raid
Dad Photographer
History is fascinating, isn't it.
Mark, the lens is a good one.
Mark, the lens is a good one.
Does anyone have the Thiele book?
- Thread starter dexdog
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 39
- Views 6K
dexdog
Veteran
Actually, i would prefer a real ZK to a faked wartme Sonnar. I wonder why someone made the switch? Perhaps the lens ring was a J-3, and not a ZK.
Attached photo shows hand-scratched letters on lower part of barrel. Could be an H F, but don't know for sure. The crossbar on the H is a bit hard to see.
Attached photo shows hand-scratched letters on lower part of barrel. Could be an H F, but don't know for sure. The crossbar on the H is a bit hard to see.
Last edited:
jmkelly
rangefinder user
Someone somewhere has a book in them that needs to be written about these transitional prototypes.
Dex - Your optical module looks more like an early J-3 than a CZJ. And BTW - you should be able to screw the module completely out of the focus mount without touching a set screw: grasp the aperture ring and the area just below it in one hand and the back of the mount in the other and put the power to it like trying to open a pickle jar. If you try to turn it using only the ears on the aperture ring you could damage it.
You might want to email your photos directly to Marc James Small. He and Charlie Barringer are taken up with the 5.8cm f1.5 Sonarex just now.
Dex - Your optical module looks more like an early J-3 than a CZJ. And BTW - you should be able to screw the module completely out of the focus mount without touching a set screw: grasp the aperture ring and the area just below it in one hand and the back of the mount in the other and put the power to it like trying to open a pickle jar. If you try to turn it using only the ears on the aperture ring you could damage it.
You might want to email your photos directly to Marc James Small. He and Charlie Barringer are taken up with the 5.8cm f1.5 Sonarex just now.
photovdz
Well-known
most of those LTM mount seems to have been produced in contax mount and then modified for LTM inside the factory but keeping the original serial n° (it's the modifying workshop hypothesis...) as getting rid of the contax mount is very easy... no helical...
This lens with serial number sounds very similar to mines... send me the full serial number on PM so that I can try to see if they are of the same batch...
But your lens is far more shining than mines... but I didn't clean them too much... grey alloy on the barrel...
it would be interesting to see the wiegth of those lenses... could be a good determination of the production time...
does it focus accuratly ? where did it come from ?
Stephan
photovdz
Well-known
second thought... does the end of the serial number on the ring fits with the serial on the optical parts ? if so both part are original CZJ (if the front ring is not a fake)...
I don't share the option of the post war soviet production...(or even the ZK turned in CZJ fake option) I think that those were made at the factory in Germany during the war or just after from available parts... and that the factory has been more active than previously thought...
some parts were transfered to Russia and became ZK lenses... other were used locally... and adapted to leica in a "specialised" workshop... (obviously because leica where more sought after, and more available than contax... and therefore LTM lenses easier to sell to get valuta in)
I own a Contax mount f2 sonnar n°2936226 which is a typical CZJ original lens (chrome on brass barrel alloy mount) even if it is in the serial numbers previously thought as being ZKised...
Other point, who said that original LTM 1,5 don't have ears on the f ring ? N° 2724947 is a full chrome brass heavy LTM sonnar and it has ears... obviously not a fake or a J3... J3 and post war sonnar don't have ears
another clue against the "commercial fake theory" and for the german production origin... I own 2859393 and 2859321 both LTM and obviously of the same batch... ears, alloy external barrel, matching serial number on the ring and the optical part, Zeiss glass... but one came from an american family (who didn't know what it was... came on a redcurtain IIIc for 200$) and the other came from a non professionnal ukrainian photographer... for 25$ ... it would be strange that two identical fakes would surface so far from each other in geography and history... btw the american lens is said to have been acquired in Germany at the end of the war... and the other was the working lens of an ukrainian retired pro...
last but not least, Charlie B. came home last week (had a very nice cup of coffee) and took time to really scrutinise those lenses... and he thinks they are "true" CZJ lenses from the troubled period ( 1943 / 1948)... but he share the "post production workshop" hypothesis...
To that extend It doesn't mean that the lens that opened the threat is not a fake... (I personnaly think it's a bit too shiny to my taste for late or immediate post war metal) send me all the pics and numbers (and weight since it could be a very accurate discriminant) to my PM...
stephan
another observation... about contax sonnar ears... some have 4 threads... some have 5 threads.on the ears... and that is not logical ... and the distribution in my sample is random... aaargh...
