richard_g

I do hope you like it. It was a great impetus for improvement in my photography. Even at f5.6 I love this lens and

recognize my shots with it. And the colours are beautiful. I've dropped mine three times and wrecked a filter and a hood

but the lens is still perfect.

<p>Barry, it is always that very shot I think of when I think I don't actually need anything faster than my Summicron. Killer shot.</p>

<p>Finally f4 where it is sharp from the 20 to the 24cm mark, back focussed again. There are some who claim there Sonnar seems to be optimized for f4. My conclusion is that this is optimized for around f 2.4 or so, which I think others have also found. Look at the building and it puts all of this into some perspective. The corner nearest the ruler is at the 20cm mark.</p><div></div>

<p>Here is f2.8, sharp from the 20 to the 22cm marks, slightly back focussed.</p><div></div>

<p>Here is f2 and it is sharper overall and with some front focus of about 1cm, the sharpest point being at 19cm.</p><div></div>

<p>Here is the 100% crop at f1.5. Not as sharp and contrasty as f2 which follows, and with some front focussing evident, about 1.5cm with the sharpest point probably at the 18.5cm mark.</p><div></div>

<p>Here is a set up I used for testing the focus shift of my C Sonnar on the M9 where I din't have to make innumerable notes and wait for film development, where the 100% crop facility of Lightroom was helpful instead of just inspecting negatives or prints, and where the focus target was less equivocal than previous set ups I have tried, such as book spines, model soldiers or chess pieces. I used a WhiBal white balance card radiate graphic and pushed the tabletop tripod in and out with the lens set to minimum focus (0.9m) determining the point at which the radiate graphic was most vivid, with the edge of the card immediately beneath the 20cm mark.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Roger Hick's Site on the Sonnar:<br>

http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photoschool/ps%20firstlook%20sonnar%2050.html<br>

Markek Fogiel here:<br>

http://www.photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00Tylv?start=10<br>

And on RFF:<br>

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51742&highlight=mfogiel+zeiss+sonnar<br>

My flickr stream which contains a slightly larger verson of this photo:<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/richardgm2/sets/72157622434943943/</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Philip, I think you should get the Zeiss C Sonnar 1.5. You'll fall in love with the wide open shots, and you have 1/8000s available on your M8 so you could use it so much more than with a film M or the M9. It is compact compared to a Summilux and I think it balances very well on the M digital body. On my M9 and my M5 I like this lens more than any other. It is very well made and very nice to use.<br /> <br /> I have been using my Summicron a bit lately but it flares more. The close focus of 0.7 of the f2 lenses is a serious consideration over the C Sonnar whose minimum focus is 0.9m. Starting all over and not knowing of the C Sonnar I might have gone with the lovely Zeiss Planar. I can't see the justification for forking out for Leica with these fantastic Zeiss lenses on offer. Still, I would also have considered the Leica Summarit 2.5 just for its remarkable compactness, 10.5mm shorter than my tabbed Summicron.<br>

<br /> The latest Summilux ASPH would be a great one to have, but it's hideously expensive and rather big. And some people worry having that much money hanging off a mount. I would like to have one or try one eventually but the C Sonnar has virtually cured me of that desire and the desire to replace my stolen version 2 Summilux which was very heavy.<br>

<br /> I do love the ergonomics of the tabbed Summicron and the reversible hood with cap. But this morning I was shooting basketball with a 90 Elmarit M and the C Sonnar - manual focus sports photography - and I managed remarkably well. The Sonnar has a focus bump which is useful but not quite the same as the Leica tab.</p>

<p>Glenferrie Road Festival last Sunday</p>

<div></div>

<p>That's right. I nearly missed that obvious fact. Good shot of him too.</p>

Jim, "there is a time and a place..."

<p>No applause?! This is great. There's more detail at flickr. He'd dropped the M4 and the film wouldn't come out. With one tap of a rubber mallet he hit the piece of wood with the convex end placed inside the film receptacle part of the body, nestled in the concave slot as shown. Film cannister now goes in and out just fine. Light-tight, baseplate seating properly. Cured. Well done.</p>

<p>Hot day</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks for posting as I hadn't seen the third video where he shows the pictures. Amazing that there was debate on this at rangefinder forum as to whether this guy is serious or not. He's serious in demeanour of course, but it's clearly a spoof. Wonderful stuff. The second 'lens' instalment is the best. He's got a Noctilux but it is better to use even numbers on that aperture ring and keep it at f4 or smaller or the pictures are too bright! Better to keep the subjects at a distance so they are in focus. Be careful what you say, however, as this guy is either a regular on this forum or RFF or both, and disparaging his living circumstances might not be kind. Some of the nicest people I've met live in a trailer, and it's not for me to say how they should spend their money.</p>

<p>East Melbourne</p><div></div>

<p>Paul I read that the thin emulsion was just to pack more film in. I presume that was wrong.....? NASA spawned my interest in a Hasselblad when I was 9 in 1969. I almost bought one last month, but an M9 has put paid to that.</p>

When doing astrophotography where any third party is to be involved it is worth having a simple terrestrial image

somewhere on the roll, and preferably at both ends. This is essential if you want prints from them.

It's as good a guide as can be had, Jim. It couldn't be out by so much as one whole millimeter.

<p>Stunning Steve.<br>

This one is a little more urban. The demolition of our iconic department store, Myers of Melbourne. There is an expression, 'More front than Myers'. Now the front is all that remains. When this was planned the GM of Myers mentioned on the radio that they would retain the facade, but he pronounced it 'fakade', a pronunciation mockingly retained in our house.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>My God-daughter's 21st</p><div></div>

That doesn't look like a screw on lid. Not what I'd call Leica mints.

<p>Colours a bit bright but suits this one.</p><div></div>

<p>In a storm I looked up from my desk and was shocked to see this. Then it blew on.</p><div></div>

What about an M10J in black?