I did not see that one- would have grabbed it.
Another irregular production Sonnar
- Thread starter dexdog
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 191
- Views 12K
dexdog
Veteran
Brian, you will probably get an opportunity to see the lens, I bought it!
Between a few of the RFF members here- I think we have the Sonnar Market cornered.
Maybe we should issue a Sonnar back Crypto-currency. Better than Bit-Coin.
Maybe we should issue a Sonnar back Crypto-currency. Better than Bit-Coin.
Räuber
Well-known
dexdog
Veteran
Rauber, this should be a fun lens to take apart. Brian can do the detailed forensic examination. Thanks for the heads up!
Last edited:
TenEleven
Well-known
MOVED POST TO THE THREAD dexdog posted below.
To keep the information all in one thread/organized, please navigate there to read about the 58/1.5 Sonnars.
To keep the information all in one thread/organized, please navigate there to read about the 58/1.5 Sonnars.
Last edited:
dexdog
Veteran
TenEleven, I have a post of my lens that is similar to yours starting on page 2 of the following thread
www.rangefinderforum.com
Carl Zeiss Jena Prototypes, Experimental, and Transition Lenses,
Yes, that would be my read as well. It most definitely is a conversion. And the early ones (I would count mine as "early") were clearly meant to be taken for "real" CZJ LTM Sonnars... the intent here is very clear. In fact there was a German newspaper article how these guys stole lenses from...
www.rangefinderforum.com
Räuber
Well-known
I would like to keep the topic here. 🙂 When you go back the pages we discussed the 5.8cm Sonnar or Sturzvisier Sonnar here. So a lot of collected knowledge is already in this thread.
The origin of this Sonnar is still very dubious. The lens that @TenEleven bought and has compared to a second copy has a red V on the name ring and all lenses are coated. The red V was used by Meyer Görlitz. Coating tech was top secret during the war but after WWII the Soviets and Americans pressured to make this tech available for general use. But in this time it was no easy applied thing. It is not like you spray a little bit of fluid on a lens and wait for it to dry. To achieve a clean coating you have to keep dust away and need to achieve a surface with a desired thickness. That was the reason why it took Zeiss years to bring it to production. You needed advanced vacuum tech for this. Today this might be an easy thing but in those days it might be a fragile process. And those machines to add coating were not standing around for you to pick up. So the question is how does an anonymous manufacturer got his hands on such a machine? And why are not all lenses coated? If I would have managed to get my lenses coated I would have coated all lenses. But my list of serials shows me that there are only few 5.8cm Sonnar lenses with a red V or red T. And if the lenses were produced in order of the serial than you find lenses with no red mark between some with red mark.
Last week Marco from zeissiconveb.de posted a huge PDF with the whole lens collection from operation paper clip. After WWII Willi Merte worked on this collection to sort everything and bring some sense in the design documents from Carl Zeiss Jena. There are designs from Leitz, Hugo Meyer, Lee and others too. You can consider this the complete lens description of Carl Zeiss Jena up to the end of WWII. This thing is huge and the quality reaches sometimes unreadable. But luckily there are indexes in there. So you can look what lenses are described even if the pages are lost or so deteriorated that you can not read a single line. It is a great source where I hope to find further details for my Sonnar 5cm research. But I went for the Sonnar 5.8cm yesterday. And I could not find it! There are lists of lenses that CZJ started to testing when WWII began and throughout the whole war. But this one is missing on this list either. There are all infra red lenses like the 5cm f1 and 15cm f1. So it contains all secret lens projects CZJ was doing for the German military. But the 5.8cm f1.5 is missing.
CZJ gave the explanation of the Sturtzvisier Sonnar in 1948 in a public publication. We have seen diagrams and there was a prototype of a 6cm f1.5 lens on a Zeiss Ikon list after WWII. This is a puzzle. My solution is called Zeiss Ikon. Zeiss Ikon build the Sturzvisier in one of the Dresden plants. The Sonnar in it was only a small part. I think this Sonnar was not build by Carl Zeiss Jena. I know that Zeiss Ikon had an own optical department capable of producing lenses and glass elements on their own. The Sonnar design was property of Zeiss Ikon. So they did not need to ask for permission to design new Sonnars. They needed the permission to produce it in Dresden though. The contract between Dresden and Jena was designed that Jena should be the producer of physical photo lenses for all Zeiss-Ikon products like cameras. But Zeiss-Ikon was allowed to produce lenses for projectors. And maybe this Stuvi Sonnar was an exception too. After all it was not build for a camera but a sight device.
The main complex of Zeiss-Ikon was hid dramatically in the last month of war and got almost completely destroyed. Since it is unclear where the production of the Sturzkampfvisier had taken place and where the optical workshops of Zeiss-Ikon where located it is unclear if they where affected. There where large Zeiss-Ikon plants that got spared. So the Sonnar 5.8cm might have survived the bombarding of Dresden. And after the war some employees might have gotten their hands on the designs or stock and might have build up an anonymous production of the LTM Sonnar 5.8cm f1.5 without knowledge of Zeiss Jena. I see some connections to Meyer Görlitz. It seems Meyer was completely destroyed too. They needed some help in getting up and running again. I could imagine they got this help from the near Dresden from the survived Zeiss-Ikon plants.
