lukx
Well-known
Interesting lenses. Aren’t they completely useless in Contax mount? You couldn’t possibly focus your image reliably with these, right?
Last edited:
Carl Zeiss Jena Prototypes, Experimental, and Transition Lenses,
- Thread starter dexdog
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 301
- Views 30K
Mine was set to work at infinity on a Contax.
TenEleven
Well-known
Marco Cavinia has an image external mount one, which I assume has a very good chance to be working correctly -- after all they went to the trouble to make an external mounted one.
I wonder if it's the same story as with the Leica mounted ones - I think (just a hunch and some observations, really) that initially they made these with the translation helical and then later changed them to have a sloped helical -- because, hey it still appears to be working correctly, but is much less effort to manufacture and before the buyer catches on the black market seller has already disappeared.
Hence I would also expect the internal Contax mount ones to be all labelled 5cm - otherwise even a knowledgeable amateur might reckon that this is not going to work.
Edit: In the second (blurry) picture you can see that the 2,5m demarcation appears to be in the correct (90 degrees from top) place with the lens at infinity. Which of course matches the distance scale engraved on the Contax itself - so yeah there's a good chance it would work this way.
I wonder if it's the same story as with the Leica mounted ones - I think (just a hunch and some observations, really) that initially they made these with the translation helical and then later changed them to have a sloped helical -- because, hey it still appears to be working correctly, but is much less effort to manufacture and before the buyer catches on the black market seller has already disappeared.
Hence I would also expect the internal Contax mount ones to be all labelled 5cm - otherwise even a knowledgeable amateur might reckon that this is not going to work.
Edit: In the second (blurry) picture you can see that the 2,5m demarcation appears to be in the correct (90 degrees from top) place with the lens at infinity. Which of course matches the distance scale engraved on the Contax itself - so yeah there's a good chance it would work this way.
Attachments
Last edited:
tlloydau
Member
Is there any information on why these black market Sonnars are all 5.8cm lenses? From TenEleven's article it sounds like Zeiss acknowledges that these counterfeit lenses are in part based off of Zeiss parts/glass but if there was never a 5.8cm Sonnar what were these parts from? I would have thought it would make more sense for them to have produced 5cm Sonnars using parts/blanks for that Sonnar. These sellers would then not have had to resolve these various issues stemming from the 5.8cm focal length. Is the assumption that this is a marriage of Sonnar and 5.8cm Biotar lens elements/blanks or what? Are these just the obvious fakes and there were 5cm Sonnars as well that simply went under the radar because they didn't have such obviously 3rd party lens bodies?
dexdog
Veteran
some people have hypothesized that these lenses were created from an optical-mechanical bombsight used on WW2 era German airplanes such as the Ju-87. I have links that explaining this theory on my home computer, but am travelling this week and do not have access.
Last edited:
lukx
Well-known
The PDF provided by @TenEleven explains as much. It states that the lenses were bomb sights. Interestingly, the article quotes Zeiss saying the lenses were produced by others (i.e. not Zeiss) using a Sonnar formula.
Direct translation:
“These lenses were manufactured during the war by another party for dive-bombing sights in a Sonnar design, housed in a rather crude mount without an iris diaphragm and without any additional markings.”
Räuber
Well-known
This statement in this magazin from Carl Zeiss Jena is more of a PR campaign. From my experience I would say they only tell us half of the truth here. Let's get into it.
CZJ talks about the dismantling and about that some persons could get lenses (and probably machines and tools) in their hands. They blame those people that they started assembling those parts and lenses and sell them as CZJ lenses. They say that only those who calculated and designed those lenses know how to manufacture and assemble them. And they say correctly that you can not simply mix lenses from different lens types. They call those people bunglers and give no guarantee or service of those lenses.
The statement mixes things and not everything is correct. A lot of those unfinished lenses and parts ended up not in Germany but in the FSU. A lot of those (incomplete) Sonnar lenses where not finished on a black market but by KMZ in Krasnogorsk. I have some "fake" 5cm Sonnars that where build by Soviet workers. They seem to have started the production by simply assembling and finishing those unfinished lenses and train their workers with this. They got lens blocks where the name ring was engraved in Jena and manufactured and engraved the mount part in Krasnogorsk. This goes hand in hand what CZJ states about those black market lenses. But they are silent about the Soviet source knowing that they could not critique the new administration in the eastern part (where Jena was located).
There where some black market workshops in Jena and the eastern zone. They were hosted by ex-employees from CZJ. They made a living by crafting Leica thread mount housing of Contax lenses. There are some real Frankenstein Sonnars out there. But most of the time they simply got a new body with whatever scrap parts where available.
Then there is the mysterious German black market manufacturer of the Sonnar 5,8cm f/1,5. First this manufacturer did not only build the Sonnar 5,8cm but most of the "Fake" Sonnars. All lenses have one thing in common, they are engraved with the same font type as the later Opton Sonnars. The statement from CZJ has some holes here. They have stated that this 5,8cm Sonnar is made from a bombsight lens block. This might be true but there is no record of such a lens from CZJ today. It is missing in the Fabrikationsbuch so the production cards are missing. It is missing in the operation paperclip documents that were collected my the US military in Jena. Officially CZJ never produced such kind of Sonnar or developed one.
Sonnar lenses were very expensive lenses in those days. The reason is that it was very difficult to produce Sonnar lenses. They consist of 2 to 3 lenses that are glued into one lens element. You had to work very precise and clean to craft a Sonnar. Tessars on the other hand are simple to manufacture. Why on earth would someone pick a Sonnar to fake it? You can not simply put some random lenses into a metal cube and call it a Sonnar. We know enough about this 5,8cm Sonnar to know that it is a real Sonnar and no mix of Sonnar and Biotar lenses.
But how on earth could some random criminals get their hands on a pile of Sonnar lens blocks even CZJ have no documents about and sell them on the black market? For me there are only 2 candidates to pull this of.
Option 1 is Zeiss Oberkochen (Opton). They had the people and where geographically separated to the mother in Jena. Maybe they started a illegal production of Sonnar lenses in Coburg. People from Dresden might have brought the plans for the 5,8cm Sonnar to the Western Zeiss. The evidence might be the engravings that match perfectly the engravings of the later Opton Sonnars lenses.
Option 2 is Zeiss Ikon in Dresden. You might think that the Dresden manufactory was bombed but that is not totally true. The main manufactory was destroyed but there was a large outlet that was unharmed. Zeiss Ikon in Dresden manufactured the bomb sights. Zeiss Ikon in Dresden was the home of Ludwig Bertele (and his team) that had created all the Sonnar lenses before he left Dresden in the beginning of WWII. And there is one record of a test calculation of a 6cm f/1,5 Sonnar with a date from 1947 in the books. So maybe Zeiss Ikon wanted to be independent from the mother and developed and manufactured a 5,8cm f/1,5 Sonnar in Dresden Reick in all secrecy?
I imagine that CZJ knew who was the producer of the 5,8cm Sonnar but did not state this on purpose.
Some more about this Sonnar and hints here: Leica-Sonnar | zeissikonveb.de
Last edited:
dexdog
Veteran
Thanks, lukx and Rauber!
I received a very nice Transition CZJ 5cm F1.5, very clean glass- in Contax mount. I also picked up a J-3 in LTM that needed a thorough cleaning and some polishing. I have a transition lens made in the same batch as this one, but the LTM mount is "rough". The J-3 is much nicer. The lend picked up almost 20 years ago- unusable as the middle triplet was not fully polished. I had to replace it with one from a v4 Parts Sonnar. The new one- all original.
