Early Russian Lenses, What Features to look for.

The partial CZJ serial number on rear triplet looks legitimate, and checks out against data in Thiele's book of CZJ production. Materials looks appropriate, blackened aluminum with a brass variable stand-off ring.

The lens is shimmed with copper wire, have not seen this before. Lots of scratched numbers on the fixture for the rear lens group, have no idea what they mean. Only partly visible in this pic, but looks like 33h=p44. I dont know how to type a cyrillic P, but the picture shows the symbol
 
Last edited:
I will test drive the lens after I swap it into the 1958 LTM mount. This is my first Soviet lens with a 286 series CZJ serial number. I have examples from the 284 and 285 serials that perform well once cleaned up and properly shimmed.
 
dexdog said:
I will test drive the lens after I swap it into the 1958 LTM mount. This is my first Soviet lens with a 286 series CZJ serial number. I have examples from the 284 and 285 serials that perform well once cleaned up and properly shimmed.
Click to expand...

It will be interesting following how this unfolds. And parallel is the transition from German to Soviet hands of the CZJ production. How skilled were the Soviets? How well did they adapt to the CZJ methods and what did they change? The whole swing from Jena to Krasnogorsk has to be an interesting story. I know that KMZ made some fine lenses so the Soviets were not a bunch of sleepy farmers. There has to be an interesting story there, well, interesting for me maybe not a lot of other folks. ;o)
 
dexdog said:
The partial CZJ serial number on rear triplet looks legitimate, and checks out against data in Thiele's book of CZJ production. Materials looks appropriate, blackened aluminum with a brass variable stand-off ring.

The lens is shimmed with copper wire, have not seen this before. Lots of scratched numbers on the fixture for the rear lens group, have no idea what they mean. Only partly visible in this pic, but looks like 33h=p44. I dont know how to type a cyrillic P, but the picture shows the symbol
Click to expand...
I have 861413 and 862023- Both 1950 J-3's.
 
boojum said:
It will be interesting following how this unfolds. And parallel is the transition from German to Soviet hands of the CZJ production. How skilled were the Soviets? How well did they adapt to the CZJ methods and what did they change? The whole swing from Jena to Krasnogorsk has to be an interesting story. I know that KMZ made some fine lenses so the Soviets were not a bunch of sleepy farmers. There has to be an interesting story there, well, interesting for me maybe not a lot of other folks. ;o)
Click to expand...
Fom what I have read, the Soviets took a lot of Zeiss employees to Krasnogorsk to set up lens production at the KMZ plant at about the same time that the CZJ factories were taken apart and shipped to Russia. I think Rauber has posted some info about the timeline on other RFF threads.
 
dexdog said:
Fom what I have read, the Soviets took a lot of Zeiss employees to Krasnogorsk to set up lens production at the KMZ plant at about the same time that the CZJ factories were taken apart and shipped to Russia. I think Rauber has posted some info about the timeline on other RFF threads.
Click to expand...

Yes, CZJ was a war prize for the Soviets. The Germans had been a real problem for them, a real problem. And I know that my German relatives in Berlin ran west as fast as they could to surrender to the Allies rather than be caught by the Russians. The Russians were very angry.

Anyway, they got CZJ as their own. And they were making lenses before the CZJ war prize. But I am thinking not so much of date and place as of the actual interactions and how that went. How were German techniques adapted, did it go well, did it go smoothly, how did the two groups get along and all those picky little details that make it human? The Germans who went to Russia must have been pretty scared. And with reason.
 
boojum said:
How were German techniques adapted, did it go well, did it go smoothly, how did the two groups get along and all those picky little details that make it human?
Click to expand...
🤓
Wow!
I see an interesting approach to the problem of studying the history of the issue, going beyond simple collecting in the form of accumulation!
By the way - there is such a moment - I came across mentions on the Internet of mutual business trips to study the experience of production - Germans to KMZ and Arsenal and Russians to Jena, and this was already in the 1970-1980s - there may be living people-participants left.
A very interesting topic for stories and even novels!)
 
