Räuber
Well-known
Do you have an example for me? 🙂
Another irregular production Sonnar
- Thread starter dexdog
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 191
- Views 12K
oldhaven
Well-known
Slightly off topic, but would this be from a missing block? I have no access to Thiele, but this seems to be between the list blocks Rauber has created. It is likely from 1938 and works well despite some lens wear. It came to me from Ukraine. CZJ 2399351
oldhaven
Well-known
Thanks Brian, I am quite happy with the lens, as you can tell.
Räuber
Well-known
A list of all production batches is online.
Serial 2399351 is an absolutely valid Chrome collapsible uncoated Sonnar 5cm f2 from Carl Zeiss Jena. @Sonnar Brian I have to correct you about a detail. There is no order date in Thiele. The date in the Fertigung column of the Fabrikationsbuch II is not the order date or the date of delivery. It is the date when the first (glass) lens was grinded. That is what Mr. Thiele explained in his book. So this is the day when the real production of the lenses started in Jena. From this start to the last finished lens delivered it could take month. There are some examples of production cards. Those cards show the slow production process. Unfortunately Mr. Thiele did not write down the date of delivery of the last lenses for every batch. The only way to find this information you need to visit the Zeiss archive in Jena and ask for the stored production cards. Maybe I will do this one day. 😅
About your Sonnar 2789329. It is in my copy of Mr. Thieles Fabrikationsbuch II (9th edition, 2020). It is part of a batch of 1000 lenses but the production card is missing so he had no information about production date or mounts. I have seen several lenses of this batch myself. There really are some issues with the data in the Fabrikationsbuch II but mostly they are correct. I found some missing batches myself. For some batches I could not find a single lens yet and then there are 1 or 2 batches where Mr. Thiele or a collector might have mixed up the numbers. I look at a lot of pictures of Sonnar 5cm lenses so I know how easy it is to mix up something. 😄
Serial 2399351 is an absolutely valid Chrome collapsible uncoated Sonnar 5cm f2 from Carl Zeiss Jena. @Sonnar Brian I have to correct you about a detail. There is no order date in Thiele. The date in the Fertigung column of the Fabrikationsbuch II is not the order date or the date of delivery. It is the date when the first (glass) lens was grinded. That is what Mr. Thiele explained in his book. So this is the day when the real production of the lenses started in Jena. From this start to the last finished lens delivered it could take month. There are some examples of production cards. Those cards show the slow production process. Unfortunately Mr. Thiele did not write down the date of delivery of the last lenses for every batch. The only way to find this information you need to visit the Zeiss archive in Jena and ask for the stored production cards. Maybe I will do this one day. 😅
About your Sonnar 2789329. It is in my copy of Mr. Thieles Fabrikationsbuch II (9th edition, 2020). It is part of a batch of 1000 lenses but the production card is missing so he had no information about production date or mounts. I have seen several lenses of this batch myself. There really are some issues with the data in the Fabrikationsbuch II but mostly they are correct. I found some missing batches myself. For some batches I could not find a single lens yet and then there are 1 or 2 batches where Mr. Thiele or a collector might have mixed up the numbers. I look at a lot of pictures of Sonnar 5cm lenses so I know how easy it is to mix up something. 😄
oldhaven
Well-known
Thank you Rauber, I see it now.
I have the older Thiele with the "Rechnung" column, which I believe is the day the order was placed, the serial number block was assigned. For example, 21 blocks of 5cm F1.5 Sonnars was listed as "Rechng" 8.12.32 (DD.MM.YY format). The last block ordered in 1932 started at 1753701 and ends at 1754700. If grinding glass was started in 1932, there would be a mix of v2 and v3 Sonnars in this block. We know the V3 Sonnar started at least in the 166xxxx block- I bought one to take it apart and verify it was a V3.
TenEleven
Well-known
Ah that makes a lot of sense. I guess the transition would have progressed as parts ran out which depended on the individual engineers and machinists and how far along they were among other factors.
Also this is superbly well researched information. I really should print out your spreadsheets and tack them on the the back of my Thiele book.
Thanks!
TenEleven
Well-known
Rechnung, according to Thiele as per the German explanation in front means the optical calculation for the lens scheme which got updated as new glass types or better calculations were found.
However, this almost certainly does not track all variations as I know from talking to ex-Nikon designers and also reading some books about lens making that there were minor alterations to the lens computation every time a new glass block (which were quite large so you could get some 100-1000 lenses out of it) was cast. This was done to ensure that the lens met the specifications as dictated by the "master" calculations in view of variations introduced by the glass casting process and thus slightly changing properties of the glass.
This was also done when certain glass types were no longer available or were superseded by better glass. When there were significant changes or a significantly better type of glass was discovered sometimes the company would go back and alter the "master" calculation to reflect that.
I assume that Zeiss would have operated very similarly.
@TenEleven
At least looking up the German word Rechnung also translates to "Invoice". The change in optical formula from V2 to V3 is a major change, not a minor tweek. It is a reformulation. The SN 1661251 is a V3, and the change occurred by at least that batch. I doubt Zeiss would make such a huge mistake as listing entire batches of lenses down using the wrong optical calculation. If Zeiss listed the date of the optical calculation for those 21 batches under "Rechnung", then that is the source of the mistake. Else, it means something different.
At least looking up the German word Rechnung also translates to "Invoice". The change in optical formula from V2 to V3 is a major change, not a minor tweek. It is a reformulation. The SN 1661251 is a V3, and the change occurred by at least that batch. I doubt Zeiss would make such a huge mistake as listing entire batches of lenses down using the wrong optical calculation. If Zeiss listed the date of the optical calculation for those 21 batches under "Rechnung", then that is the source of the mistake. Else, it means something different.
Räuber
Well-known
@TenEleven is right. The column Rechnung contains the official date of the optical calculation used for all lenses of a batch. Yes, Rechnung could mean invoice and bill but it also means calculation. In the Nummernbuch II it stands for the calculation date. All the Sonnar calculations were done by Ludwig Bertele. And there are only 5 for the Sonnar 5cm f1,5 in this book that went into production.
There are few cases where the Rechnung date seem off in the Nummernbuch. One of those cases is the batch @Sonnar Brian mentioned. I tried to investigate this batch because it has an interesting constellation.
The screenshot shows a list of production batches of the Sonnar 5cm f1,5. The orange / grey column contains the date of the optical calculation. The column Production contains the start of the production of a batch. You can easily see that Bertele created a new calculation on the 15th April 1935. Batch 24 started before this date. Batch 25 and 26 started after this date but with the older optical calculation from 1932. This information is from the Nummernbuch and so from the Zeiss production cards.
The nagging question was how trustworthy is the information from the Zeiss production card? Usually when there was a new calculation the production batch starting afterwards used this calculation. Not in this case. As Brian already stated his Sonnar from batch 25 uses the v3 optical calculation (date 15.04.35). I have another Sonnar from batch 25 and 26. When I compare it with my Sonnars from earlier batches I would attest that those are the newer optical calculation and not the 1932 one.
You guys might think that can't be true but Germans are not perfect. Zeiss is not perfect. Their production system was flawed. The production cards did not tell all the truth we wish to see as collectors and hobby historians.
Those production cards were filled out at the start. When some customer (for example Zeiss Ikon) ordered a number of lenses they took a blank production card and filled in the type of lens, the camera mount it was destined for, the serial block of those lenses. Then this card was filled with the date of the calculation and the date of the blueprint of the body. Every department needed to sign the card when they received it and filled in some additional information. The optics bureau added changes to the diameters or distances of the lenses. It could take some days until the work on a batch was started. Grinding the glass took month. Creating the body and put everything together was quicker.
Since this all was such a slow process. I doubted that the information about the used 1932 calculation was right. I could not imagine that they would grind 2 batches of old optics while there is a newer better calculation. And it seems they changed it pretty fast without changing the date on the production card. I can not rule out that there are some batch 25 Sonnars with the 1932 calculation. Can we say for sure that the very first lenses in this batch have the 1935 calculation? No.
This leaves us in a difficult situation. How reliable is the information from those production cards? Pretty reliable when it comes to serials. When the calculation changed there might be some issues. Body changes are another story. Zeiss is notorious for changing details during production runs... Contax fans know what I mean.
There are few cases where the Rechnung date seem off in the Nummernbuch. One of those cases is the batch @Sonnar Brian mentioned. I tried to investigate this batch because it has an interesting constellation.
The screenshot shows a list of production batches of the Sonnar 5cm f1,5. The orange / grey column contains the date of the optical calculation. The column Production contains the start of the production of a batch. You can easily see that Bertele created a new calculation on the 15th April 1935. Batch 24 started before this date. Batch 25 and 26 started after this date but with the older optical calculation from 1932. This information is from the Nummernbuch and so from the Zeiss production cards.
The nagging question was how trustworthy is the information from the Zeiss production card? Usually when there was a new calculation the production batch starting afterwards used this calculation. Not in this case. As Brian already stated his Sonnar from batch 25 uses the v3 optical calculation (date 15.04.35). I have another Sonnar from batch 25 and 26. When I compare it with my Sonnars from earlier batches I would attest that those are the newer optical calculation and not the 1932 one.
You guys might think that can't be true but Germans are not perfect. Zeiss is not perfect. Their production system was flawed. The production cards did not tell all the truth we wish to see as collectors and hobby historians.
Those production cards were filled out at the start. When some customer (for example Zeiss Ikon) ordered a number of lenses they took a blank production card and filled in the type of lens, the camera mount it was destined for, the serial block of those lenses. Then this card was filled with the date of the calculation and the date of the blueprint of the body. Every department needed to sign the card when they received it and filled in some additional information. The optics bureau added changes to the diameters or distances of the lenses. It could take some days until the work on a batch was started. Grinding the glass took month. Creating the body and put everything together was quicker.
Since this all was such a slow process. I doubted that the information about the used 1932 calculation was right. I could not imagine that they would grind 2 batches of old optics while there is a newer better calculation. And it seems they changed it pretty fast without changing the date on the production card. I can not rule out that there are some batch 25 Sonnars with the 1932 calculation. Can we say for sure that the very first lenses in this batch have the 1935 calculation? No.
This leaves us in a difficult situation. How reliable is the information from those production cards? Pretty reliable when it comes to serials. When the calculation changed there might be some issues. Body changes are another story. Zeiss is notorious for changing details during production runs... Contax fans know what I mean.
Batch 26 is also listed as the 1932 calculation, it is the V3 calculation.
Listing the lens using the wrong optical formula is a big error with consequences for ordering repair parts. The technician would not be able to trust the serial number of the lens, and would have to take it apart to get the proper replacement parts.
I've handled a few Sonnars from batch 26, including two with coated front elements.
Too add. As an Engineer with 45+ years of experience, I guess it never occurred to me that Zeiss records could be that bad. Good thing we have the lenses to take apart and correct their mistakes. Too bad they did not stamp an indicator for rev level on the inside of the lens. Working with Microcontrollers is easier. I wrote my own software to read Rev Level from ~1000 different ones.
Listing the lens using the wrong optical formula is a big error with consequences for ordering repair parts. The technician would not be able to trust the serial number of the lens, and would have to take it apart to get the proper replacement parts.
I've handled a few Sonnars from batch 26, including two with coated front elements.
Too add. As an Engineer with 45+ years of experience, I guess it never occurred to me that Zeiss records could be that bad. Good thing we have the lenses to take apart and correct their mistakes. Too bad they did not stamp an indicator for rev level on the inside of the lens. Working with Microcontrollers is easier. I wrote my own software to read Rev Level from ~1000 different ones.
Last edited:
TenEleven
Well-known
@Räuber
I also just discovered an entire missing batch in my Thiele. There are 1.79million Biogons - I just saw one in a shop. Then 2 more on the bay because I got curious and looked.
According to my Thiele Contax 3.5cm Biogons start at 2million..... 1.79 is quite significantly earlier...
JakobN
JakobN
About missing blocks of numbers Thiele writes in his preface to CZJ Fabrikationsbuch II that there are over 10600 production cards listed but around 900 blocks missing, so it is no wonder that we find lenses that are not documented. Some cards have been lost but some blocks of numbers might never have been used.
In both editions of "Thiele" that I have (3 and 7) the Biogon productions 1503401-1503446 and 1799102-1799400 are listed. The only difference between the first production and all the later ones that I can see, is the missing grooves on the number ring just under the lettering.
Serial numbers 1503226 to 1508200 are in fact used in 1936 although you would expect them to be from 1934, among them we have the first production of the Biogon and the Sonnar 18cm.
In both editions of "Thiele" that I have (3 and 7) the Biogon productions 1503401-1503446 and 1799102-1799400 are listed. The only difference between the first production and all the later ones that I can see, is the missing grooves on the number ring just under the lettering.
Serial numbers 1503226 to 1508200 are in fact used in 1936 although you would expect them to be from 1934, among them we have the first production of the Biogon and the Sonnar 18cm.
Nokton48
Veteran
Nokton48
Veteran
Further Hacking of Zebra 180mm F2.8 Sonnar Makiflex Std by Nokton48, on FlickrI further disassembled my 180mm F2.8 CZJ Zebra Sonnar, I removed more of the back mount. I then JB Welded it into a Recessed Plaubel Peco Junior Lens Board. I can now back just a bit further, it was like a macro lens close focus only when I got it. I also removed the metal hood as much as I could, so the rear of the lens doesn't strike the mirror in the Makiflex Standard. It has beautiful Sonnar bokeh, and now I can back up a teeny bit more. Still a Macro Only Lens. Well worth having IMO. BTW it only fits the Makiflex Standard, which has a bigger interior throat than the Auto Makiflex, and no interior automation cables. Need to hit the rear cell hood with some Flat Black Krylon. I used a Mini Hacksaw from Harbor Freight to shorten the rear hood.
Nokton48
Veteran
SK Grimes Hasselblad Compendium Adapter 180mm Sonnar by Nokton48, on FlickrMany years ago, I had Steve at SK Grimes make me an 86mm Adapter Ring, to put my Hasselblad Compendium Shade, onto my 180mm F2.8 Zebra CZJ Zeiss Sonnar. Here I have found it, it's now on my new version 180mm, to fit my Plaubel Makiflexes. Very efficient lens hood, glad I kept it and can now use it with my new short mount version 180 Sonnar. Also from SK Grimes, you can see my 4x5 Graflex Sheet Film Holder (of their own design) for Plaubel Makiflexes.
dexdog
Veteran
Another odd-ball irregular production Sonnar. Looks like a war-time barrel with Zeiss West style of engraving as Rauber has pointed out on other lenses. Serial number does not appear in the 2023 version of Thiele's book of CZJ lenses. Whaddya think?
Carl Zeiss Jena SONNAR 5cm f/ 1.5 in Leica Mount / LTM - Serial Nr. 2870009 NR | eBay
SONNAR 5cm f/ 1.5 Lens. Carl Zeiss Jena Serial Nr. Leica Thread Mount or LTM.
www.ebay.com