Why bother? I want a good transition lens to compare with "the real Zeiss lenses". From the article I wrote when comparing my Nikkor 5cm F1.5 with the wartime CZJ 5cm F1.5, "Bogdanovitch wrote of the Nikkor lenses “The lenses are of excellent color correction and perform better at full apertures than do Zeiss lenses.” Dr. Karl Bauer, President of Carl Zeiss, Inc. USA, was furious with the Times and threatened to drop all advertising with the paper. The Times allowed Zeiss to run a statement that the “Zeiss lenses being tested were not true Zeiss lenses.”
Why bother? I want to compare the Transition lens with my regular production lenses, and with the Nikkor.
There is a Famous B-17, "Old 666" that remains the aircraft with the most medals awarded for a Single Mission, including two Medal of Honors. When i saw the SN of this lens, immediately decided it needed to be converted.
I used the retaining ring from a ZOMZ J-3, as this lens had none. I polished the retaining ring down about 0.05mm, then used a 0.01mm shim. F1.5 came up to the index, and focus is good through the range. Transition lens made in the 1940s, J-3 made in 1973. Somebody had a standard for starting positions for threads.
Why bother? I want a good transition lens to compare with "the real Zeiss lenses". From the article I wrote when comparing my Nikkor 5cm F1.5 with the wartime CZJ 5cm F1.5, "Bogdanovitch wrote of the Nikkor lenses “The lenses are of excellent color correction and perform better at full apertures than do Zeiss lenses.” Dr. Karl Bauer, President of Carl Zeiss, Inc. USA, was furious with the Times and threatened to drop all advertising with the paper. The Times allowed Zeiss to run a statement that the “Zeiss lenses being tested were not true Zeiss lenses.”
Why bother? I want to compare the Transition lens with my regular production lenses, and with the Nikkor.
There is a Famous B-17, "Old 666" that remains the aircraft with the most medals awarded for a Single Mission, including two Medal of Honors. When i saw the SN of this lens, immediately decided it needed to be converted.
I used the retaining ring from a ZOMZ J-3, as this lens had none. I polished the retaining ring down about 0.05mm, then used a 0.01mm shim. F1.5 came up to the index, and focus is good through the range. Transition lens made in the 1940s, J-3 made in 1973. Somebody had a standard for starting positions for threads.
Infinity focus at F1.5 is good, close-up is good. Paired photos at F1.5 and F4.
Not the sharpest Sonnar I have. I will compare with a very clean post-war CZJ, and my wartime lens. All three have "V4" optics.
Not the sharpest Sonnar I have. I will compare with a very clean post-war CZJ, and my wartime lens. All three have "V4" optics.
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
Unlike the famous Dickens' Jerry Cruncher you are a "resurrection man" who does great good in a more noble way. ;o) A lot of Sonnars would have been forgotten in drawers, on shelves or in the trash without your ministrations. You are a 12 Step program for wayward Sonnars. ;o)
dexdog
Veteran
I have a 285 series sonnar that skyllaney overhauled. A pretty good lens, but definately not the sharpest that I own. Same is true for my LTM 279 and 280 series sonnars. Overall pretty good lenses, and I would not hesitate to use any of them. They are Sonnars, after all.
dexdog
Veteran
Except Sonnars do not have the agency to change of their own volition, they need a champion. I agree about the resurrection concept though. Apropos for Easter😉
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
Jerry Cruncher was a "resurrection man" which meant he was a gravedigger who retrieved cadavers for medical study. No move to Heaven was involved. ;o) Perhaps Heaven on Earth for the recipients of Brian's efforts. That would be more appropriate. ;o)
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
The 272 I have is remarkable in color and sharpness. This clip of a shot in the boatyard shows how it can handle subtle gradations of color. I have learned that is "micro contrast" while to me it is just really good imaging. I know there is the "Leica Look" camp who limn Leica lens "magic" and there are the Sonnar fans, just as loyal but not quite as publicly rhapsodic. ;o) I balked at Leica prices and found good KMZ Jupiters a doorway into good glass. Since then I have accumulated some lovely Sonnars, like the 272 and the Bertele.
