Uncoated Sonnar

A question to those Contax rangefinder users out there.

 

I understand that the Sonnar lenses are sharp and have lots of "bite"

(not sure exactly what that is; Ivor Mantele mentions it in his book,

Collecting And Using Classic Cameras). However, my previous, short-

lived experience with a Zeiss Nettar 6x4.5cm folder makes me

suspicious about the uncoated aspect of the Sonnar. The uncoated

Novar on the pre-war Nettar was so flare-prone, and so soft, that

almost every image I made with it in the one week I borrowed it was

flat & disappointing.

 

Is the Sonnar different in this respect? In your use of uncoated

Sonnars, have any of you found them to be deficient under conditions

such as bright sunlight or while using low-contrast film? Mantele's

sharp, contrasty pictures supposedly made with an uncoated Sonnar in

his book seem to be on par with results I see regularly from my Canon

FD lenses. Do you think he was using high-contrast film (i.e. Pan F)

to reduce the flare and make the image look "sharper", or is the

Sonnar really that good? Thanks!

 

JW

The Novar was a second tier consumer quality lens in all its installtions while the Sonnar was of firt line professional quality.

Until the advent of the Leitz Summicron, the Zeiss Sonnar was conceded my many as the leading "speed" lens for 35mm photography. And, there are some who argue that it is still so. Obviously a coated lens should be expected to perform better, under possible flare conditions, than would an uncoated one. I have two 5.8cm Sonnars, one "T" coated and the other apparently not, and I can't discern a bit of difference in their performance. If you can get a useable Sonnar at a decent price, grab it and run!

Joseph, sorry I forgot to answer. Anyway, as stated, the Novar is a pedestrian lens -- certainly not equal to the Sonnar, especially when shot wide open.

 

The Sonnar is a better lens in terms of contrast and sharpness.

 

One of the important things when buying an uncoated Sonnar is to find one that doesn't have lots of cleaning marks. The glass on the uncoated lens is softer and tends to scratch quite easily. Because most of these lenses are more than 60 years old, it's quite common to find that they have a lot of cleaning marks. In fact, this is more the rule than the exception.

 

Regarding Ivor Mantanle's photos in his book, he probably was using HP5, as they appear to show grain typical of high-speed film.

 

The Sonnar is in fact a very nice lens. I would recommend the rigid coated postwar West German Zeiss-Opton or Carl Zeiss f/2.0 Sonnar The East German Jena "T" lens also is a good choice. Any of these lenses is a good all-purpose lens for the Contax.

 

This below was shot with the f/1.5 Sonnar on Tri-X. Nothing special about this, but there's a nice crispness to it.

Coating increases the transmission of lenses wherever there is an air to glass interface. Both the Novar and the Sonnar have 6 air to glass interfaces so I would expect them to have similar flare characteristics in this regard but I have not made a direct comparison.

 

Things are likely more complicated in the real world and I have no doubt the Sonnar is going to be the superior optic as Mike Elek states. The high speed Sonnars have two cemented triplets and some high curvature optics making them an exacting lens to produce, hence their use on professional systems of the day. Most modern 50mm lenses are based on the Gauss design which has more air/glass interfaces but is easier and cheaper to construct.

 

I think you also may want to consider altering your B&W film exposure and processing parameters to increase the contrast to your liking. What film are you shooting with? Are you using a lens hood?

As others have posted, an uncoated lens will always be more flare-prone & lower in contrast than a coated example (all other things being equal, which often isn't the case, of course). While I haven't found my uncoated Sonnars to be "deficient," I do take more care to use a lens hood & try to avoid strong light sources in (or on the edge of) the frame when possible. That said, uncoated Sonnars are clearly capable of producing great results.

The uncoated Sonnar remains an excellent lens by most Standards.

 

Last year I had the pleasure to use a friends M3 with a 50mm Summilux f1.4 of 1960's vintage. Being a diehard Zeiss fan I immediately did some tests on the same roll of PAN F film and then blew up my image to an equiv. of 16x20. By looking only at the center of the frame, with B&W film, on an overcast day..the Prewar uncoated Sonnar (f1.5)was identical to the Summilux wide open as far as resolution and contrast and much to my surprise, both were slightly better than my coated Sonnar (f2.0) of late Zeiss production.