Brambling said:
🤓
Wow!
I see an interesting approach to the problem of studying the history of the issue, going beyond simple collecting in the form of accumulation!
By the way - there is such a moment - I came across mentions on the Internet of mutual business trips to study the experience of production - Germans to KMZ and Arsenal and Russians to Jena, and this was already in the 1970-1980s - there may be living people-participants left.
A very interesting topic for stories and even novels!)
Click to expand...

My training and education is in history and this stuff is what I did as a student. One just dives into all available printed material and assembles what one divines to be the objective and unbiased truth. But "objective and unbiased" is subject to individual interpretation. I would love to know the personal accounts of what it was like for both the Soviets and the Germans. The Soviets had control, the Germans had the knowledge and technique. My German has eroded down to "Zwei Wurst, bitte" and little more. And all I can say in Russian is, "Nyet moi chai, tvoi chai". Both of these phrases can be extremely useful but in very few circumstances.

But the story of the Germans, essentially POW's, working in the KMZ factory and how it went has to be interesting. Small audience, yes. But the interactions between Herman Huntsfuss and Segei Prochorenko, as an example with made-up names here, would be an interesting story. Some fine lenses came out of KMZ so Tovarish learned something.
 
History (and photography too) simply cannot be impartial – the angle, the point of view, the pre-setting are all decisive and very important.
 
Brambling said:
History (and photography too) simply cannot be impartial – the angle, the point of view, the pre-setting are all decisive and very important.
Click to expand...

History like photography is perspective. But in history one strives not for the most flattering perspective but the most honest one. In grad school I was reading two to three books a day. And there was some of it that was biased. Reputable scholars strive for objectivity. Reputable photographers strive for art, a bias, more than objectivity.

But this is beyond my depth. I am just a shooter.
 
I look at the CZJ LTM focus mount and think- The engineer that designed this was told to make it last about 5 years. Stop screw through the focus ring to an underlying slot. The engineer that changed the design to use an internal stop screw must have looked at the original design and thought "What idiot came up with that idea!"
 
I got the optical block from the lens in post #160 into a 1958 J-3 focusing mount in LTM. The copper wire shim was much too thick at 1.32mm, the lens front-focused significantly. I looked through my small stash of J-3 shims and found a couple that together totaled 0.94mm, which is just about perfect for this lens. It passes the one-meter wide-open test and infinity focus is about 300 meters, as judged by some tall trees in my neighborhood, using google earth to estimate distances. Getting the proper shim in place left the aperture ring about 180 degrees out of kilter, will re-set it later. Gray and drizzly in my neighborhood this morning. Yeah, this is definately a Sonnar, and appears to be a decent one. One meter wide-open. Took a few more pics at f4 to confirm focus at known distances of 30, 100 and 210 meters, and the lens appears to be spot on. I think I will clean it after I rotate the aperture ring (a PITA job).
 
Note that it has "Make Offer". It is not worth more than a CZJ 5cm F1.5 Wartime LTM lens. But- it's only worth that much if someone pays that much.
In that case, glad I got mine years ago when they were $250 and J-3's were $100 at most.
I have a nice looking, later J-3 coming in. A 1973 ZOMZ. Seller offer of $135. I'll shim it, CLA it, test it. I can always use the focus mount to convert a Wartime Sonnar to LTM. Then convert this J-3 to Contax. Prices seem to be coming down for J-3's from the peak. Some sellers are still asking insane prices. If they were really going for that much- don't tell my wife. I have 20 years of cherry-picked Jupiters and Sonnars.

www.ebay.com

Jupiter 3 1.5/50mm M39 Zorki Leica LTM RangeFinger Lens Carl Zeiss Sonnar 733168 | eBay

Jupiter 3 1.5/50mm M39 FED Zorki Leica LTM RangeFinger Lens L39. It is a replica of the Carl Zeiss Sonnar 1.5/50 lens. Focal length: 50mm. Until 1954, Jupiter-3 was assembled from German components received by the USSR as part of reparations.
www.ebay.com
 
Last edited:
deltapuppy said:
This is the highest asking price for any zk or bk lens on eBay that I’ve ever noted:

www.ebay.ca

EXTREMELY Rare KMZ 1948 ZK 1.5/50 PT1610 Carl Zeiss Sonnar Leica M39 SN 001024 | eBay

Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for EXTREMELY Rare KMZ 1948 ZK 1.5/50 PT1610 Carl Zeiss Sonnar Leica M39 SN 001024 at the best online prices at eBay! Free shipping for many products!
www.ebay.ca
Click to expand...
I agree with Sonnar B, that is a lot of money for that lens. Looks legitimate and appears to be in pretty good shape, but over-priced by at least 3x.
Sonnar Brian said:
Note that it has "Make Offer". It is not worth more than a CZJ 5cm F1.5 Wartime LTM lens. But- it's only worth that much if someone pays that much.
In that case, glad I got mine years ago when they were $250 and J-3's were $100 at most.
I have a nice looking, later J-3 coming in. A 1973 ZOMZ. Seller offer of $135. I'll shim it, CLA it, test it. I can always use the focus mount to convert a Wartime Sonnar to LTM. Then convert this J-3 to Contax. Prices seem to be coming down for J-3's from the peak.

www.ebay.com

Jupiter 3 1.5/50mm M39 Zorki Leica LTM RangeFinger Lens Carl Zeiss Sonnar 733168 | eBay

Jupiter 3 1.5/50mm M39 FED Zorki Leica LTM RangeFinger Lens L39. It is a replica of the Carl Zeiss Sonnar 1.5/50 lens. Focal length: 50mm. Until 1954, Jupiter-3 was assembled from German components received by the USSR as part of reparations.
www.ebay.com
Click to expand...
I have bought a couple of lenses from that person in Kazakhstan, was a good seller to deal with. I was leery at first given that this seller also posts early J-3s with badly forged CZJ serial numbers on rear fixture, but figured it was not much of a risk with a run of the mill J-3 for $140 or so. Lenses were as described and shipping was a few weeks
 
Last edited:
Got a new Jupiter 3 (1955). I was wondersing if Is it possible, that there's german reparation glass in there? As far as I know, 1954 might be the year, when the transition from german to soviet made glass happened.

Left one is from 1952 and right one is from 1955. The coatings differ a bit, rear lens block of 1952 J3 has no coating, 1955 has strong blue coating on rear lens. I have also a 1953 J3 and this one too doesn't have coatings on rear glass. 1952 J3 definetly has german glass although there's no number on rear lens block. I think that this 1955 J3 has recalculated soviet made glass, but who knows.
 

Attachments

  • tempImageC1f19H.png
    tempImageC1f19H.png
    2.3 MB · Views: 15
  • tempImagebsYjJa.png
    tempImagebsYjJa.png
    2.2 MB · Views: 15
@MM24
I moved this to the Early Russian Lens discussion.

KMZ Jupiter-3 lenses with German Glass were made concurrently with the reformulated version through 1956.

You can tell by the shape of the rear fixture:
1956 ZOMZ on left, 1956 KMZ v2 on right.
J3_Rear_ZOMZ_KMZv2.JPG


German Glass KMZ V1- note shape of rear fixture is interchangeable with CZJ Sonnars going back to the V3, ~1935 or so.
KMZ_V1.JPG
 
Last edited:
Gents i am looking at a 1948 ZK - the 50mm f2 flavor. The seller gave a very honest assessment which i will share. As i have a ‘49 50mm 1.5 and a 1950 35mm the collector / hoarder in me is interested in a ‘48 50mm f2.0 of course. Any insights or critique welcome! Here’s the link and exact text from the seller:

FED-Zorki 1948 + ZK 2/50 1948 | eBay

The lens hasn’t been serviced in a long time. It was heavily used in its day. There are likely cleaning marks on the glass. In the photos, you can see some streaks inside that resemble oil condensation or something similar. There may also be some traces of fungus, but to confirm that, the lens would need to be disassembled and cleaned.

The optical block itself is a Zeiss Sonnar 2/50 in a Soviet-made casing with Soviet markings. It may have all the typical issues of early 1940s Sonnars (though maybe I’m being overly cautious, and it might not be as bad as I describe—but I’m positioning it as a lens with potential problems). Let’s assume these issues are present.

I’m not selling this as a working camera/lens kit for photography purposes. This is a collector’s item. If you’re looking for an excellent ZK 2/50, this probably isn’t the right choice. If you do find an excellent ZK 2/50 in M39, it might be a fake, or it may have had its glass or even the entire optical block replaced. Or maybe you’ll get lucky!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom