My poor pre-war sonnar.....

[uhoh7]

I found this 1937 jena attached to a pretty clean color dial and pulled the trigger for a bit over 200USD.

They arrived today, and while the body really does seem good (test roll loaded).

But on inspection the lens has some real issues. The blades are wet with oil--more than I've seen on any of my 40 odd lenses--but that by itself might be par for the course. However, take a look at this:

It's on the element just under the rear element, and does not appear to be like any seperation I've seen. It's symetrical--a half moon only effecting one side of the element, as if the element has been removed and improperly re-installed.

The lens shows signs of oily elements, but I can't really see the effects of the issue above

shots on APS-C so maybe I'm missing the edges anyway.

ohhhh, what do i do?

 

[DC1030]

That should make no problems, i got both the coated and the uncoated version and i prefer the uncoated one (that also has some separation),
it's a real magical lens, especially for color work.

 

[uhoh7]

Ty for replies, guys

So it does look like seperation?

It's a lovely thing to look into with those little bubbles 🙂

 

[Sonnar Brian]

It looks to be just at the edges, and some separation is not going to have a big impact. Chances are, the oil has caused haze to be formed on each side of the aperture. At a minimum: unscrew the rear element and clean it. IF YOU haVE a really good spanner- the front ring needs to come out, the front triplet needs to come out, and the blades flood cleaned. Also take off the aperture ring. Variable ring off, aperture coupling link off, unscrew the aperture ring and clean out the grease. Scribe the position of the screws so they go back to original positions.

The front name ring is often held in place with paint. You need a really good spanner and steady hand to get it off.

And...

1936 Uncoated 5cm F1.5 Sonnar.

The rear triplet can be replaced with that of a Jupiter-3. The earlier ones are better: up through 1955. I used one from a KMZ, it was uncoated. Chances are, it was an original German part. Later J-3 rear modules are coated. They will also work.

BEFORE, with original rear element which had some etched glass:

on the EP2;



AFTER:




Focal length remained close, and worked well with an adapter on the Leica. This lens will be converted to LTM soon.

 

[hans voralberg]

As long as it has not physically separated far beyond each other it shouldn't be a problem, I have a few lens like that, works fine.

 

[uhoh7]

TY for all kind replies.

And especially the heads up about the front ring, Brian. Very interesting to see your before and after shots and lens closeups. I suppose another reason to save this one is the potential for mounting in LTM--not possible in the later versions, I gather.

Great to know jupi rear elements can also work.

I'm going to get some better pics of the issue, but perhaps someone would put up some links to sonnar DIY cla-- I saw one I think Brian did, but can't find it now. 🙁

I still dont have a spanner, and now might be the time to get a couple of really decent ones--considering the job, suggestions apreciated 🙂

If I do send it out in CONUS.....Jerry Sorin? or?

best to all
Charlie

PS I must say the IIIa is quite the machine 🙂. Handles very well (I have M6 right now to compare), and without the meter mount it would be REALLY sweet--I see why the IIa is coveted. My focus gears move very free. Would be really nice to have this lens clean for BOTH film and digital.

I'll take the Contax and this lens to my daughters horse barn today and shoot some film for the first time in 25 years...OMG.

 

[uhoh7]

Better pics

obviously I'm turning the lens about for light and detail

 

[roboflick]

Beautiful Shots!

I have an Opton Sonnar that was optimized for wide open and closeup for me by Henry Scherer. It is my favorite lens, it has such a unique bokeh, like an impressionist painting, really unique

Nik

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I see what looks like haze on the surfaces on each side of the aperture. This is going to have moe impact than the separation of the balsam. There is one set screw near the end of the mount that holds the optics module in place in the mount. Many Sonnars have this same screw holding in the rear module. After removing the screw, or at least backing it out, the rear mofule should unscrew with a rubber mousepad or cork.

 

[roboflick]

And if you send it out to Henry Scherer he did an incredible job, I sent him a fungus filled cloudy lens and he sent back one that looked and performed better than new. His charge and turnover time less than a month were also very reasonable, send me a pm if you need anymore details. This was within the last 6 months.

Nik

 

[Sonnar Brian]

This thread is on the 5cm f2 Sonnar:

http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89797&highlight=spare+sonnar

Getting the aperture ring off is the same as the F1.5 lens.