 

I have never noticed much flare in it's design and hardly ever use it with a shade as I should...The contrast is only fair when compared to my G Series Planar with it's moderm multicoatings, but bumping up one paper grade when printing is not a big problem.

 

The prewar sonnar is IMHO one of the great classic lenses and a joy to use. Put on a lens hood and don't worry about flare too much....

Hello,

the Carl Zeiss Sonnar is invented from Bertele from Carl Zeiss Jena in a time before 1936 without coating lens. This type have 6 lenses in 3 groups for minimum flare and reflection. Is not the same Novar have only 3 lens and very sick for flare and reflecting.The Novar are not a Zeiss lens, but is for Zeiss produced from Rodenstock in Munich Germany.

 

Is surprise from all my collecting 5 cm Sonnar lenses include red T coating, is the best a uncoated collabsible Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 1:2/5cm for Contax. This is my reference lens for tested all other 5cm lens and Jupiter 8 too.

I called with the other threade here: you see an Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar in normaly condition pick up and run.

peter

Peter I think the Sonnar was released in 1932 with the Contax I as a 5cm f/2 6 elements in 3 groups (triplet, doublet). Later in 1936 it was released as a 5cm f/1.5 with 7 elements in 3 groups (two triplets), the highest speed lens of its day. I'm a Contax newcomer so this is only from what I've gathered on the internet for my own quest.

 

I just bought my first Sonnar 50/1.5 (CZ Oberkochen, coated). I'm giddy as a school boy to try it out. It has some minor edge separation but the price was right and I may try to get it fixed or buy another and keep it around for parts if that's not possible. It seems an easy lens to get apart and clean if there is haze or oil on the blades. Should be a good project while I wait for the Kiev to come in the mail.

 

I've been using a Nikkor 50/1.4 SLR lens for available light work and although very sharp from f/2 onward, I hate its harsh bokeh and diaphragm-shaped highlights. The M Summicron 50/2 seems to be the gold standard for the look I want but f/2 is a little slow.

Hello Mike,

thank you for perfect professionell answere. I can't believe you are a Contax newcomer.However I have the 1,5/50mm Sonnar from Zeiss/Oberkochen West-Germany too. I think is in mechanical a top lens and included a double or twin diaphram lens with perfect round hole. But with coating and one lens more like a 1:2/5 cm Sonnar are not better with my collapsibel uncoated Sonnar. Why ? I have not a answere, but for tested the 1:2/85mm Sonnar for example see it differenz from West-and East Germany lens and russian Jupiter 9 too.Is out of question Contax West-Germany lens are the best in mechanical, but for lens optical tested I received this:

First is a Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar from East-Germany

second the russian Jupiter 9 and last but not least

the Zeiss Opton West Germany. The differenz from this lenses to Contax rangefinder are minimal and in mechanical are the Jupiter 9 the last in quality and Oberkochen West-Germany absolutly top.

peter.

Many thanks to all of you! The information so far has been extremely encouraging and helpful. I asked the question in order to find out whether I should invest in my first Contax camera - a prewar Contax II with a 50mm f/2 Sonnar. Well, the camera's now in the mail, and I'll be sending it straight to the local repairman as soon as it arrives (the shutter straps are broken).

 

Has anyone used an uncoated Sonnar with color (print or slide) film? I can easily compensate for the change in contrast on B&W film during printing, but will the lack of coating cause unpleasant color casts on color film?

 

My final question (I think) is actually about the Contax II camera itself. If the shutter is so complex, as many sources have mentioned, does that mean that these straps will have to be replaced periodically? Mantele also mentions that "the shutter repays constant use." Would that mean if I left the camera idle for a few months (which I might have to do, due to the demands of school and life), it would slowly "degrade" and fall apart?

 

Thanks once again for all your help!

 

JW

From the Lens Vade Mecum ( available <a href="http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/sell.htm">here...</a> )

The Novar is a triplet ( 3 elements ) and the Sonnar F 2.0 had the following design:<p>

<img src="http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/s2.jpg"></a><p>

AND THE 1.5 Sonnar had:<p>

<img src="http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/s1.jpg"></a><p>

Joseph, more comments:

 

> Has anyone used an uncoated Sonnar with color (print or slide) film? I can easily compensate for the change in contrast on B&W film during printing, but will the lack of coating cause unpleasant color casts on color film?

