dexdog
Veteran
Hey, if the seller sent a different lens insteada the ZK f 2, at least eBay would be forced to make restitution of payment.
Early Russian Lenses, What Features to look for.
- Thread starter Sonnar Brian
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 209
- Views 16K
dexdog
Veteran
I can only speak to eBay sales, but those rarely appear for sale, so kinda hard to say whether the price is representative or not. I guess it is worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it 😉
dexdog
Veteran
Sovietcams is a great website, I am very glad someone decided to preserve itYes! I can see the difference in the two "Ms" on the Soviet Cams page.
Soviet and Russian Cameras
www.sovietcams.com
deltapuppy
Member
I have written the seller and will share whatever response I get.
deltapuppy
Member
The seller thanked me and substituted text that matches the lens. It will be interesting to see if it moves and/or if the price changes.
Räuber
Well-known
If you realy want a ZK 5cm f2 I would recomment this one. It is a 1949 one though. But it is sitting at the shelf for some weeks now and nobody seem to be interested. I ordered a couple of Sonnars over fromjapan.co.jp and am pretty happy with the service so far. Ok, I did not needed to send anything back... But at least you get a more reasonable price. I got my 1949 ZK 5cm f2 for 250 Euro from a very nice french collector. So spending 600 bugs for this Ebay offer is not up to my liking.
dexdog
Veteran
Took apart a 1951 J-3 in LTM to clean and re-lubricate the aperture mechanism. This lens had numbers in three places scribed into both the aperture mechanism and the rear lens fixture. I have not seen a lens with this many markings on the insides. The aperture ring moves smoothly now, had lots of solidified grease. Still need to use Sonnar Brian's one meter, wide-open test to shim the lens, but will leave that for another day.
Last edited:
deltapuppy
Member
TenEleven
Well-known
These are almost certainly Zeiss numbers for the mechanical part and they seem to be about in the middle of the lot as I have seen them as high as almost 2000.
However these mount numbers do not appear in any Thiele book I am afraid.
deltapuppy
Member
Thank you!
dexdog
Veteran
I agree with TenEleven, this one looks legitimate. The numbers on the insides of the lens barrel are parts numbers, not CZJ serial numbers, per se.
Brambling
Well-known
The last line is the date the lens was tested in the laboratory. and this is 1958.Based on the number, the date of production of the lens is 1952.The sale date could have been in 1991 if this lens ended up in a rural store in the interior of the country, where no one needed it. Felt boots and galoshes were in great demand there, not lenses)I was wondering of someone could translate the passport for my recently acquired 1952 J-9. I can rough out the first couple of lines through mere transliteration of Cyrillic and Roman letters and by the obvious focal length and aperture. I am also guessing that the last line is a date of sale.
deltapuppy
Member
Thanks, Dex. I have asked the shop for pics of any serial on the optical block and will share if they are there. They are cleaning up a 3M body and this lens for me.
Brambling
Well-known
You can endlessly argue about “quality” and talk about the features of the line of lenses - Sonnar - ZK - Jupiter.
All the shots in the local gallery were shot by me on Jupiter -3 produced in 1955.
I repaired and cleaned a couple more Jupiters 3, a dozen Jupiters from 12 different years, Biogon from 1939? year from Germany (which was completely tortured in Germany, only the design and frame were alive there, similar to the design of Jupiter 12 from 1950-51))), I still have several Jupiter 9 of different years and manufacturers.
Based on the results of my examinations, I realized that any far-reaching conclusions can be made only if there are 10-20 lenses from one year and so on for all years, both Jupiters and Zeiss.
All the shots in the local gallery were shot by me on Jupiter -3 produced in 1955.
I repaired and cleaned a couple more Jupiters 3, a dozen Jupiters from 12 different years, Biogon from 1939? year from Germany (which was completely tortured in Germany, only the design and frame were alive there, similar to the design of Jupiter 12 from 1950-51))), I still have several Jupiter 9 of different years and manufacturers.
Based on the results of my examinations, I realized that any far-reaching conclusions can be made only if there are 10-20 lenses from one year and so on for all years, both Jupiters and Zeiss.
Brambling
Well-known
Much more interesting would be a conversation about old Soviet glasses such as FED 50/2, Industar 7 from "Tourist", early Industar 10 from "Sport" and FED, the emergence and birth of the brand and the "Kaleinar" system, which is mentioned in the literature before World War II, and it was produced in many versions until 1992.
Another very interesting point with 180 mm lenses.
The legendary "Olympic", Jupiter 6, many options for German post-war lenses, even more options for Japanese ones - for every taste.
It’s a pity, of course, but I haven’t tried the Olympic and I’m unlikely to ever try it; I didn’t like the later German lenses.
My Jupiter 6 gives a much more interesting picture, it’s a pity that it is only for 35 mm film and is very bulky.
The 180 mm lens for the Mamiya C system is also absolutely beautiful - I would be willing to look at the world through it.
Another very interesting point with 180 mm lenses.
The legendary "Olympic", Jupiter 6, many options for German post-war lenses, even more options for Japanese ones - for every taste.
It’s a pity, of course, but I haven’t tried the Olympic and I’m unlikely to ever try it; I didn’t like the later German lenses.
My Jupiter 6 gives a much more interesting picture, it’s a pity that it is only for 35 mm film and is very bulky.
The 180 mm lens for the Mamiya C system is also absolutely beautiful - I would be willing to look at the world through it.
Räuber
Well-known
@Brambling You have a point here. But this point rarely is discussed. Most buyers of those Sonnar lenses are not aware of how difficult it is to find a "good copy". I own a lot of Sonnar 5cm from all over the decades. Looking through the lens the image quality differs a lot. And you would not be able to tell from looking at the body or the glass. Ok, if the lens is beaten up there might not be any surprise in there. But not all shiny Sonnars deliver. Collectors will not care a lot about the image the lens will produce. They go for the spotless copy without any scratch for cheap. But if you look for a lens to shoot on camera it is difficult to say what you get online. Some issues might be fixed if you give the lens a proper CLA.
One day I will do a comparison with the best of the bunch I have. I will share the results when I have them. 👍
One day I will do a comparison with the best of the bunch I have. I will share the results when I have them. 👍
dexdog
Veteran
As someone pointed out in a previous post, it appears that an "8" was over-written on a "2" on this passport. I wonder if this particular lens "fell through the cracks" at some point in the factory certification process. In any case, this lens performs very well on a Sony a7iii.
I currently have several KMZ v1 Jupiter-3 lenses, ZK (1), 1950 (3), 1951 (2), 1952 (3), 1953 (1), 1956 (1) and several KMZ v2 Jupiter-3 lenses, 1955 (2), 1956 (3). The version 1 lenses are the same optical formula as the wartime 5cm f1.5 lenses, the "v4 5cm F1.5 Sonnars". The v1 is better that the later Jupiters. The Valdai lenses are generally awful, I went through 10 to find a good one. The ZOMZ lenses compare with the KMZ v2 Jupiter-3. The first year or two of the ZOMZ lenses seemed to have more sample-to-sample deviation.
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
In the Department of FWIW, I am currently watching a Thorsten Overgaard vid on the Q3. And Thorsten is all in with Leica. I understand that. Generally their products are great. And the quip is that you buy the body from Leica to use the lens from Leica. Well, maybe.
I cannot speak from experience with Leica lenses but I can speak with experience with M39 and M42 non-Leica lenses. First, I have a weakness for Sonnar formula lenses. I like how they present the image in front of them. The color and modeling are great. My Skyllaney Bertele and the '57 KMZ Jupiter 8 are magic. The old '42 CZJ f/1.5 with its softer modeling but still solid color is another winner. The Triumvirate. And the Cooke Amotal is not shabby.
But my tack is that you can put a lot of non-Leica lenses on an M body. The four lenses I named are wonderful. And I have some other nice lenses, 35's and 50's and a 28. So back to the quip that you buy a Leica to use Leica lenses. Not really. There is a lot of M42 lens work being produced now. And there is almost a century of M39 lens work. So while you can get a good combo Leica lens and body, you can also do very well Leica body and other lens. And with the other lenses there is the joy of finding a plum at a good price. Or even better, being gifted with a good lens or two. Bottom line, they do not have to be Leica. As always, YMMV.
I cannot speak from experience with Leica lenses but I can speak with experience with M39 and M42 non-Leica lenses. First, I have a weakness for Sonnar formula lenses. I like how they present the image in front of them. The color and modeling are great. My Skyllaney Bertele and the '57 KMZ Jupiter 8 are magic. The old '42 CZJ f/1.5 with its softer modeling but still solid color is another winner. The Triumvirate. And the Cooke Amotal is not shabby.
But my tack is that you can put a lot of non-Leica lenses on an M body. The four lenses I named are wonderful. And I have some other nice lenses, 35's and 50's and a 28. So back to the quip that you buy a Leica to use Leica lenses. Not really. There is a lot of M42 lens work being produced now. And there is almost a century of M39 lens work. So while you can get a good combo Leica lens and body, you can also do very well Leica body and other lens. And with the other lenses there is the joy of finding a plum at a good price. Or even better, being gifted with a good lens or two. Bottom line, they do not have to be Leica. As always, YMMV.
Brambling
Well-known
FED 1, FED 50/2 (as Ernst Leitz Wetzlar Summar???))) f=5 cm 1:2), film - kodak 400 BW CN
Zorkiy 3m, Kharkov summar???))) 2/50 without clearing from 1937, image control in backlight, isopan 100, February 2018