Zeiss Jena Sonnar lenses on 4x5

[moTmeN]

Has anyone tried to fit the 180/2.8 or 300/4 Sonnar lenses with his 4x5 camera? Just received a Speed Graphic, so I've take a chance (need some films to load, then go) to test'em. From the mate screen the 300 seems to have some movements, 180 seems to be ok. For proper handling there is some machinery to do as lenses are well over 1 kg, and only the ends fit into a copal 3 hole, but knowing they are great lenses for medium format works, I am a bit amazed no one ever tried this combo.
If any of you tried them, please share your experience (as I will do, when films are developed)...
Thanks,
Tamas

[rdenney]

Has anyone tried to fit the 180/2.8 or 300/4 Sonnar lenses with his 4x5 camera? Just received a Speed Graphic, so I've take a chance (need some films to load, then go) to test'em. From the mate screen the 300 seems to have some movements, 180 seems to be ok. For proper handling there is some machinery to do as lenses are well over 1 kg, and only the ends fit into a copal 3 hole, but knowing they are great lenses for medium format works, I am a bit amazed no one ever tried this combo.
If any of you tried them, please share your experience (as I will do, when films are developed)...
Thanks,
Tamas

You mean like this?

Pictured is a CZJ Sonnar MC 180/2.8 with a Hasselblad compendium shade. I have just rested it on a Norma multipurpose standard--it would be far too heavy for the front standard of the F2, but it would be easy enough to use a multipurpose standard to provide the additional support needed.

I've set up the Sinar F2 with a Sinar auto-aperture shutter. The lens is not mounted--it's just resting there to see what's possible (that's why it's a little cockeyed). It will take lens board with a Pentacon Six mount.

At f/2.8, you'll get falloff from barrel occlusion almost immediately. I get a useful image circle of about 110mm when the lens is focused at maybe 10 feet. The coverage doesn't increase much at f/32, but the illumination is much more even and the cutoff much sharper. The WA bellows 2 is very thin--the thinnest of all Sinar bellows--and it's still a tight fit. I can get the lens closer to the front standard, though. It might get close enough to focus at infinity, but I don't have an infinity target handy at the moment.

This lens is one reason I bought the Sinar shutter. It will certainly cover 6x9 at portrait distances. But if you try to remove the rear barrel, I think you may end up screwing up the aperture control which would be a problem, so 4x5 may be out of reach unless you are really racking the lens out. You get full coverage for 4x5 at f/32 when focused at about 3 feet (maybe 1:5).

Don't even think of doing this with a Speed Graphic, unless you are starting from the ground up structurally, and just using the focal-plane shutter. These lenses are heavy and require their own support.

The fourth picture is the 300/4 CZJ Sonnar. This lens has an image circle of about 120mm focused at 10 feet. Again, it's just resting on the Normal multipurpose standard. With its Arca-style plate on a foot (which is a Chinese knockoff foot intended for the Canon 70-200/4L non-IS), it would be much easier to support, perhaps using the Sinar accessory support. But it can also just be screwed to a Sinar board and clamped into a multipurpose standard turned flat.

Mounting to the front of the shutter isn't exactly necessary if the lens is separately mounted, but it would be a lot easier to get things aligned. I'm thinking of cutting the mount portion of an extension tube (for a Kiev 60--these are cheap) and welding it to a Sinar board.

Rick "betting you didn't expect this detailed an answer :) " Denney

[moTmeN]

Thank you for your detailed answer, Rick!

For the stabilization issue I have some idea close to Your solution (except that I have to use the tripod head as stable point to connect the lens to). From the focusing screen I cannot tell any significant light falloff for neither lens wide open, but the negative will tell the truth. BTW mine are not MC, but the black finish single coated version of that lenses. Maybe the lens formula or body geometry might be changed between those versions.
So I will return with some testshots within few days. Hopefully with a big smile on my face... :)

[rdenney]

Thank you for your detailed answer, Rick!

For the stabilization issue I have some idea close to Your solution (except that I have to use the tripod head as stable point to connect the lens to). From the focusing screen I cannot tell any significant light falloff for neither lens wide open, but the negative will tell the truth. BTW mine are not MC, but the black finish single coated version of that lenses. Maybe the lens formula or body geometry might be changed between those versions.
So I will return with some testshots within few days. Hopefully with a big smile on my face... :)

If your lenses have a Pentacon Six mount, then the insides of the barrels have not appreciably changed in their history. I also have an older Zebra version of that lens.

But I may be occlusion the corners with the Sinar shutter. The lens needs to quite close to the shutter--that may complicate the design. I'll look again this evening.

Rick "needing to check the lens shade, too" Denney

[moTmeN]

I've just come out of my darkroom, the negatives are hanging on my dryer. At a first glance there is a falloff on picture taken from a subject in ~5 meter distance made with the 180, but it disappears in ~3 meter distance. (Sadly those pictures taken with almost handheld, so they are a bit blurry.) Those pictures were taken yesterday evening (1/50).
Today I've arrived home after dusk, so I've used my durst lamps (i'm not a studio photographer... :) for taking pictures with the 300/4. I made one picture with the whole lens, and another for comparison only with the first cell (which is definitely illuminates the 4x5 (maybe it can do 5x7). The subject distance was around 3-4 meters (indoor space limitation), so there seems to be no light falloff for the full lens picture too. Of course that is sharper than the one with the first cell. (All photos were taken with full aperture.)
So for my point of view those lenses are nice for portraiture works, subject size below 1 meter. Exactly what I'm looking for...

[rdenney]

Can you post a photo of your lens?

I removed the shade of my 180, removed the Sinar shutter from the camera, rested the lens in front of the ground glass, and focused at 10 feet. I then remove the ground glass and studied the coverage issue.

My earlier stated coverages are correct and maybe even a bit generous.

The front of the barrel occludes the aperture before the rear of the barrel does, so removing the lens mount would have no positive effect on coverage. Even at f/32, I can see that filter thread blocking the view long before I get to the corners of the 4x5 frame.

It would be more than adequate for 6x9, and might even require only a bit of cropping for 6x12. But it will not cover 4x5.

If you can't see daylight through the aperture when sighting through the corner of the image frame, then neither can the film.

For 6x9, it would allow some movements, which is exceptionally cool. If I want an 16x20 print, I have to crop off 6x4.5 from the 6x6 frame on the Pentacon Six (or just mount the lens on a 645 camera, which I do often). That gives me about a 9x enlargement. If I take it from a 6x7 negative, it's about a 7x enlargement. That makes a difference with my scanner. And having some movements makes it especially useful.

Rick "wondering if you have one of the really old Sonnars that came as a lens head mounted on a focusing barrel" Denney

[moTmeN]

My lenses are single coated with black barrel, not the really old olympic version. (Post-zebra, pre-MC version)
Here are some shots. Please don't care about focus/composition/sharpness, as I had difficulties with the not well set standard, and the grafmatic holder's width on the spring back, and of course the loosely 'mounted' lenses. So this was just a short of play, but the results are here.

Oh, so I have to use to this forumengine, but here are the shots commented with approximately subject size and subject distance:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/20492147@N00/sets/72157627595559437/

For human sized subject the lenses are not good for 4x5 (I'll check if the 300/4 with 8-10 meter subject distance, with unscrewed front barrel part how will work. The filter mount and a 8-10cm long tube can be easily removed for the version I have (don't know, if this stands for the MC version too).

[rdenney]

Your picture of the taller weeds in the field shows the coverage I saw when focused at 10 feet. That's about 100-110mm image circle. It sharpens up as you stop down.

I'm not sure if one removed 10mm from the front of a Sonnar there would be anything left to hold the front element in place.

I can see where the vignetting would be usable for some portraits, especially with the lens used wide open. But you could also crop down a bit if that effect isn't wanted. The coverage on the lens is substantially greater than the format for which it was intended (6x6) and mounting in on a 4x5 camera gets full use of what is there.

Your pictures really demonstrate how beautifully this lens renders background out-of-focus areas. And the f/2.8 maximum aperture doesn't hurt. I've always been a fan of the classic Sonnar look, and these Jena Sonnars are closer to the original design than modern western Zeiss Sonnars. The lenses also perform quite well wide open, compared to, say, a tessar design.

I've been pondering what it might take to mill out the Pentacon Six bayonet opening on a Sinar board, so that the lens can just be inserted and turned. I would perhaps epoxy some brass shim stock to the front to build it up to a snug fit. That would help me get the lens very close to the Sinar shutter so that it does not cause it's own occlusion. Welding a mount to the front of the Sinar board would keep the lens too far from the Sinar shutter, I'm thinking. I'd like that P6 mount to project right back into the shutter cavity, the way DB-mounted lenses do.

This is a worthy project, even with the occlusion.

I'm curious about your lens's vintage. If you send me the serial number, I can date it for you. I have a 50mm Flektogon that sits between the zebra and the multicoated version, and I know of Sonnars that did also. But there are some details about the barrel that interest me. Does it have the stepped rear barrel like the MC version or the conical rear barrel like the zebra version? Is it the long serial number or the post-unification four and five-digit serial number? (Probably the long serial number.) Are you sure it's not multicoated? The Flektogon mentioned above is mullticoated but not marked as such. Is the barrel lacquered black or anodized?

Rick "celebrating unification but sorry to see the old Jena designs abandoned" Denney

[moTmeN]

I'm not sure if one removed 10mm from the front of a Sonnar there would be anything left to hold the front element in place.

The first cell has its own thread to keep in place (in Zebra, and also black non-MC, I have got, and repaired), so removing the entire front end causes no structural problem (of course dust will be a huge issue if that ring is removed). I don't know if you know this picture, but it might help to understand which part can be removed: http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/200912/85_18028_Sonnar_1_2.jpg


I'm curious about your lens's vintage. If you send me the serial number, I can date it for you. I have a 50mm Flektogon that sits between the zebra and the multicoated version, and I know of Sonnars that did also. But there are some details about the barrel that interest me. Does it have the stepped rear barrel like the MC version or the conical rear barrel like the zebra version? Is it the long serial number or the post-unification four and five-digit serial number? (Probably the long serial number.) Are you sure it's not multicoated? The Flektogon mentioned above is mullticoated but not marked as such. Is the barrel lacquered black or anodized?
They have conical rear barrel, anodized to black and brownish coating on front lens and the serial numbers are 9930626 and 9704642, so i bet they are single coated.
My 80/2.8 biometar's serial number is 9709921 and it has the MC label, and purplish coating.

[rdenney]

The first cell has its own thread to keep in place (in Zebra, and also black non-MC, I have got, and repaired), so removing the entire front end causes no structural problem (of course dust will be a huge issue if that ring is removed). I don't know if you know this picture, but it might help to understand which part can be removed: http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/200912/85_18028_Sonnar_1_2.jpg


They have conical rear barrel, anodized to black and brownish coating on front lens and the serial numbers are 9930626 and 9704642, so i bet they are single coated.
My 80/2.8 biometar's serial number is 9709921 and it has the MC label, and purplish coating.

The Biometar is actually older than the Sonnars. It was made in 1975, while the Sonnars were made in 1976. The color of the coating will tell you whether they got the multi-coating, but I also think they do not. Your barrel has the original zebra shape, just not the zebra bright aluminum highlights on the control rings. The black-barrel MC Sonnars had a stepped rear section.

I have had my zebra Sonnar apart, but did not remember the details. That lens might be worth fiddling with in that regard. Also, the aperture on that one is sticky and I need to take it apart anyway. I seem to recall that when you remove that front ring, the helical loses it's alignment key, but I'll find out when I get around to that lens.

I'm not sure how much removing that front ring would help. Have you tried it with that front ring removed altogether?

Rick "whose MC Sonnar still gets frequent use on a Pentax 645 (plus the range of P6 stuff) and thus it's not available for surgery" Denney

[moTmeN]

The Biometar is actually older than the Sonnars. It was made in 1975, while the Sonnars were made in 1976. The color of the coating will tell you whether they got the multi-coating, but I also think they do not. Your barrel has the original zebra shape, just not the zebra bright aluminum highlights on the control rings. The black-barrel MC Sonnars had a stepped rear section.

I have had my zebra Sonnar apart, but did not remember the details. That lens might be worth fiddling with in that regard. Also, the aperture on that one is sticky and I need to take it apart anyway. I seem to recall that when you remove that front ring, the helical loses it's alignment key, but I'll find out when I get around to that lens.

I'm not sure how much removing that front ring would help. Have you tried it with that front ring removed altogether?

Rick "whose MC Sonnar still gets frequent use on a Pentax 645 (plus the range of P6 stuff) and thus it's not available for surgery" Denney

Thank you for the precise dating of my lenses.

Nice sentence in your signature... :) I try to go as far as things can be undone, as you do. I've tried the 300/4, and the removed front ring did not helped too much (few millimeters, still the front part of the barrel is the limitation).
Later it might be an option to get a cheap, worn out one to throw its barrel away, and lathe a nice barrel for it by an expert (thanks to my job I know some skilled expert of this area). I think the lens could have a proper image circle for 4x5 even focused to infinity with a proper barrel. But for the near future for me the first thing will be to stabilize the camera with those overweighted lens. I know it will never be a xenotar, but...

[rdenney]

I know it will never be a xenotar, but...

That's fine with me. The (Joseph) Schneider Xenotar that was made for the Exakta 66 in the same mount as the Sonnars is extremely sharp--maybe one of the sharpest 80mm double-gauss lenses available for any rollfilm camera.

But it does not have that luscious smooth Sonnar rendering. The out-of-focus areas in that Xenotar can be downright busy, based on the examples I've seen.

The Sonnars are not among the sharpest, but they are still world-class in terms of making beautiful images. I can show my wife a series of photos and she can pick out the Sonnar images at first glance. We actually had a blind test on the Kiev Report forum a few years ago, where one of our members made the same picture with various 150 and 180mm lenses. Most of us could pick out the Sonnar image, even on a computer monitor.

Even with vignetting, I want to be able to put that lens on a bigger camera than 6x6--it's one of the major reasons I kept a lookout for a Sinar shutter at the right price.

Rick "suspecting this lens would cost far too much to make these days, considering the amount of glass it uses" Denney

[moTmeN]

That's fine with me. The (Joseph) Schneider Xenotar that was made for the Exakta 66 in the same mount as the Sonnars is extremely sharp--maybe one of the sharpest 80mm double-gauss lenses available for any rollfilm camera.

But it does not have that luscious smooth Sonnar rendering. The out-of-focus areas in that Xenotar can be downright busy, based on the examples I've seen.

The Sonnars are not among the sharpest, but they are still world-class in terms of making beautiful images. I can show my wife a series of photos and she can pick out the Sonnar images at first glance. We actually had a blind test on the Kiev Report forum a few years ago, where one of our members made the same picture with various 150 and 180mm lenses. Most of us could pick out the Sonnar image, even on a computer monitor.

Even with vignetting, I want to be able to put that lens on a bigger camera than 6x6--it's one of the major reasons I kept a lookout for a Sinar shutter at the right price.

Rick "suspecting this lens would cost far too much to make these days, considering the amount of glass it uses" Denney

Sorry I haven't replied, I was busy pimping up my Speed, but I have finished last night, so I'll return to the Sonnar business. As first attempt I'll use a spare Anniversary front standard to stabilize the Sonnars (the first barrel almost fits in the hole of the front standard, so some machinery will help to keep the front part of the lens tautly. Also a long release plate will hold the Sonnars middle on the focusing rack, so at first glance it seems to be affordable for horizontal work.

So that will be my experiment for the weekend...