Biggest difference: the namering holds the loose-glass front element in on the F1.5 lens, and must be taken out with a Spanner. The front triplet is easier to get out, also with a Spanner. The glass of the F1.5 lens is loose, the front element and front triplet of the f2 lens is stamped into a brass mount. Each of those brass mounts has the SN of the lens.

 

[uhoh7]

I get a quote of 220USD for complete restoration. A basic CLA as you guys know runs 60-135USD. Optically not much evidence of bad effects and the condition is stable aparently.

Hmm

A fully restored lens might be worth enough more in resale value to justify the investment (though I have no plans to resell).

Brian, TY on pointing out set screw and for your link. I'm very tempted.....if I thought I could get it clean without damage I might go ahead. I'll read up 🙂

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Cleaning the rear is very easy, and that is where most of the haze accumulates.

$220 is reasonable if it requires separating the elements and re-cementing them. Not sure if the resale of a Contax mount lens will recoup the cost.

 

[uhoh7]

Brian can't thank you enough for your attention and advice. Never would have found the camera and lens without reading your many great posts.

I threw caution to the wind and sent if off to Henry 🙂

two week turn around give or take so I will post results when I get it back.

Should be interesting anyway.

I know I know there's one born every minute 🙂

 

[cambolt]

Those photos have excellent atmosphere! I'm not a bokeh nut but that is beautiful!
Sorry, I'm not very helpful am I 😛

 

[uhoh7]

You gotta love this:

From Henry:

"Hello Charlie,

I have an opening while waiting for paint to cure while working on a Contax III and so have moved forward with your lens and it is completely disassembled. It is very dirty but very fine. The lens elements are in perfect condition and so my guess is it's going to be a 10 when its done. It's distinguished by very fine surface oxidation of the front and rear lens elements. This shows it's never been cleaned. Whoever owned it previously cared for it very much. This surface oxidation acts like coating and significantly improves the lens so if I were you I'd invest in a UV filter and would never clean this lens. This surface oxidation is very rare and highly desirable."

🙂

Would this be the standard 40.5 filter and thread pitch?

TY

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Yes- I use Hoya, Schneider, and Walz filters on mine. I think one time I bought 10 multicoated Schneider 40.5mm filters from Popflash. I need a couple more.

 

[uhoh7]

Since oxidation is normally considered an issue, I wrote back to Henry asking him to explain why this is a good thing. Here is what he said:

"I can't possibly provide a complete lecture in the history of glass making but here's what you need to know in a nut shell. The history of lens glass is long and begins with plain glass made at very low temperature to make it very clear and very soft so it could be easily ground into lenses by hand through manual labor. A process of continual development and improvement took place in lens glass making it with higher and higher temperatures and it becoming harder and harder as mechanical methods of lens making were developed. Glass corrodes just like everything else. Softer glass corrodes faster and with a coarser grain and harder glass corrodes slower with a finer grain. Finally, Zeiss developed modern optical glass and improved it to the point that it corrodes so slowly and so finely that the corrosion actually improved the performance of the lens because it was thin enough and fine enough to act like a dichroic filter. Zeiss noticed this and began a program of development to duplicate this effect and this led to modern coatings. The corrosion on the surfaces of your lens results in an improvement. The corrosion on the surface of a lens made in 1900 results in the ruin of the lens.

The reason there is virtually no Colonial Era American glass existing today is that it simply corroded into sand because it was made under such low temperatures and was so soft and susceptable to corrosion. Low temperature glass can be made to be very brilliant. Tiffany experimented with it in some of his lamps and these lamps are distinguished by the fact that the glass pieces closest to the light bulb is still present whereas the pieces further away from the bulb have corroded into sand."

Has he got it right?

 

[gzuiko]

I've just gotten in the mail today a black and nickel 5cm f1.5 Sonnar with a similar problem, but more pronounced. The problem looks more like it's closer to the front of the lens than the rear. Otherwise the glass looks very clean and unscratched. I'm anxious to try it out in the light of day and see how well it works as is. I had never seen one show up of this vintage at a price I could afford, so I'm happy to have it, even as is. Still, I'd be curious how your repair experience turns out.

Jim

 

[Sonnar Brian]

No- not quite right.

"Bloom" is the term for the outer layer of a lens becoming tarnished, lowering the index of refraction, and reducing reflections. The effect was noticed ~1896 by Taylor.

http://www.panix.com/~zone/photo/czlens.htm

Henry is a good technician.