I don't share the option of the post war soviet production...(or even the ZK turned in CZJ fake option) I think that those were made at the factory in Germany during the war or just after from available parts... and that the factory has been more active than previously thought...
some parts were transfered to Russia and became ZK lenses... other were used locally... and adapted to leica in a "specialised" workshop... (obviously because leica where more sought after, and more available than contax... and therefore LTM lenses easier to sell to get valuta in)
I own a Contax mount f2 sonnar n°2936226 which is a typical CZJ original lens (chrome on brass barrel alloy mount) even if it is in the serial numbers previously thought as being ZKised...
Other point, who said that original LTM 1,5 don't have ears on the f ring ? N° 2724947 is a full chrome brass heavy LTM sonnar and it has ears... obviously not a fake or a J3... J3 and post war sonnar don't have ears
another clue against the "commercial fake theory" and for the german production origin... I own 2859393 and 2859321 both LTM and obviously of the same batch... ears, alloy external barrel, matching serial number on the ring and the optical part, Zeiss glass... but one came from an american family (who didn't know what it was... came on a redcurtain IIIc for 200$) and the other came from a non professionnal ukrainian photographer... for 25$ ... it would be strange that two identical fakes would surface so far from each other in geography and history... btw the american lens is said to have been acquired in Germany at the end of the war... and the other was the working lens of an ukrainian retired pro...
last but not least, Charlie B. came home last week (had a very nice cup of coffee) and took time to really scrutinise those lenses... and he thinks they are "true" CZJ lenses from the troubled period ( 1943 / 1948)... but he share the "post production workshop" hypothesis...
To that extend It doesn't mean that the lens that opened the threat is not a fake... (I personnaly think it's a bit too shiny to my taste for late or immediate post war metal) send me all the pics and numbers (and weight since it could be a very accurate discriminant) to my PM...
stephan
another observation... about contax sonnar ears... some have 4 threads... some have 5 threads.on the ears... and that is not logical ... and the distribution in my sample is random... aaargh...
ferider
Veteran
That's what made me think it's a ZK, Stephan, from the pics and comments the two numers don't match.
Anyways, I decoded "photovdz" 🙂. Good to have you here ....
Roland.
dexdog
Veteran
As Roland said- the interior number of 1663 does not match the serial number on the lens bezel, which is 2858010.
dexdog
Veteran
photovdz, this will drive you crazy...the ears on the aperture ring are slightly different widths. One ear is 4mm wide and has 4 grooves cut in it, and the other ear is 5mm wide, and has 5 grooves cut in it. 😀
dexdog
Veteran
Hey, this is a fun thread.
Highway 61- it is pretty amazing that your stolen lens is so similar to mine, right down the unequal size of the ears on the aperture ring.
I traded emails with John Van Stelten of Focal Point, Inc., and he agreed to see if he could repair, clean and collimate the lens. He told me that only about half of these types of lens are fixable, given the low-quality aluminum often used in their construction, and the tendency for the parts to get permanently stuck together. In any case, the lens is off in the mail today, and I am crossing my fingers that John will be able to revive it. I am really interested in shooting with it!
Highway 61- it is pretty amazing that your stolen lens is so similar to mine, right down the unequal size of the ears on the aperture ring.
I traded emails with John Van Stelten of Focal Point, Inc., and he agreed to see if he could repair, clean and collimate the lens. He told me that only about half of these types of lens are fixable, given the low-quality aluminum often used in their construction, and the tendency for the parts to get permanently stuck together. In any case, the lens is off in the mail today, and I am crossing my fingers that John will be able to revive it. I am really interested in shooting with it!
photovdz
Well-known
we need some historical researcher here t help us with methods, because we are all making assertion from various point of view and mixing sources.
We have the Thiele compilation of factory references (It's a book, meanind a reference but not the only thruth as the assertion "it is not in the Thiele therefore it's no good" or the reverse are both scientifically weak)... minus the fact that the Thiele book is well known and as such a source of reference for fakers too...
We have the evidences of the lenses, their differences... and up to this point we have not been rigourous enough to make statements (except the usual chorme on brass = zeiss) for instance the comma or point as unit divider is not clear for me, as I have non dubious zeiss engravings with comma (small commas but no point)
and we have the history of the lenses as told by their owners... or as a mere fact (bought in the USA, or in Ukraine, from a pro seller, from a family... etc...)
The scientifical use of all those clues are the key of understanding what did happen really...
(and I told you that lens seemed to bright to be a true CZJ ... )
Food for thoughts :
- not all the lenses available in 1945 were ZKised (contradictory evidences) and there is a German production (not an east german production please... DDR was created in 1949) during the early post war time. There is also open possibilities of german production being rebadged as russion production.
- some of the LTM mount are "Thieled" as contax mount...
- except from the "six digit serial number on the inner parts" there is no positive evidence of a lens being "true" zeiss
- the hypothesis of a legitimate jena based production between 27***** and 3****** is not to be excluded...
- the LTM mount job could be a 'post' production job made with available lenses and materials... hence the mixed metal exemples... being inside or outside the factory...
- before ebay times (prehistory I know) few lenses were geographically mobile except on the limited hard collector market where the were referenced...
- it is not because it's soviet that is a fake ...
- the presence of alloy in a lense is not a sign of russian origin... (even more if the alloy is zamac which is typical ersatz product of the german industry... )
More on Fakes...
What is a fake ? something that is presented as being what it is not in order to take profit or to satisfy owner needs... a fake rolex is only a fake rolex if you sell it a the price of a real rolex and as such... ZK lenses are no fakes... troubled time CZJ LTM lenses don't pretend to be something they are not...
and now I have to dismount and photography all those bits and pieces ;-)
We have the Thiele compilation of factory references (It's a book, meanind a reference but not the only thruth as the assertion "it is not in the Thiele therefore it's no good" or the reverse are both scientifically weak)... minus the fact that the Thiele book is well known and as such a source of reference for fakers too...
We have the evidences of the lenses, their differences... and up to this point we have not been rigourous enough to make statements (except the usual chorme on brass = zeiss) for instance the comma or point as unit divider is not clear for me, as I have non dubious zeiss engravings with comma (small commas but no point)
and we have the history of the lenses as told by their owners... or as a mere fact (bought in the USA, or in Ukraine, from a pro seller, from a family... etc...)
The scientifical use of all those clues are the key of understanding what did happen really...
(and I told you that lens seemed to bright to be a true CZJ ... )
Food for thoughts :
- not all the lenses available in 1945 were ZKised (contradictory evidences) and there is a German production (not an east german production please... DDR was created in 1949) during the early post war time. There is also open possibilities of german production being rebadged as russion production.
- some of the LTM mount are "Thieled" as contax mount...
- except from the "six digit serial number on the inner parts" there is no positive evidence of a lens being "true" zeiss
- the hypothesis of a legitimate jena based production between 27***** and 3****** is not to be excluded...
- the LTM mount job could be a 'post' production job made with available lenses and materials... hence the mixed metal exemples... being inside or outside the factory...
- before ebay times (prehistory I know) few lenses were geographically mobile except on the limited hard collector market where the were referenced...
- it is not because it's soviet that is a fake ...
- the presence of alloy in a lense is not a sign of russian origin... (even more if the alloy is zamac which is typical ersatz product of the german industry... )
More on Fakes...
What is a fake ? something that is presented as being what it is not in order to take profit or to satisfy owner needs... a fake rolex is only a fake rolex if you sell it a the price of a real rolex and as such... ZK lenses are no fakes... troubled time CZJ LTM lenses don't pretend to be something they are not...
and now I have to dismount and photography all those bits and pieces ;-)
photovdz
Well-known
by the way... it's Stephan VdZ not Stephan B.
Highway 61
Revisited
So true.
Yet don't take it up so quickly about "East Germany", this is a language shortcoming to speak of the Germany USSR-occupied zone, we all know that the GDR was officially created in 1949.
I have no particular concerns about "fakes", I paid $100 or so for my lens, Mark paid $98 for his, at that price it can very well be a not-genuine Zeiss thing if it still takes great pictures (up to the quality standards of an excellent Jupiter-3 for example).
Rather than dissassembling my classic lenses to the utmost bit (which has to be done in order to CLA them nevertheless) I prefer to use them as photographic tools, and to try to take good photos with them, not just for testing/wasting film sessions.
photovdz
Well-known
we agree... on a lot of point... I try to use the lenses as much as possible... but some of those are of "historical interest" and are best in their juice (as we say in french)...
About East germany, the point was made only for a rigourous historical approach... as there was only one Germany at that time the Zeiss company was not yet splitted, and the commercial law was the same in all occupied zones... meaning no borders for goods...
About "fakes" it's just a precision I want to make... and as price is concerned low price and non commercial origin means usually interesting history, and except for some badly transformed zorkis, clues to authenticity... a fake is designed to bring back money...
But I disagree on one point, there are more genuine zeiss products around than previously thought...
and if you speak about use, better a nice jup3 than a broken LTM sonnar...
Btw I just got my sonnar f2 rigid 1938 LTM mount back from calibration... it's a one off probably made from a contaflx tlr lens... the transformation is period and very professionnaly made...
and the metal looks very zeiss... (is there a method to determine if it was made with the same metal or not... it could be a prototype or a test lens...). Got it in Brussels soem years ago from a deceased collector son... he did not even know what it was... )... I'll make a roll with it... (not a test... real pictures...)
About East germany, the point was made only for a rigourous historical approach... as there was only one Germany at that time the Zeiss company was not yet splitted, and the commercial law was the same in all occupied zones... meaning no borders for goods...
About "fakes" it's just a precision I want to make... and as price is concerned low price and non commercial origin means usually interesting history, and except for some badly transformed zorkis, clues to authenticity... a fake is designed to bring back money...
But I disagree on one point, there are more genuine zeiss products around than previously thought...
and if you speak about use, better a nice jup3 than a broken LTM sonnar...
Btw I just got my sonnar f2 rigid 1938 LTM mount back from calibration... it's a one off probably made from a contaflx tlr lens... the transformation is period and very professionnaly made...
and the metal looks very zeiss... (is there a method to determine if it was made with the same metal or not... it could be a prototype or a test lens...). Got it in Brussels soem years ago from a deceased collector son... he did not even know what it was... )... I'll make a roll with it... (not a test... real pictures...)
photovdz
Well-known
a great clue about wartime production of LTM zeiss mount...
see "wartime red curtain"... and look at the military certificate on the skinner sold leica...
a proof that a 2858*** sonnar can be wartime production...
the history of the leica and the serial numbers are deadly close to mine... but I have no certificate...
see "wartime red curtain"... and look at the military certificate on the skinner sold leica...
a proof that a 2858*** sonnar can be wartime production...
the history of the leica and the serial numbers are deadly close to mine... but I have no certificate...
furcafe
Veteran
Thanks for that information, John. I was able to unscrew the module from my LTM Sonnar (&, perhaps more importantly, replace it). I can confirm that mine has a genuine CZJ optical unit as the back is inscribed w/numbers matching the last 6 digits of the serial # on the front ring (857761), just like all of my CZJ Contax RF Sonnars. The "ears" are uniform in size & identical to those on my 2 wartime T-coated 5cm/1.5 Sonnars (& my early postwar example). Of course, per the other posts here, I have no idea who made the focus mount.
Last edited:
dexdog
Veteran
I was doing a little lens test with the ZK/Sonnar/J3 in question before I mailed it off to John Van Stelten for an overhaul. I was pleasantly surprised to find that the lens focused accurately! The point of focus on the attached pic was the top of the candle, just below the base of the flame. Flare is not too bad, considering that the lens is close to 60 years old, and a bit hazy. No sharpening applied, although I did adjust the contrast moderately. Exposure is 1/8 second at f 1.5. The low res image posted here (about 100 pixels/in) does not do justice to the lens. You can actually perceive quite a bit of detail on the facets of the Waterford candlestick at 4000 dpi. By the way, that is just a typical collection of camera stuff on my dining room table.
Again, I was quite surprised that it focused properly, given that the lens had no internal collimating rings. I wonder if the strange design of the lens innards obviated the need for collimating rings. While I was happy to see that it focused properly and produced decent images, it still needed to be sent out for CLA because the focusing was very difficult due to fossilized lubricant (and to remove the haze, too). A series of pictures taken outdoors at various medium to infinity points of focus looked fine too, typical Sonnar look.
Truly an odd lens
Again, I was quite surprised that it focused properly, given that the lens had no internal collimating rings. I wonder if the strange design of the lens innards obviated the need for collimating rings. While I was happy to see that it focused properly and produced decent images, it still needed to be sent out for CLA because the focusing was very difficult due to fossilized lubricant (and to remove the haze, too). A series of pictures taken outdoors at various medium to infinity points of focus looked fine too, typical Sonnar look.
Truly an odd lens
Last edited:
LeicaTom
Watch that step!
Pretty Nice!
That`s what the "feelings" all about, true Sonnar moment 😀
Tom
PS: Can`t wait till it comes back for CLA to see what it`ll do.........
Last edited:
raid
Dad Photographer
Did the lens come back? I think, it did.
dexdog
Veteran
I got the lens back from Focal Point on Nov 12, and happy to report that John was able to restore the lens to usable condition. Haven't had much time to play around with it yet, but I did do a flare test. This picture was taken about 6:30 PM, pretty dark outside, single candle. The shadow on the wall behind the candle is created by a neighbor's outdoor lighting.
Wide open at f 1.5, distance of 1 meter, 1/4 second.
I plan to do a little more playing around with this lens as soon as we get some decent, non-rainy weather.
Wide open at f 1.5, distance of 1 meter, 1/4 second.
I plan to do a little more playing around with this lens as soon as we get some decent, non-rainy weather.
Last edited:
Those internal numbers are present on the wartime LTM Sonnars. I've taken three of them apart now. The J-3's do not have them. The Wartime LTM Sonnars have ears on the aperture ring, the PostWar LTM Sonnars do not. I just rebuilt two of the latter lenses.