The origin of this Sonnar is still very dubious. The lens that @TenEleven bought and has compared to a second copy has a red V on the name ring and all lenses are coated. The red V was used by Meyer Görlitz. Coating tech was top secret during the war but after WWII the Soviets and Americans pressured to make this tech available for general use. But in this time it was no easy applied thing. It is not like you spray a little bit of fluid on a lens and wait for it to dry. To achieve a clean coating you have to keep dust away and need to achieve a surface with a desired thickness. That was the reason why it took Zeiss years to bring it to production. You needed advanced vacuum tech for this. Today this might be an easy thing but in those days it might be a fragile process. And those machines to add coating were not standing around for you to pick up. So the question is how does an anonymous manufacturer got his hands on such a machine? And why are not all lenses coated? If I would have managed to get my lenses coated I would have coated all lenses. But my list of serials shows me that there are only few 5.8cm Sonnar lenses with a red V or red T. And if the lenses were produced in order of the serial than you find lenses with no red mark between some with red mark.
Last week Marco from zeissiconveb.de posted a huge PDF with the whole lens collection from operation paper clip. After WWII Willi Merte worked on this collection to sort everything and bring some sense in the design documents from Carl Zeiss Jena. There are designs from Leitz, Hugo Meyer, Lee and others too. You can consider this the complete lens description of Carl Zeiss Jena up to the end of WWII. This thing is huge and the quality reaches sometimes unreadable. But luckily there are indexes in there. So you can look what lenses are described even if the pages are lost or so deteriorated that you can not read a single line. It is a great source where I hope to find further details for my Sonnar 5cm research. But I went for the Sonnar 5.8cm yesterday. And I could not find it! There are lists of lenses that CZJ started to testing when WWII began and throughout the whole war. But this one is missing on this list either. There are all infra red lenses like the 5cm f1 and 15cm f1. So it contains all secret lens projects CZJ was doing for the German military. But the 5.8cm f1.5 is missing.
CZJ gave the explanation of the Sturtzvisier Sonnar in 1948 in a public publication. We have seen diagrams and there was a prototype of a 6cm f1.5 lens on a Zeiss Ikon list after WWII. This is a puzzle. My solution is called Zeiss Ikon. Zeiss Ikon build the Sturzvisier in one of the Dresden plants. The Sonnar in it was only a small part. I think this Sonnar was not build by Carl Zeiss Jena. I know that Zeiss Ikon had an own optical department capable of producing lenses and glass elements on their own. The Sonnar design was property of Zeiss Ikon. So they did not need to ask for permission to design new Sonnars. They needed the permission to produce it in Dresden though. The contract between Dresden and Jena was designed that Jena should be the producer of physical photo lenses for all Zeiss-Ikon products like cameras. But Zeiss-Ikon was allowed to produce lenses for projectors. And maybe this Stuvi Sonnar was an exception too. After all it was not build for a camera but a sight device.
The main complex of Zeiss-Ikon was hid dramatically in the last month of war and got almost completely destroyed. Since it is unclear where the production of the Sturzkampfvisier had taken place and where the optical workshops of Zeiss-Ikon where located it is unclear if they where affected. There where large Zeiss-Ikon plants that got spared. So the Sonnar 5.8cm might have survived the bombarding of Dresden. And after the war some employees might have gotten their hands on the designs or stock and might have build up an anonymous production of the LTM Sonnar 5.8cm f1.5 without knowledge of Zeiss Jena. I see some connections to Meyer Görlitz. It seems Meyer was completely destroyed too. They needed some help in getting up and running again. I could imagine they got this help from the near Dresden from the survived Zeiss-Ikon plants.
lukx
Well-known
This lens really is weird. I think it's a f2, not an f1.5. The diameter of the front element looks too small. Usually, with f1.5 Sonnars, the front element is in direct contact with the name-ring. Not the case here. The back-element also looks too small...
Zeiss Ikon Contax IIIa,c-1954/Carl Zeiss Sonnar 1,5 f=50 Parts, Repair, Display | eBay
The Shutter slow speeds are not working the rest are, Not checked for accuracy. The Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 1 1,5 f=5cm Lens is clean. The Zeiss Ikon Lens Cap is included.www.ebay.com
A very strange beast this Sonnar 5cm F1,5 T. The name ring states that this is a CZ Jena post-war Sonnar. But the body does not look like any CZJ Sonnar. It looks very much like a Opton-Zeiss Sonnar. But there are some false details too. The mount locking pin is plainly painted in black. There is no black arrow (as aperture mark) but a black dot with a line. Those details are different from the Opton-Zeiss bodies. I can't remember to have seen a lens like this.
The serial is fake. There was no Sonnar F1,5 lens with this serial. If you look closely you might notice that the serial ring was not engraved by CZJ. The engravings remind me of ... Zeiss Oberkochen ... and our friends that created the Sonnar 5,8cm.
So what is it? It might be a rare case of a CZJ lens that was housed and finished by Zeiss Oberkochen. There are stories that some ex CZJ employees fled from Jena and went to West Germany and started at Zeiss Oberkochen. They brought unfinished lenses with them that were then finished there. This could be a Coburg Sonnar body.
What do you think guys?
I'm a little tempted to buy this little mystery lens. Have to sleep over it. Hopefully someone here buys it. 👍
TenEleven
Well-known
Very good point, in fact the design looks a bit like the early transition black and nickel rigid 5cm f2 Sonnars. The rear pupil is also quite small.
But then obviously the shell would be nickel finished and also of a different design.
Actually I looked again and there's even more evidence that you are right. Look at the aperture sequence here:
f1.5 ... f2.8 ... yeah right!
1936ContaxII
Member
A bit off-topic (sorry), but just to illustrate it a bit: Zeiss Ikon's ICA building (where prewar Contaxes had been built) out there in Dresden Striesen actually survived the bombing. Still in good shape today (photo from summer of 2023) 🙂
dexdog
Veteran
I will report back on the particulars of the lens when I receive it. I wonder if it will even work! Still fun, though
One Way Or the Other-
We'll make it work.
We'll make it work.
wlewisiii
Just another hotel clerk
One Way or Another
Brian will Find you
He'll get'cha get'cha get'cha get'cha
(apologies to Debbie Harry... 😉 )
Brian will Find you
He'll get'cha get'cha get'cha get'cha
(apologies to Debbie Harry... 😉 )
TenEleven
Well-known
Oh I've bought far sillier things .. it's just how this goes.
I think your theory is shaping up to be quite sound. And yes it seems quite likely that some Mayer Goerlitz (ex)employees may have been in that fly-by-night group mounting these bomb-sight Sonnars into various camera mounts.
I actually found some strands of dust in my "V" coated 5.8cm "Sonnar", so I took it apart again and took a closer look at the lens elements. I obviously could not look at the rear triplet since it's in there for good. By counting reflections I can deduce that it's made of three cemented elements. I am 100% certain it is a 1/3/3 "Sonnar" type construction like its "T" marked brother.
Furthermore, the shapes of the two StuVi front triplets are identical to my eye. I can see the three cemented lens elements clearly as the cementing job looks rougher than usual for Sonnar lenses. The middle triplets fit in each others mounts (T in V and vice versa) without problems so we can deduce that the circumference is at least nearly identical.
There is a shim between the front triplet and the front element on the "V" coated SturzVisier, but none on the "T" one. I have taken the shim out for the "V" lens and carefully(!) screwed the front element in deeper. However there was no discernible effect on the imaging characteristics besides slightly moving the point of good focus. I assume that with the rear triplet fixed in there for good this may have been how they adjusted the focus to fit?
Lastly, upon weighting them (I should have thought to weigh the glass too - oh well!) the "V" StuVi is heavier at 189grams vs the "T" Stuvi weighing 174grams. I very much doubt the brass shim under the front lens is accountable for 15grams of difference, but the internal construction is completely identical. Different materials? Not sure.
Last edited:
dexdog
Veteran
I got the mystery lens on the Contax IIIa in the mail today. Lens works well on the Sony with Amedeo adapter, focuses close up and at infinity.
Wide open about 1 meter, looks like sonnar rendering
f4, stop sign above car at center of frame is 205 meters away. Lens elements are very greasy
Wide open about 1 meter, looks like sonnar rendering
f4, stop sign above car at center of frame is 205 meters away. Lens elements are very greasy
Last edited:
dexdog
Veteran
This is an oddball lens. Spacer to the right of the name ring holds front lens in position.
Rear lens group is 23.18mm diameter, front lens element is 30.17mm diameter
Rear lens group is 23.18mm diameter, front lens element is 30.17mm diameter
dexdog
Veteran
Middle lens group is 24.78mm diameter, and is held in a brass collar that has a cutout for the aperture assembly
Last edited:
dexdog
Veteran
The lens surfaces are not T-coated, but are in very good condition aside from a lot of old dried grease. Aperture worked but was really stiff due to old grease. The lens barrel and mount look similar to a West German Zeiss-Opton or Carl Zeiss 50mm lens. I am pretty sure that this is a 50mm f2 lens. I had not originally planned to take out the aperture blades, but i knocked one loose getting the middle lens group out, so will have to re-assemble. Probably needed to come out anyway given the sticky dried grease
Last edited:
dexdog
Veteran
Spun the rest of the lens barrel apart, it was loaded with sticky brown grease, had to squirt it with lighter fluid to get it off. Should have taken a picture before I cleaned it! with regard to the goofy aperture progression of 1.5, 2.8, 4, etc, I wonder if the lens barrel and aperture ring were salvaged from the junk/ reject bin, having been engraved wrong. Would be a easy mistake to engrave 1.5 instead of 2 on the ring. There are no internal markings anywhere on the lens barrel and mount. Now that the lens elements are degreased, still not sure if coated or not. The middle lens group is definately uncoated, while the front element and rear group have a slight blue cast in certain light, but look a lot more like my 1933 f2 Sonnar with the natural "bloom" on the lens surfaces.
Last edited: