Philipp
Established
Hello,
today I just wanted to buy a book for my exams I am taking right now, but the second-hand photo store near the book shop had this Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 50 1.5 for sale. I couldn't resist (actually I got the book AND the lens). I know many things about the soviet lenses, but I do not know much about the Carl Zeiss Jena lenses for Contax/Kiev.
Serial Number is 1660493. On the black ring on the back side of the lens is the number 60493 engraved, so they match. The overall condition is very good. There are some very small bubbles in the glass. The aparture goes only up to 11, but moves smooth, no oil on the blades.
So, can anybody tell me something about this lens? The year of production would be very interesting, too. I took some photos of this lens with the crappy "camera" build in my mobile phone, hence the superior picture quality
Thank you very much,
Philipp
today I just wanted to buy a book for my exams I am taking right now, but the second-hand photo store near the book shop had this Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 50 1.5 for sale. I couldn't resist (actually I got the book AND the lens). I know many things about the soviet lenses, but I do not know much about the Carl Zeiss Jena lenses for Contax/Kiev.
Serial Number is 1660493. On the black ring on the back side of the lens is the number 60493 engraved, so they match. The overall condition is very good. There are some very small bubbles in the glass. The aparture goes only up to 11, but moves smooth, no oil on the blades.
So, can anybody tell me something about this lens? The year of production would be very interesting, too. I took some photos of this lens with the crappy "camera" build in my mobile phone, hence the superior picture quality
Thank you very much,
Philipp
Attachments
dexdog
Veteran
The serial number corresponds to a production year of about 1935, according to this table: http://home.sprynet.com/~stspring/Zeiss Ikon.html. This is one of several such lists on the internet, and while they all more or less correspond, I am not sure whether any of these lists are necessarily authoritative.
On the other hand, your lens looks about right for a 1935 version, given that it appears to be transitional between the black-painted lenses for the Contax I and the chrome lenses of the Contax II/III. I thank that John Keesing's Contax Rangefinder Lenses 1932-1962 book has a discussion of the mixed black and chrome lenses. Unfortunately, I am at work, and therefore have no access to said book. Lastly, the smallest aperture of f11 suggests that the lens is an early production 50/1.5 Sonnar. Later versions had smallest apertures of f16.
Nice lens, uncoated, best used with a hood, but OK without a hood if you watch for situations likely to induce flaring
BTW, Highway 61, I posted a photo of the lens barrel engraving on the "other" CZJ sonnar thread
On the other hand, your lens looks about right for a 1935 version, given that it appears to be transitional between the black-painted lenses for the Contax I and the chrome lenses of the Contax II/III. I thank that John Keesing's Contax Rangefinder Lenses 1932-1962 book has a discussion of the mixed black and chrome lenses. Unfortunately, I am at work, and therefore have no access to said book. Lastly, the smallest aperture of f11 suggests that the lens is an early production 50/1.5 Sonnar. Later versions had smallest apertures of f16.
Nice lens, uncoated, best used with a hood, but OK without a hood if you watch for situations likely to induce flaring
BTW, Highway 61, I posted a photo of the lens barrel engraving on the "other" CZJ sonnar thread
Philipp
Established
Thank you very much for your quick replies! I wouldn't have thought that the lens was that old! I thought it was a post-WWII lens made in Jena before the factories were transported to the soviet union. The aperture only goes up to 11, the lens is quite heavy (much heavier than my Jupiter 3) and it has that black lacquer ring. But the front lens looks coated to me. I made another crappy picture of it. Is this possible?
Attachments
Last edited:
dexdog
Veteran
Based on your picture, the lens appears to be coated. It is not at all uncommon for aftermarket coatings to be applied to old lenses. Given that Zeiss did not invent coating on lenses until about 1935, it is very unlikely that the coating is original. Plus, the vibrant violet-blue color of the coating does not really resemble original Zeiss coatings on old lenses.
With the coating in place, the lens should perform even better.
With the coating in place, the lens should perform even better.
raid
Dad Photographer
Mark,
Would you consider having an uncoated Sonnar now getting a coating?
I have mixed feelings about it.
Would you consider having an uncoated Sonnar now getting a coating?
I have mixed feelings about it.
photo4ls
Well-known
Aside from your lens,that rangefinder sure is purdy.
dexdog
Veteran
no, i kinda like the look that the uncoated lenses provide
Philipp
Established
Highway 61: Thank you for your link, it was very interesting to see other sonnars from that period with that black ring. I wouldn't have mind if the lens was uncoated. BTW it doesn't look as if only the front element was coated, but all or at least most of the elements. If you hold the lens with the right angle to the light you can see about 6 reflections of the light source, all in slightly different shades of violet. Or does this also happen when only the front lens is coated? Anyhow, I am very curious how the lens will perform.
photo4ls: I got this Kiev 4a so cheap, I had some change left for a new camera leather from Aki Asahi. Wouldn't have modified an old Kiev 2 or a real Contax, but a 1979 Kiev 4 was just right for the job.
photo4ls: I got this Kiev 4a so cheap, I had some change left for a new camera leather from Aki Asahi. Wouldn't have modified an old Kiev 2 or a real Contax, but a 1979 Kiev 4 was just right for the job.