Contessa 35 vs Optpn Sonnar 50mm 1.5

Both cameras have very good lenses, .... I think that they can produce quite good pictures but are not

razor sharp as some nokton 40 1.4...

 

What do you think about the good and bad sides of these lenses from the 50's ??? Regards Robert

I used extensively the pre war 1.5 Coated Sonnar, it's really very good sharp and with a special "feel" (despite abyssmal comma at 1.5) it is said that the current Zeiss ZM imitates this lens. L Vuillard

Are you comparing lenses or cameras?

 

The Contessa cameras had f/2.8 Tessars (40,45 or 50mm), ho-hum fully open. Not all Contessas had coupled rangefinders. Focus inaccuracy further affects lens performance for those models.

 

Unlike the ZM Sonnar, you seldom come across reports of focus shift about the earlier version. Some say it's because the older lens has lower contrast. Other say spherical aberration causes focus shift on the ZM.

 

I'm not convinced on either theory: the older lens has plenty of contrast. The Leitz f/1.5 Summarit has much more spherical aberration (which manefests itself as "glow" at wider apertures) than the ZM but you don't see people complaining about focus shift.

 

Since the RF of Contax and Leica were based on different focal lengths, perhaps the ZM lens was a straight translation of the old version (with an "air lens" instead of the 1st cemented triplet) and thus not fully compatible with Leica. It's the same reason why 50mm and longer Nikon and Contax lenses were not compatible even though they shared the same lens mount. http://dantestella.com/technical/compat.html

I can't comment about Contessa 35, but my Zeiss-Opton T Sonnar 50/1.5 shots taken with Contax IIa are here:<br>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/jsuominen/tags/sonnar5015/show/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/jsuominen/tags/sonnar5015/show/</a>

<br>

<br>

They were mostly shot at f/1.5 or f/2, if I remember correct.

Both lenses are great. The best lenses from the 1950s hold up very well by today's standards. As far as I'm concerned, their only downside is that they're less resistant to flare compared to modern lenses.

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/furcafe/tags/zeissopton4528tessarc195355/

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/furcafe/tags/zeissopton5015sonnarc195051/

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/furcafe/tags/zeissopton5015sonnarc195354/

Thanks for your opinions . Robert