 

I have a collapsible Tessar that was made for the first Contax. It's a lovely lens, although as with all uncoated lenses, you have to be careful about direction of the sun, etc. I had no problems using it with color print film. No color cast. In general, the Sonnars (coated and uncoated) are going to perform quite well with color film. The only thing to check, as I mentioned before, is for cleaning marks on the front element. Those do more to degrade image quality than lack of lens coating. I've also use a prewar MF Ikonta with an uncoated Tessar quite extensively that is a simply terrific camera with all types of film.

 

> My final question (I think) is actually about the Contax II camera itself. If the shutter is so complex, as many sources have mentioned, does that mean that these straps will have to be replaced periodically? Mantele also mentions that "the shutter repays constant use." Would that mean if I left the camera idle for a few months (which I might have to do, due to the demands of school and life), it would slowly "degrade" and fall apart?

 

I dont' know what was used for the original shutter straps: perhaps rayon or silk? After 60 years or more, it's no surprise that the fabric has often disintegrated, especially when you take into account that many of the cameras have been stored in a hot attic or damp basement for decades. If the restoration work is done properly, you should get decades of service before they need to be replaced again.

 

What Ivor Mantanle means by "the shutter repays contant use" is that the Contax shutter performs best and most accurately when used often. However, I'd probably add that once the camera is properly serviced and shown adequate care, the shutter should remain accurate, even if left unused for a couple of months. Left idle for several years, however, then all bets are off.

Hello Joseph,

the uncoated Sonnar maked perfect color prints or slides.The coated lens have a littel bit better transmission and differenz for colors.

In fact from prae-war Contax is the shutter is building for over 150.000 shutter releases. But the problem is the metal shutter is connected with silk tapes and never man can say how old or use this silk tapes.However the Zeiss spezialist Henry Scherer can this repair.

peter

Hello,

I can only say the diagramm from 1:2 5cm Sonnar Zei 043 are not original like the Zeiss sonnar for Contax perhabs for an other camera. The diagramm for 1:1,5/5cm Zei 044 absolutly correct. In fact all classic Zeiss Sonnar 1:2/5cm or mm have 6 lens in 3 groups. But the russian lens Jupiter 8 have any pieces with this 5 lenses.

peter

Peter I am in search of the finest, fast 50mm platform I can afford and I tend to do thorough research before jumping. I'm half-German so I think I know where this comes from! (Peter are you? your English grammar has some "Germanisms") I doubt I will use any of the other Contax lenses but you never know. Its heresay I read on the internet, but someone (Scherer?) claimed that the Jena 80/2 was optimized for sharpness, the Oberkochen for portraits, i.e. soft and creamy. I will be comparing the CZ Sonnar to the Jupiter 8M as well, especially in the f/2-2.8 range.

 

All I can say for sure at this point is that I'm not happy with my 50mm Nikkors and want a vibration free platform for shooting handheld. My Rolleiflex is nice but not really a substitute for a 35mm rangefinder.

 

Joseph look up Henry Scherer if the quoted cost is anywhere near $300 for that prewar II repair. http://www.zeisscamera.com/ The guy is meticulous and you don't want some hack swapping in a Kiev shutter. He also has some lower rates listed for specific repairs. Myself, I think I'm going to tear into some Kievs until I'm comfortable then a do a real Contax II. After all, the next time the straps break in 20-30 years there may be nobody left to do the work! The Kievs provide a really unique opportunity to learn about a relatively expensive and rare camera for little risk.

Thanks once again for all the great responses! I'm now much more confident that the Contax will perform nicely once it's up to spec.

 

To Mike Kovacs - the local guy is offering $130 for the overhaul. I've seen Henry Scherer's site, and although he seems to be a extremely meticulous and competant repairman, my meager student budget just can't afford the price of his work. You mentioned the possiblity of the shutter being swapped for a Kiev copy - is there any way I can check this after my camera's repaired (without having to tear it apart, of course)?

 

Very last question: do any of you guys have a spare Contax lens cap lying around? No one in my area - including the seller, repairman, or camera shop seems to have once of these. As long as it fits well, any condition would do fine. I'd be willing to pay a small sum for it too. Thanks a lot!

 

Cheers,

JW

Put a small mark on one of the shutter slats. You can mark with a felt marker or put a tiny scratch.

 

If the mark is gone when you get the camera back, then he might have swapped shutter assemblies. Of course, if he used a shutter from another Contax, then that would be OK.

 

Don't worry too much about the lens cap. That will probably just get lost in no time at all, which might explain why many Contax cameras don't have lens caps anymore.

Joseph if you use a cap with a rangefinder I guarantee that you will at some point take the best shots of your life with the cap left on! Remember that you are not viewing through the lens like on an SLR.

 

Scherer will do a basic shutter service on the II including the tapes for $125. If the shipping costs aren't exhorbant from where you live, it seems like a no-brainer to me. At least you'll also get an honest assessment of the rest of the camera and most important, faith in the work. E.g., read his saga of finding the correct Zeiss specification straps...what does your repairman use? (I think its true that other materials will work well but I'd bet the proper ones will last longer)

 

I don't want to draw judgement on your repair man without knowing him but one of the reasons Contax prices are so low relative to their Leica and Nikon contemporaries is that few really know how to fix them properly. I was a student once too and it seems like false economy to me.

 

If you subscribe to yahoo groups, check out the Zeiss Ikon Collectors Group. There are other recommendations for competent repairs there too, though I doubt they'll be any cheaper. I figure it must be at least 3 hours work to properly overhaul the Contax shutter + materials. Under $50/hr for shop work isn't bad when you compare to other professions like auto repair.

Don't worry too much about shutter tapes. Most of the time they do not rip or frey..but the stiching gives at one end and can easily be re-sewn.

 

My lightly used 1937 II had this very problem but the shutter tape material (silk) was still in good shape.Henry is a master repairman consider him to do the job.

 

The Contax II is one of the more reliable classic cameras, much more so than the Post War IIa/IIIa which do require constant use! I would recommend it over the postwar cameras...And you can allways use a postwar lens...

Joseph:

 

In my experience, an uncoated Sonnar should not display an unpleasant color cast. In all likelihood, however, the pictures will be lower in contrast than they would be if they were taken w/more modern (i.e., single or multi-coated) glass, which isn't necessarily a bad thing if you want to tame some of the more intense emulsions (e.g., Velvia).

 

 

-------------

 

"Has anyone used an uncoated Sonnar with color (print or slide) film? I can easily compensate for the change in contrast on B&W film during printing, but will the lack of coating cause unpleasant color casts on color film?"

Hello Mike,

sorry for my lausy english. I can read, but written is not germanismen only a pidgin english and hope include you understand a littel bit. I come and standing in Germany. I'm a classic camera collector too; and specialist for Zeiss and KIEV rangefinder cameras and lenses. In this fact I have many discussion with Henry Scherer. Ok Henry is an repairman and specialist for Zeiss Ikon cameras,and I think Henry hate sovietcameras specialy KIEV rangefinder cameras. My tip for KIEV repair are not good sorry, but Henrys price for repair Contax rangefinder cameras included the complicated Contax IIa and IIIa from stuttgart are serios. A Contax owner use the Contax with long life Henry in US the best adress.In Germany a repair for Contax IIA and IIIa are not lower and without sending price. The Henry high price for investing is a other question or pick up a other camera.The same problem are the shutter repair from KIEV rangefinder the most complicated repair and is without serios repair like an russian roulette. The serios russian repairmen Oleg with very low price is thick and never repair cameras.

Many greetings from Germany

peter

<i>Peter verstehe ich weil ich fuer einen Jahr in Ruhrgebiet gewohnt habe.</i> :)

 

<p>Sorry I'll stop there...its been almost 10 years and I'm forgetting a lot! I need to go back for a while and practice German over a few good beers.

Ja, ich spreche Deutsch auch - ich habe es drei Jahre in der Schule gelernt. Ich glaube, dass es nicht so gut ist. Vielen dank fuer das Information, Peter. Es war ausgezeichnet und sehr interressant.

 

Finally, I get a real-life chance to use this high-school German that I've been studying for these past three years! :-D

 

Thanks to all of you for your comments, information, and advice. I'll add an update and hopefully post some pictures once the Contax is in full working order.

 

Cheers,

JW

Joseph,

 

Congrats on the Contax II. I had a Contax IIa which I sold in 1980 or so (wish I had kept it but I wanted a Leica M3...).

 

You might look fo a copy of teh the book "The Contax Way". It covers the Contax and lenses very well.

This may already have been posted; most importantly with uncoated lenses is using a good lens hood to reduce flare.