Zeiss Opton Contax 50mm lenses

Are there any comparison test reports on the three 50mm lenses?

I've had two Contax IIa's with f:2 Opton Sonnars. both just a little

on the soft side, wide open, compared with a Summicron, but

otherwise every bit as good. The "Modern Tests" of a prewar f:1.5

Sonnar was dreadful. Have never seen any report of the Tessar,

either the prewar f:2.8 or the Opton f:3.5. Thanks, Bill

i haven't seen one. i do have a 50/1.5 opton sonnar that i consider to be an excellent, sharp lens.

 

:)=

I'm also unaware of any test reports, not that I would place much utility in them as there was so much sample variation then, & now as to what you find on eBay, that it's difficult to base an opinion on anything other than actual lenses. FWIW, I have all 3 of the Zeiss-Opton 50s in Contax RF mount (f/1.5 Sonnar, f/2 Sonnar, & f/3.5 Sonnar). In my field use, the f/1.5 & f/2 Sonnars hold their own or beat the contemporary competition in their respective categories, e.g., the f/2 Sonnar v. Leitz "Rigid" & DR Summicrons, Canon f/1.8, TT&H Cooke Amotal 2"/2, Yashica 50/1.8 Yashinon, & f/2 Nikkor-H, f/1.5 Sonnar v. Voigtlander Nokton (Prominent mount) & f/1.4 Nikkor-S, etc., etc. The Nokton does appear to have a slight edge on the f/1.5 Sonnar wide-open, but @ the cost of greater size & weight. I don't have any 1950s-early '60s Tessar competitors except perhaps for the 5cm/2.8 Super Rokkor (not sure about the lens formula, but it may be a Tessar-type), which is pretty good, but certainly not better than the f/3.5 Tessar.

Oops, that 1st reference to the f/3.5 Sonnar should read "f/3.5 Tessar" of course.

Chris, can you tell any difference between the f:2 and the f:1.5?

Not really, except for the f/1.5's extra stop of course.

 

The common wisdom is that the f/1.5 Sonnar should be markedly better than the f/2 Sonnar @ f/2, but I just haven't found that to be the case, @ least to any extent that a difference leaps off of a print or slide, even when scanned @ 4800 dpi (the difference is more visible, IME, w/respect to the f/2 Nikkor-H v. the f/1.4 Nikkor-S, though). This may be because I just lucked out on a great example of the 50/2 Zeiss-Opton Sonnar, of which I only have 1 (in contrast, I have 2 Zeiss-Opton & 2 Carl Zeiss f/1.5 Sonnars & they're all in the same ballpark so I don't think I have any turkeys in that group). However, regardless of any performance difference, I'll normally use a f/1.5 Sonnar just because it's nice to have the extra speed & it isn't significantly heavier than the f/2 version. This may be the reason you really don't see that many post-WWII W. German f/2 Sonnars for sale on eBay. It's more common to see the E. German Jena version in the U.S.--I have 1 that came w/my 1st IIa, but unfortunately it's so scratched up that I can't speak to that version's true quality . . .

 

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

 

"Chris, can you tell any difference between the f:2 and the f:1.5?"

Thanks. When they were new, (in the '50s), the "word" was that there was no reason (except money) to buy the cheaper f:2.

I had a postwar f/2 at one time, but I don't recall its performance in particular. My f/1.5 Opton has impressed me as being sharper and more contrasty than either the prewar f/2 (which would make sense, since that's uncoated) or the Russian Jupiter-8s that I have, which are coated versions of the prewar sonnar.....

I once sold a Contax with the Sonnar 1.5 for about $200. Now I regret it.