murrayatuptown
Established
Hello:
I bought a 135 mm f/4 lens as described above, s/n 160???? (I don't have the number) which seems to be from 1935. It was sold without a camera, and I do not own a Contax RF. So I was interested for adaptation. I have a Singapore 40/4 Sonnar from a broken 126 camera that had rust inside the lens I have used on two different mirrorless cameras and it is sometimes my favorite lens (it's stuck at f/4).
Can someone please tell me whether there are multiple generations of Contax RF mount?
Thank you
Murray
I bought a 135 mm f/4 lens as described above, s/n 160???? (I don't have the number) which seems to be from 1935. It was sold without a camera, and I do not own a Contax RF. So I was interested for adaptation. I have a Singapore 40/4 Sonnar from a broken 126 camera that had rust inside the lens I have used on two different mirrorless cameras and it is sometimes my favorite lens (it's stuck at f/4).
Can someone please tell me whether there are multiple generations of Contax RF mount?
Thank you
Murray
murrayatuptown
Established
I wasn't sure about the s/n table I found because there was gaps in numbers.
There must be some significance to being marked Carl Zeiss without a city name (like Jena), maybe they started that post-WWII? (Just a guess on my part).
There must be some significance to being marked Carl Zeiss without a city name (like Jena), maybe they started that post-WWII? (Just a guess on my part).
1936ContaxII
Member
Hi Murray,
the broken 126 camera you mentioned was a Contaflex 126? This was actually a different camera from the Contax.
The Contax itself used to have the same mount from 1932 on until 1961/62: a kind of multiple mount. 50mm lenses are put into the "Innenbajonett" (i.e. "internal bayonet" - can be seen here). A lens like your 135mm is put onto the "Aussenbajonett" ("external bayonet", can be seen here).
It's explained very well in this article.
I myself have found an adaptor for my Sony A7 which was manufactured (I suppose) using pieces of a former Kiev camera. It's poorly manufactured, but it works.
So your lens has got a 160XXXX number (according to this table, from 1935 or 1936 indeed) but is marked as "Carl Zeiss", not "Carl Zeiss Jena"? This is strange
.
I do not think it might be a Soviet faking lens (Henry Scherer has written about such lenses).
I notice that your lens has a feet scale, so I guess it has been an export lens. Maybe Zeiss has built a prewar export series without "Jena"? (Just an idea.)
Anyhow, I think you might easily identify if it's a prewar or a postwar lens: if it's coated, it's most likely a postwar. Coated prewar lenses were very, very rare (and I suppose most of them might have been built from 1938 on).
Your 135mm Sonnar is a beautiful lens, I use it a lot on my Contaxes.
Michael
the broken 126 camera you mentioned was a Contaflex 126? This was actually a different camera from the Contax.
The Contax itself used to have the same mount from 1932 on until 1961/62: a kind of multiple mount. 50mm lenses are put into the "Innenbajonett" (i.e. "internal bayonet" - can be seen here). A lens like your 135mm is put onto the "Aussenbajonett" ("external bayonet", can be seen here).
It's explained very well in this article.
I myself have found an adaptor for my Sony A7 which was manufactured (I suppose) using pieces of a former Kiev camera. It's poorly manufactured, but it works.
So your lens has got a 160XXXX number (according to this table, from 1935 or 1936 indeed) but is marked as "Carl Zeiss", not "Carl Zeiss Jena"? This is strange
.I do not think it might be a Soviet faking lens (Henry Scherer has written about such lenses).
I notice that your lens has a feet scale, so I guess it has been an export lens. Maybe Zeiss has built a prewar export series without "Jena"? (Just an idea.)
Anyhow, I think you might easily identify if it's a prewar or a postwar lens: if it's coated, it's most likely a postwar. Coated prewar lenses were very, very rare (and I suppose most of them might have been built from 1938 on).
Your 135mm Sonnar is a beautiful lens, I use it a lot on my Contaxes
.Michael
Last edited:
TenEleven
Well-known
This is a post-war lens. The pre-war and war-time lenses have quite a different design, and generally pre-war Zeiss lenses are only very rarely made from aluminum. This changed during the war-time due to materials shortages.
Since the serial is apparently 1.6million it makes it a Carl Zeiss (Oberkochen) West-German post war lens for the Contax IIa/IIIa from around 1955 if I had to have a wild guess.
Since the serial is apparently 1.6million it makes it a Carl Zeiss (Oberkochen) West-German post war lens for the Contax IIa/IIIa from around 1955 if I had to have a wild guess.
1936ContaxII
Member
I think you are definitely right 👌.
Sorry, I totally forgot to think of those Zeiss Oberkochen postwar numbers... 🙊
By the way, I've just found another very good article which describes the Contax RF mount en détail.
Sorry, I totally forgot to think of those Zeiss Oberkochen postwar numbers... 🙊
By the way, I've just found another very good article which describes the Contax RF mount en détail.
santino
FSU gear head
The pre war version is chromed? brass and super heavy, no aluminum. And yes, the design is totally different.
Cascadilla
Well-known
Definitely post war--the chromed brass barrels never look this bad despite their age. But if the optics are in good shape it should be a good lens on a mirrorless camera.
murrayatuptown
Established
Correction on the 126 camera...Rollei A26, 40/3.5, my first introduction to a coated Sonnar.
I am confused by the s/n, but that's due to believing a table I found online to be gospel.
A friend sent photos to someone else with confident opinions about Zeiss. His reply is in quotes below,
"Yes, that is a legit lens, its transition era from 1946-1949
Its Post-Jena, Pre-Opton
For a short while, they released the lenses as: “Carl Zeiss” before migrating to Zeiss-Opton.
Its a West German model
They had to change the name from Carl Zeiss to Zeiss-Opton once the lawsuits started between the East and West Branches. Then later resettled on Eastern Zeiss= Carl Zeiss Jena, Western Zeiss = Carl Zeiss
But for a short while, the Western side was banned from using “Carl Zeiss” and had to change to Zeiss-Opton.
His lens, pre-dates these lawsuits, hence it says just Carl Zeiss… but its post war also, hence no Jena.
It should be the same optical formula as the ones labeled Zeiss Opton."
Where the word "his" appears above, I think it's a reference to a lens owned by the person who responded to my referred question. I think...
When it arrived I was suspicious about the bright fuchsia AR coating, because I took 160---- to mean 1935.
I handheld it on whatever M42 adapters I had stacked on a camera today and found a focus range I could use it in.
I too ordered what looked like a 3D printed section on top of an metal ring, from Ukraine. It was inexpensive, and uncertain whether I even had a compatible lens mount, spending less was preferable.
I am pleased it is possibly a better lens than what I manage to accomplish in typically hasty experiments shooting wide open. Old habits are hard to break, but it's obvious when wide open is wrong for the depth of subject matter being shot. It's obvious, but I still ignore and try to shoot wide open. I am tempted to try hyperfocal for long enough to evaluate my results.
Now I can put up for adoption a few 135/3.5 lenses, and use a Sonnar with iris as intended. Simple pleasures, vs. my salvaged first Sonnar.
Thank you all the answers.
I have had more disappointing than pleasing Eastern Zeiss lenses, in particular a zebra 50/2.8 that was very difficult to rotate the ring mechanisms on. In the process of cleaning it I found it worked great with some isopropyl alcohol dripped inside, until it evaporated and returned to seizing.
To be fair, one (me) shouldn't be judgmental when misusing something.
I am confused by the s/n, but that's due to believing a table I found online to be gospel.
A friend sent photos to someone else with confident opinions about Zeiss. His reply is in quotes below,
"Yes, that is a legit lens, its transition era from 1946-1949
Its Post-Jena, Pre-Opton
For a short while, they released the lenses as: “Carl Zeiss” before migrating to Zeiss-Opton.
Its a West German model
They had to change the name from Carl Zeiss to Zeiss-Opton once the lawsuits started between the East and West Branches. Then later resettled on Eastern Zeiss= Carl Zeiss Jena, Western Zeiss = Carl Zeiss
But for a short while, the Western side was banned from using “Carl Zeiss” and had to change to Zeiss-Opton.
His lens, pre-dates these lawsuits, hence it says just Carl Zeiss… but its post war also, hence no Jena.
It should be the same optical formula as the ones labeled Zeiss Opton."
Where the word "his" appears above, I think it's a reference to a lens owned by the person who responded to my referred question. I think...
When it arrived I was suspicious about the bright fuchsia AR coating, because I took 160---- to mean 1935.
I handheld it on whatever M42 adapters I had stacked on a camera today and found a focus range I could use it in.
I too ordered what looked like a 3D printed section on top of an metal ring, from Ukraine. It was inexpensive, and uncertain whether I even had a compatible lens mount, spending less was preferable.
I am pleased it is possibly a better lens than what I manage to accomplish in typically hasty experiments shooting wide open. Old habits are hard to break, but it's obvious when wide open is wrong for the depth of subject matter being shot. It's obvious, but I still ignore and try to shoot wide open. I am tempted to try hyperfocal for long enough to evaluate my results.
Now I can put up for adoption a few 135/3.5 lenses, and use a Sonnar with iris as intended. Simple pleasures, vs. my salvaged first Sonnar.
Thank you all the answers.
I have had more disappointing than pleasing Eastern Zeiss lenses, in particular a zebra 50/2.8 that was very difficult to rotate the ring mechanisms on. In the process of cleaning it I found it worked great with some isopropyl alcohol dripped inside, until it evaporated and returned to seizing.
To be fair, one (me) shouldn't be judgmental when misusing something.
murrayatuptown
Established
I am not thrilled with the 3D-printed Sony E adapter I got - it works, but not sure how long it will last.
There are some scary-expensive metal adapters, and some reasonably-priced Nikon-S RF adapters with limited qualifiers for which Contax RF mounts work.
This lens has what I think should be called the external mount bayonet, and has its own helicoid.
Does anyone know if the Nikon-S RF adapter is compatible?
In particular I was looking at the K&FConcept one. Their clarification about internal vs. external bayonet is not entirely understandable to me. It sounds like the external mount will not fit this adapter.
"Allow Contax RF / Nikon S mount lenses used on Sony E NEX/Alpha camera body. (Contax RF Series allowed Internal Mount Lenses (not allowed External Mount lenses)" - not clear if this adapter allows/not allows, or they are talking about the Contax camera mount restrictions.
www.kentfaith.com
Thank you
There are some scary-expensive metal adapters, and some reasonably-priced Nikon-S RF adapters with limited qualifiers for which Contax RF mounts work.
This lens has what I think should be called the external mount bayonet, and has its own helicoid.
Does anyone know if the Nikon-S RF adapter is compatible?
In particular I was looking at the K&FConcept one. Their clarification about internal vs. external bayonet is not entirely understandable to me. It sounds like the external mount will not fit this adapter.
"Allow Contax RF / Nikon S mount lenses used on Sony E NEX/Alpha camera body. (Contax RF Series allowed Internal Mount Lenses (not allowed External Mount lenses)" - not clear if this adapter allows/not allows, or they are talking about the Contax camera mount restrictions.
Contax RF / Nikon S Lenses to Sony E Lens Mount Adapter K&F Concept M48101 Lens Adapter
K&F Concept K&F M48101 Contax Rf / Nikon S Lenses To Sony E Lens Mount Adapter Allow Contax Rf / Nikon S Mount Lenses Used On Sony E Nex/Alpha Camera Body.
www.kentfaith.com
Thank you
Cascadilla
Well-known
From the pictures in the link that you posted, it looks to me as though internal mount lenses (50 mm) won't mount but external mount lenses (all of the other focal lengths) should mount. With a mirrorless camera, the focusing discrepancy between Zeiss and Nikon RF bodies shouldn't matter since you are focusing optically and not with a rangefinder. As for the quality and precision of the adapter, I doubt that it can be that great for that price.