boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
OK, we will assume he is selling a Contax IIa with a 1.5. Working or parts only? There are some pretty good buys on eBay if you are cautious. I have done well over the years.
Collectors value
- Thread starter Räuber
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 117
- Views 9K
OK, we will assume he is selling a Contax IIa with a 1.5. Working or parts only? There are some pretty good buys on eBay if you are cautious. I have done well over the years.
TenEleven
Well-known
I actually find these mislabeled auctions to be somewhat more trustworthy than a description designed to mislead.
They honestly don't know what this is VS feigning ignorance about a product which you know is in terrible condition.
(My favorite version of this is 'I am not an expert, but it looks very good to me. But as a matter of caution, I am selling it as for spares or repair.', then I go into another auction of theirs and they're selling a Nikkor 70-200 push pull zoom lens with very detailed descriptions as "flashlight test shows no fungus, separation or haze...")
They honestly don't know what this is VS feigning ignorance about a product which you know is in terrible condition.
(My favorite version of this is 'I am not an expert, but it looks very good to me. But as a matter of caution, I am selling it as for spares or repair.', then I go into another auction of theirs and they're selling a Nikkor 70-200 push pull zoom lens with very detailed descriptions as "flashlight test shows no fungus, separation or haze...")
Miles.
Beamsplitter
I see this way too often!
Another thing I look for from a seller of vintage lenses is if they write "no haze" on a listing, and I find "no haze" written in every listing of a vintage lens, I then know for sure that every lens they have definitely has haze (OK, I'm being a little dramatic, but you get my point).
Last edited:
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
The tip off for me is if there is a shot through the lens to show if there is haze or not. Verbiage will not remove haze.
TenEleven
Well-known
Yes, but you can adjust the lighting so that the haze will not show (for example: a diffuse or soft boxed light-source).
If someone wants to cheat, they will find a way. Such has always been the gamble with online (and I guess offline) auctions.
Räuber
Well-known
Clean glass is a difficult topic. I have to admit that I like clean glass too. But if I would post flashlight photos on auctions I would not sell anything. Every old lens looks like lemon under flashlight.
I do something similar as flashlight photos of my lenses. I do a bokeh ball test. That shows you alot of what is going on inside the lens. But you can not tell the sharpness or usability of the lens from it.
That is a test image of a Jupiter-3+ that is very clean. You wish that every lens would be that clean as this modern lens.
Unfortunately it is a lemon. It is only sharp in the very center. The light reflex on the left gives away that it is probably very decentered and that robs this lens a heck of sharpness.
Here is a 1963 Jupiter-3. This one looks like a lemon in this test. But believe me I would use it without thinking. It is one of my benchmark Sonnar lenses when it comes to sharpness and so on.
You see so many bubbles in this one and probably some scratches. I wonder why I consider this a usable and sharp...
This Nikkor is clean too but decentered and soft again.
And again a wartime Sonnar I would use instead of the Nikkor.
I do something similar as flashlight photos of my lenses. I do a bokeh ball test. That shows you alot of what is going on inside the lens. But you can not tell the sharpness or usability of the lens from it.
That is a test image of a Jupiter-3+ that is very clean. You wish that every lens would be that clean as this modern lens.
Unfortunately it is a lemon. It is only sharp in the very center. The light reflex on the left gives away that it is probably very decentered and that robs this lens a heck of sharpness.
Here is a 1963 Jupiter-3. This one looks like a lemon in this test. But believe me I would use it without thinking. It is one of my benchmark Sonnar lenses when it comes to sharpness and so on.
You see so many bubbles in this one and probably some scratches. I wonder why I consider this a usable and sharp...
This Nikkor is clean too but decentered and soft again.
And again a wartime Sonnar I would use instead of the Nikkor.
TenEleven
Well-known
Yeah LED flashlight is not a test to determine whether the glass looks perfect or not. Even new lenses will "fail" such a test.
Thus I write "fail" in quotes as 90% of what you see in this test has no effect on image quality. When doing this I look for three things - fungus, (fine) scratches and haze. I also look for separation but I do not use a flashlight for that, tilting the lens in ambient light is more effective for this.
In the end you have to know what you are doing and know what you are looking for. I am especially wary of haze and the dreaded "cleaning marks". Both will affect the image massively - more than any other defect, and if the haze can be cleaned is 50/50 odds, worse if it's been in there a long time.
How bad the effect of either is depends on the design and angle of view of the lens, with wider angles often being worse affected and some designs (Biogon!) being particularly picky about clean glass.
So, I am unsure a bokeh ball test would show you whether the lens is hazy and has cleaning marks or not. Which for me are the two most crucial points. For example I can live with edge separation or fungus marks - they don't look pretty but the image effect again is near nil unless it is especially bad.
I found that a diffuse light source hitting the lens obliquely works best for haze. Also it's best to look from the sensor/film side as defects can appear more severe looking the "wrong" way, while being less visible looking from of the sensor/film direction.
Also excessively clean lenses are very often a bad sign. If it's looking like new after 60+ years it's probably because it spent most of its life sat in a drawer. Because the previous owner(s) determined it's a lemon. I had an exceedingly pretty 1.005.xxx Carl Zeiss Opton Postwar Sonnar like this. Breathtaking glass and exterior. Optically worthless.
All of this is why I prefer to buy lenses in a shop. I can take a look for myself and make sure. Of course, with rare items this means that you might have to wait a long time or you bite the bullet.
Thus I write "fail" in quotes as 90% of what you see in this test has no effect on image quality. When doing this I look for three things - fungus, (fine) scratches and haze. I also look for separation but I do not use a flashlight for that, tilting the lens in ambient light is more effective for this.
In the end you have to know what you are doing and know what you are looking for. I am especially wary of haze and the dreaded "cleaning marks". Both will affect the image massively - more than any other defect, and if the haze can be cleaned is 50/50 odds, worse if it's been in there a long time.
How bad the effect of either is depends on the design and angle of view of the lens, with wider angles often being worse affected and some designs (Biogon!) being particularly picky about clean glass.
So, I am unsure a bokeh ball test would show you whether the lens is hazy and has cleaning marks or not. Which for me are the two most crucial points. For example I can live with edge separation or fungus marks - they don't look pretty but the image effect again is near nil unless it is especially bad.
I found that a diffuse light source hitting the lens obliquely works best for haze. Also it's best to look from the sensor/film side as defects can appear more severe looking the "wrong" way, while being less visible looking from of the sensor/film direction.
Also excessively clean lenses are very often a bad sign. If it's looking like new after 60+ years it's probably because it spent most of its life sat in a drawer. Because the previous owner(s) determined it's a lemon. I had an exceedingly pretty 1.005.xxx Carl Zeiss Opton Postwar Sonnar like this. Breathtaking glass and exterior. Optically worthless.
All of this is why I prefer to buy lenses in a shop. I can take a look for myself and make sure. Of course, with rare items this means that you might have to wait a long time or you bite the bullet.
Last edited:
Leon C
Well-known
I tend to stay away from items that say 'Pictures are part of the description' which, as you say, are easy to adust, I was bitten once by that and even an admission it was clean but it wasn't! It's still usable but you know....
I find the best bargains from sellers who are not Camera specific, house clearance sellers are good sometimes as they usually genuinely don't know what they are selling but the usual caution is needed.
Then there's the 'don't have a battery to test' but have 2,000 other camera related items, even I have a selection of batteries to test gear! 🤪
Valkir1987
Well-known
I have similar experience with lenses that look very clean. Sometimes they have been dropped, or their is something wrong with their optics.
Carl Zeiss Jena used concentric rings for the alignment of the individual element in many lenses. (Biometar and Flektogon for example) Even though the lenses had been cut and ground to meet the optical center within certain tolerances. Some lenses have been cleaned and disassembled afterwards to clean a sticky aperture, without the right testing equipment to put them back together. Meyer Optik used set screws under a 120 degree angle for the rear group of the Oreston and Pentacon 50mm lenses.
Even when elements have been ground to their optical center properly, they have to set and seated when tightening the rings that hold them. And yet I sometimes wonder how accurate a front focus lens can be, where the entire front element rotates to focus.
Carl Zeiss Jena used concentric rings for the alignment of the individual element in many lenses. (Biometar and Flektogon for example) Even though the lenses had been cut and ground to meet the optical center within certain tolerances. Some lenses have been cleaned and disassembled afterwards to clean a sticky aperture, without the right testing equipment to put them back together. Meyer Optik used set screws under a 120 degree angle for the rear group of the Oreston and Pentacon 50mm lenses.
Even when elements have been ground to their optical center properly, they have to set and seated when tightening the rings that hold them. And yet I sometimes wonder how accurate a front focus lens can be, where the entire front element rotates to focus.
TenEleven
Well-known
I've actually ranted about these concentric rings in this very forum here.
They introduced them in the post 3million (post war) Jena Sonnars as well. And they make working on these lenses an absolute nightmare, because as you state, one must take them off when servicing the lens. The first time I did not know this and did not mark the setting of the concentric ring for the rear element.
I felt I never got the lens back up to the original performance - even though I got rid of the fungus and haze completely. No matter how I set the ring, no matter what I checked. Other times - many times - I have seen lenses where someone put the spanner into that concentric ring in an effort to undo the lens, which of course again destroys their performance.
What's worse is that especially energetic twisting with the rest of the retainers in place is likely to permanently warp the ring, making obtaining good optical performance a near impossibility.
Adjustable is good, but it has to be done in a way that it is possible to disassemble the thing without messing it all up!
Frankly, I think it's a terrible design.
Räuber
Well-known
Here is a special auction.
This kind of Sonnar 5cm f/1,5 is floating around literature and internet as one of 7 or 9 known lenses. People are confused if those were prototypes or a pre-war LTM mini series. If you look closely it is simple. It is no Sonnar 5cm. It is a Sonnar 5,8cm f1,5. 😅 The clearest giveway of this secret is the view from the bottom. This lens has a very unique spanner ring. It has 6 slots. Only the legendary Sonnar 5,8cm is using this kind of rear spanner ring.
I will not try to get my hands on this one, even though the price is tempting at this moment. I just spend 3000 on one Sonnar so feel free to snatch it.
And while we are looking at the legendary Sonnar 5,8cm and its value here are some current examples.
1099 EUR
350 EUR
59 EUR 🙈🥲
This kind of Sonnar 5cm f/1,5 is floating around literature and internet as one of 7 or 9 known lenses. People are confused if those were prototypes or a pre-war LTM mini series. If you look closely it is simple. It is no Sonnar 5cm. It is a Sonnar 5,8cm f1,5. 😅 The clearest giveway of this secret is the view from the bottom. This lens has a very unique spanner ring. It has 6 slots. Only the legendary Sonnar 5,8cm is using this kind of rear spanner ring.
I will not try to get my hands on this one, even though the price is tempting at this moment. I just spend 3000 on one Sonnar so feel free to snatch it.
And while we are looking at the legendary Sonnar 5,8cm and its value here are some current examples.
Zeiss Sonnar M 39 mit 50mm/ 1,5 lichtstärke mechanisch komplett serviciert | eBay.de
Entdecke Zeiss Sonnar M 39 mit 50mm/ 1,5 lichtstärke mechanisch komplett serviciert in großer Auswahl ✓ Vergleichen Angebote und Preise ✓ Online kaufen bei eBay.de ✓ Kostenlose Lieferung für viele Artikel!
www.ebay.de
1099 EUR
350 EUR
59 EUR 🙈🥲
Valkir1987
Well-known
Many things can be said about their introduction. CZJ also had to fulfill a certain amount of employment at the assembly. The concentric rings probably allowed them to use more glass that would have otherwise been rejected because the center was out of tolerance. (Or to match a higher precision.) They were the first to built the Flektogon, a retro focus wide angle lens for the SLR. Few workshops with the original equipment exist now that can get them back right.
Räuber
Well-known
I'm not into cameras. But sometimes even I find some oddity with a camera body.
Notice the Zeiss Ikon logo in the hot shoe? It is missing the outlines. I have never seen a Zeiss Ikon Contax where the logo was missing the outlines before. I tried to find other examples but could not find one. This is a Contax IIIa with the serial D86430. Not sure if this in an early or late one. Unfortunately the letter D is pretty bad because it looks very similar to B, O, Q or even R.
The closest serial I coud find was a D79xxx
or this one looks pretty close
But not one without the outlines.
What do you think of this Contax? Those kind of cameras and lenses come and go unnoticed even though they might have a higher value for collectors and historians.
Zeiss Ikon Contax IIIA mit Sonnar 2/50 Carl Zeiss Jena Lens | eBay.de
Technische Funktionen sind einwandfrei in Ordnung. mit Sonnar 2/50 Carl Zeiss Jena Lens. Sucher klar und sauber. Guter Zustand. Gut erhalten, mit nur leichtenGebrauchsspuren.
www.ebay.de
Notice the Zeiss Ikon logo in the hot shoe? It is missing the outlines. I have never seen a Zeiss Ikon Contax where the logo was missing the outlines before. I tried to find other examples but could not find one. This is a Contax IIIa with the serial D86430. Not sure if this in an early or late one. Unfortunately the letter D is pretty bad because it looks very similar to B, O, Q or even R.
The closest serial I coud find was a D79xxx
or this one looks pretty close
But not one without the outlines.
What do you think of this Contax? Those kind of cameras and lenses come and go unnoticed even though they might have a higher value for collectors and historians.
dexdog
Veteran
Räuber, I have this Contax IIa with R serial number.
This IIa also has different stamping on back of camera.
Hans- Jurgen Kuc's "On theTrail of the Contax, Volume II" gives R serial numbers production dates of November 1956 to April 1958. As for Contax IIIa cameras, the book says D serial cameras were produced March 1955 to January1956 (EDIT: I read the wrong row, so February 1961 to August 1962 as I originally posted is incorrect). I remember a comment from the late Henry Scherer when he over-hauled my R serial camera. Henry was of the opinion that it was a very late production (later than 1958) using up leftover parts as based on workmanship and quality of materials. Zeiss Ikon ceased production of the Contax line in 1962.
Last edited:
Räuber
Well-known
dexdog
Veteran
Kuc's book says O serial numbers were produced November 1956 to July 1957.
TenEleven
Well-known
These very late Contax IIa have a platinum beam splitter and thus a bright white RF patch (if the finder is in good condition) with a clear (un-tinted) view of the scene, which is quite nice. They also introduced a quality of life feature that prevents the spool from falling out when reloading these, which again is nice.
dexdog
Veteran
TenEleven, I have an R serial IIa and IIIa- both have the platinum beam splitter. Probably the brightest RF patches I have used.
Similar threads
