Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/10/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Jeffery: Ooh, yeah! That's the "good" Sonnar look all right. If you'd told us the photo was a oldie from 1935 you'd just dug up, it would have been plausible. But there's something new about this lens, at least in the picture you posted. The out-of-focus stuff kind of dissolves away beautifully like the old Sonnars, but without bright-rimmed circles of light and double lines you see in the Japanese Sonnar reformulations like the 50/1.4 Nikkor when focused close and wide open. Those nasties seem smoothed out, while the lens still has the basic Sonnar character. If it can render like this consistently, it's a gem. Did the German Sonnars you've tried have the double-line and donut bokeh? Or was it just the postwar Japanese tweaks of the formula? Have you tried the early-50s Canon 50/1.5, which is supposed to be essentially a Sonnar copy? On another subject: While reading your blog, I saw your comments about the K100D and 30/1.4 Sigma. Some days, when my M8 lust is tempered by thoughts of price, I get the urge to just get a K100D and a fast lens, and be done with it for a year or two. Of course, the K10D might be even better, blah blah blah. . . Any further thoughts about the K100D and Sigma 30/1.4 since you wrote that blog entry? --Peter At 09:04 PM 10/8/2006 -0700, Jeffery wrote: >http://www.400tx.com/2006-34.html > >So far, I'm very pleased with this new Zeiss 50/1.5 Sonnar. I have spent a >lot of money trying to buy and "renovate" a good LTM 50/1.5 Sonnar from >50-60 years ago. I can stop looking. This lens gives me the look I've been >trying to achieve.