thread, but has anyone shimmed this lens with something like a washer? It looks like the optical unit simply spaces on the front of the lens mount tube, which is a little challenging! Almost like you would want a flanged bushing, but I am not sure that any come so thin. I'm convinced that if you could hike the whole unit forward about 0.8mm, this would adjust out fine.

Dante