I have one Leica lens. It is on the Q3 43. It is accurate, sharp and has great color. But it seems not as "magic" as a Sonnar. It may be that I have become conditioned to prefer Sonnars. OK, so check out the boatyard. No bright colors but subtle stuff. I think that is harder to pull off. The '43 272nnnn. Hey, why are serial numbers a secret??
Last edited by a moderator:
Because unless they are the same as a Famous Aircraft, I just cannot remember all those numbers without digging the lens out...
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
Oh, OK, I thought folks were keeping the serial numbers a secret but I had not been let in on the reason why. That's a relief. It is just the pervading precocious senility of the board. LOL I am relieved to learn I am not alone in this memory problem. ;o)
Räuber
Well-known
A new transition lens popped up on Ebay.
On first glance it looks like one of those neat LTM CZJ Sonnar 5cm f/1,5 from early post war times. But it has a silver name ring (instead of black) even with a red T. You will not see those often. But don't be fooled it is not made by CZJ. All engravings are German black market engravings. The small grippers on the aperture ring are wrong too. And the serial is wrong too. I doubt that the lens block inside this lens is made by CZJ. The photos do not show if the lenses are really coated. A nice Sonnar anyway and another piece of puzzle to the hidden history of post-war Sonnar manufacturing.
Zeiss Jena Sonnar 1,5/5cm red T lens M39 Mount | eBay.de
Entdecke Zeiss Jena Sonnar 1,5/5cm red T lens M39 Mount in groÃer Auswahl â Vergleichen Angebote und Preise â Online kaufen bei eBay.de â Kostenlose Lieferung für viele Artikel!
www.ebay.de
On first glance it looks like one of those neat LTM CZJ Sonnar 5cm f/1,5 from early post war times. But it has a silver name ring (instead of black) even with a red T. You will not see those often. But don't be fooled it is not made by CZJ. All engravings are German black market engravings. The small grippers on the aperture ring are wrong too. And the serial is wrong too. I doubt that the lens block inside this lens is made by CZJ. The photos do not show if the lenses are really coated. A nice Sonnar anyway and another piece of puzzle to the hidden history of post-war Sonnar manufacturing.
simonOWO
Member
Saw a similar one with silver rim today, someone bought it tho
TenEleven
Well-known
A new transition lens popped up on Ebay.
Zeiss Jena Sonnar 1,5/5cm red T lens M39 Mount | eBay.de
Entdecke Zeiss Jena Sonnar 1,5/5cm red T lens M39 Mount in groÃer Auswahl â Vergleichen Angebote und Preise â Online kaufen bei eBay.de â Kostenlose Lieferung für viele Artikel!www.ebay.de
On first glance it looks like one of those neat LTM CZJ Sonnar 5cm f/1,5 from early post war times. But it has a silver name ring (instead of black) even with a red T. You will not see those often. But don't be fooled it is not made by CZJ. All engravings are German black market engravings. The small grippers on the aperture ring are wrong too. And the serial is wrong too. I doubt that the lens block inside this lens is made by CZJ. The photos do not show if the lenses are really coated. A nice Sonnar anyway and another piece of puzzle to the hidden history of post-war Sonnar manufacturing.
The lens is definitely coated you can see that the reflection is dimmer and changes color in the second picture. Of course no assessment can be made on coating color or effectiveness beyond that. Similarly the rear element has the typical mottling pattern often seen in war-time coated lenses, which by the way in my experience has no effect on the imaging properties at all - it just is not as nice to look at.
I have seen a similar one in Contax mount in Japan also. Let me see if I can find the picture.
Edit: Here it is. The lens was coated. Also the mount section is nickel coated brass. However the shape of the mount portion is akin to the pre-war Sonnars and not the shape of the earlier "black belt" nickel Sonnars.
Last edited: