Honu-Hugger
Well-known
Zeiss' history is interesting and complex; it contributes to a lot of mis-information regarding the quality of the lenses from Jena and Oberkochen. There really is no brief summary other than to say that the coating process was developed at Jena before the war. The lenses produced in Jena just before the war are some of the finest made. If you are truly interested in this equipment it pays to familiarize yourself with Zeiss history. The division of Zeiss after the war was not as simple as it would seem; stores of parts existed from which lenses and cameras were later produced, trade and limited cooperation existed betwen Jena and Oberkochen after the war, and of course there was the allocation of equipment and intellectual resources.
A few months ago members of this forum were busy debating the authenticity of a 50/1.5 Sonnar offered on eBay for a reasonable "Buy It Now"; they suspected it of being counterfeit because it was a Jena lens with the "T" coating -- a popular misconception is that "T" lenses were not produced in Jena. I bought the lens, sent it to Henry Scherer for CLA and Henry commented that it is the finest 50/1.5 he has ever seen -- said he is certain that I will value its performance above my other 50's. I haven't used it yet, but I am anxious to see how it actually performs.
As for the 135 Sonnar: would you value a chrome over brass barrel uncoated lens over an aluminum barrel coated one? Tough call; the aluminum barrels do not age as well as the brass and the brass has a better tactile feel, but the coated lens is typically a better performer. No comment on the Jupiter -- never used one and not enough time for what I already have
.
A few months ago members of this forum were busy debating the authenticity of a 50/1.5 Sonnar offered on eBay for a reasonable "Buy It Now"; they suspected it of being counterfeit because it was a Jena lens with the "T" coating -- a popular misconception is that "T" lenses were not produced in Jena. I bought the lens, sent it to Henry Scherer for CLA and Henry commented that it is the finest 50/1.5 he has ever seen -- said he is certain that I will value its performance above my other 50's. I haven't used it yet, but I am anxious to see how it actually performs.
As for the 135 Sonnar: would you value a chrome over brass barrel uncoated lens over an aluminum barrel coated one? Tough call; the aluminum barrels do not age as well as the brass and the brass has a better tactile feel, but the coated lens is typically a better performer. No comment on the Jupiter -- never used one and not enough time for what I already have
.
nikarlo
Member
my 135
my 135
First and second photos are my 135. Third photos is an 135 that cost 90€ and is "T".
Carlo.
my 135
First and second photos are my 135. Third photos is an 135 that cost 90€ and is "T".
Carlo.
Mike Kovacs
Contax Connaisseur
Howdy.
I just received my Sonnar 135/4 yesterday. Its the late model postwar, West German lens marked "Carl Zeiss" on the front. Basically that dates it as being made after West German Zeiss defeated the East in their court battles during the 50's. Will post when I have some photos.
Its my experience with other Contax glass that the postwar, West German designs are improved over the prewar Contax designs that the Russian optics were based on. My guess is that prewar or postwar Jena Contax optics will be better constructed (especially prewar) but of about equal optical performance to the J-11, coating aside if its an early lens.
Every lens from any generation on the Contax has been excellent, just that some are more over the top.
I just received my Sonnar 135/4 yesterday. Its the late model postwar, West German lens marked "Carl Zeiss" on the front. Basically that dates it as being made after West German Zeiss defeated the East in their court battles during the 50's. Will post when I have some photos.
Its my experience with other Contax glass that the postwar, West German designs are improved over the prewar Contax designs that the Russian optics were based on. My guess is that prewar or postwar Jena Contax optics will be better constructed (especially prewar) but of about equal optical performance to the J-11, coating aside if its an early lens.
Every lens from any generation on the Contax has been excellent, just that some are more over the top.
peter_n
Veteran
Welcome to the forum Mike! I haven't seen a Zeiss Sonnar 135/4 but I have a coated J-11 from 1961. As you say, optically excellent but the construction is just OK - the aperture and distance scales on my sample are marginal to read unfortunately. But the pics from it are worth all the fiddling!
I haven't seen a Zeiss Sonnar 135/4 but I have a coated J-11 from 1961. As you say, optically excellent but the construction is just OK - the aperture and distance scales on my sample are marginal to read unfortunately. But the pics from it are worth all the fiddling!Mike Kovacs
Contax Connaisseur
peter_n said:Welcome to the forum Mike!
Thanks Peter.
Its very easy to paint engraved scales. I dip a toothpick in paint, rub it in liberally then wipe the excess with lighter fluid and toilet paper. Somewhat more work with masking if its a coloured scale like on the Zeiss model I have.
Just don't apply huge blobs of paint to still-assembled pieces. Better to disassemble first in that case.
peter_n
Veteran
hey Mike, thanks for the tip!