Early Russian Lenses, What Features to look for.

[Räuber]

@dexdog Thank you but the data in my spreadsheets are mostly in line with the data of Mr. Thieles Fabrikationsbuch II and III. Book II uses a lot of authentic CZJ production cards to give an insight into the production history of this time. I could not find any fault with this data of book II. But there is a small amount of batches where the production cards are missing. And then there are "holes" in this book. For some serials no record is in the book. What I found is that there are indeed some unrecorded batches where the card might be lost. I added what I found. And then there might be some mistakes in the book from collectors data. Mr. Thieles first editions heavily relied on collectors data. You still can find batches of those lenses in the current edition. For most of those batches the production card is missing and might be lost during time. There is a very small amount of those batches I would consider wrong. I added this too in my spreadsheet.

"My batch numbers" are the index of every batch found in Mr. Thieles books only: Index + production date + produced copies. One batch is one line in Mr. Thieles books. You can go to the chapter of the Fabrikationsbuch where all lenses are sorted by name and you basically get the same batch overview. I had some issues with batches not found in his books because what index to give them. I put them at the end of the index for now. The other thing that might confuse the order is the inclusion of R-Sonnar lenses.

My approach is the same as for most of other people collecting serials. I write down every serial of a Sonnar 5cm I can find. I try to write down what I know about this lens. The result is a pretty substancial overview of all Sonnar 5cm lenses showing up in the last 3 years. By sorting them over the serial you get a pretty good overview of all produced models / versions. And you get an overview of how many lenses show up for every batch. There might be some very small batches where no lens will show up. But if you have 1000 lens batches where even after this long time not a single lens is known then this batch might not exist at all.

I tried to collect all this data and hints to create a more complete picture for buyers, collectors and people interested in the history of Zeiss lenses. Or just for fun. For me it is interesting and I like to dig into this data to see what I can learn from it. 🙂

 

[deltapuppy]

No, the first three digits of the CZJ serial number. The numbers stamped on the rear lens group fixture are normally the serial number of the CZJ lens, with the first digit removed. For example, my 1950 J-3 with zeiss components has 727386 stamped on the rear fixture, which corresponds to serial 2727386 for a 5cm/1.5 Sonnar as found in Thiele's book (i.e., it is a 272 batch lens)

Carl Zeiss Jena engraved every lens block with the serial of the lens. That is the number you can find at the rear end of the lens. But CZJ left out the very first digit of the serial. You have to guess it. But we know from experience that in your case the missing number is 2. So your lens has the Carl Zeiss Jena serial 2846266. I already included it in my spreadsheet.

Jupiters use a different serial number schema than Carl Zeiss Jena lenses. The Soviet serials are easy to understand. The first digits are the year of production. Unfortunately CZJ did use a totally different system that did not allow to read the production year from the serial. You need the Fabrikationsbuch II to see the production year belonging to the serial. If you look at my spreadsheet you will find the production years too.

You will notice from the data in the spreadsheet that KMZ did not use the Jena lens blocks in the right order. They have not used the lens blocks from Jena in ascending order. I think they got a pile of lens blocks in chaotic order and just took from this pile lenses as they needed them for ZK or Jupiter production. Sometimes you have groups of lenses from the same batch ending up in the same years Jupiter production but this might only show that there where multiple piles, the lens blocks where taken in large groups together and kept together or that maybe someone sorted them a little bit at KMZ. 😀

Thank you! I am very grateful. These lenses are part of a history that has personal meaning to me and I deeply appreciate the courtesy of everyone here in helping me understand them better. And of course I am pleased that my purchase can be part of your documentation!

 

[Brambling]

Jupiters use a different serial number schema than Carl Zeiss Jena lenses. The Soviet serials are easy to understand. The first digits are the year of production.

This has its pros and cons, for example, there are many numbers starting with "0" or even "00", and oh horror!!! - "000".))))

 

[deltapuppy]

This just appeared on e-Bay and might be of documentary interest because the serial is showing:

RARE One Of The First Jupiter 3/ Carl Zeiss Sonnar 1:1.5 F=5cm 1950 | eBay

Good afternoon.I would like to present you the earliest Jupiter 3 lens made from Carl Zeiss Sonnar parts. Lenses, body aperture all from German early Carl Zeiss Sonnar lens. The USSR supplied only its own ring.

www.ebay.com

 

[dexdog]

I have looked at that lens, and I think that it is a true early J-3. The partial CZJ serial number stamped on the rear group looks legitimate, a nice clean and crisp rendering of the numbers, not like a few others posted on eBay that have numbers that appear to be engraved one way or another and do not look right. This lens also has the twin screws on the focus ring arrayed one above the other like a colon mark : Lastly, the number conforms to info in Thiele's book of CZJ lenses. I have a J-3 with a serial number 931 higher, or 5001032. My lens has a 272 series CZJ number on rear group. I think we may have to sic Rauber on the task of cataloguing the early J-3s with CZJ serial numbers 😉

 

[Räuber]

Thank you for pointing this Jupiter out. I would have missed it since I mainly filter for Sonnars and not Jupiters. I put it in the list. Scroll down to 2.861.1001 to find this one and other ZK and Jupiters. Although the number of those ZK Sonnars is small we now see some picture of what happened 1946 - 1951.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I also believe it is authentic. I currently have three J-3's from 1950, some of the best I own, but they required a lot of work.

This one could not be focused on a Kiev/Contax. The barrel was held in the mount using sewing thread, otherwise "wiggled". The focal length was too short to even use on a Leica, let alone a Kiev/Contax. One of the few that I had to increase the distance between front/rear groups.


Th glass is perfect. No one could use the lens.

 

[wlewisiii]

My wallet is glad I have no clue what to look for with these lenses 😱 🤣 🤣 🤣

 

[Sonnar Brian]

$600 is pricy, and someone worked on the lens without knowing what they were doing. The Aperture does not line up with the index, and hard to tell if the shims were lost.

 

[dexdog]

I also believe it is authentic. I currently have three J-3's from 1950, some of the best I own, but they required a lot of work.

This one could not be focused on a Kiev/Contax. The barrel was held in the mount using sewing thread, otherwise "wiggled". The focal length was too short to even use on a Leica, let alone a Kiev/Contax. One of the few that I had to increase the distance between front/rear groups.
View attachment 4843676View attachment 4843677View attachment 4843678

Th glass is perfect. No one could use the lens.

Yeah, I have a 1950 J-3 that had perfect glass because the focusing mount was threaded wrong, and could not be used on a rangefinder camera (although it worked great on a Sony a7iii and Nikon Z6- mirrorless cameras can focus about anything). I sent the lens to Skyllaney, they re-mounted the glass in a late 1950s J-3 barrel. Skyllaney sent me a note when they shipped the lens back advising me to never sell the lens because the glass was in pristine condition, and was from the 272 series CZJ production. I will abide by the advice not to sell it!

 

[boojum]

Yeah, I have a 1950 J-3 that had perfect glass because the focusing mount was threaded wrong, and could not be used on a rangefinder camera. I sent the lens to Skyllaney, they re-mounted the glass in a late 1950s J-3 barrel. Skyllaney sent me a note when they shipped the lens back advising me to never sell the lens because the glass was in pristine condition, and was from the 272 series CZJ production. I will abide by the advice not to sell it!

I have one from the 272 series and can tell you also that as long as I am still breathing it will still be mine. It is a really good lens and does the two, color and definition, so very well. I am just a Zeiss and, more generally, Sonnar fanboy. As in Orwell's "All animals are equal, some animals are more equal than other" this particular lens is a little "more equal".

 

[Sonnar Brian]

The 1950 J-3 above is the first lens I used on the M Monochrom, in 2012.

Wide-Open.

 

[boojum]

The 1950 J-3 above is the first lens I used on the M Monochrom, in 2012.

Wide-Open.

View attachment 4843898View attachment 4843899

Perfect for portraits. Matt Osborne just posted a vid on Sonnars, mostly the 85's, for portrait work. He had an old 50, too. Old Bertele did it right as the Sonnars are still tops.

 

[Slumgullion]

Sonnars are cool. Any of the 50/1.5 variants (from whichever manufacturer) can look nice. Personally, the look at 1.5 is often a little too unhinged for me. At f/2, now we are talking!

Ken at BeckenRidge Vineyards by Jim Fischer, on Flickr
Sony A7s, Jupiter-3 50mm f/1.5

That being said, the build quality of my J-3 leaves much to be desired. It honestly feels terrible, in-hand. The Canon 50mm f/1.5 Serenar is also quite reasonably priced and made to a much higher standard (chromed brass, can actually focus on a Leica without modifying, etc)

Jenny by Jim Fischer, on Flickr
Zeiss Ikon ZM, Canon Serenar 50mm f/1.5, Kodak Tri-X, Rodinal 1:50.

Valiant by Jim Fischer, on Flickr
Leica M5, Canon 50mm f/1.5 Serenar, Kodak T-Max 400, Xtol 1:1

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I suppose my J-3's come into the "Millenium Falcon" "She may not look like much, but I've made some special modifications". After decades of working on them, and picking up tricks like polishing down the inside of the Focus Ring using Fiber Optic Polishing Sheets, most are very smooth. I prefer the design of the Jupiter-3 focus mount over the original Zeiss LTM and ZK LTM focus mounts, the KMZ J-3 mount is especially good. Valdai mounts are all over the place, but I've learned to hack them into submission. Remember the Russian Astronaut in "Armageddon" beating the engine controls, "This is how we fix things in Russia"...

 

[Slumgullion]

I suppose my J-3's come into the "Millenium Falcon" "She may not look like much, but I've made some special modifications". After decades of working on them, and picking up tricks like polishing down the inside of the Focus Ring using Fiber Optic Polishing Sheets, most are very smooth. I prefer the design of the Jupiter-3 focus mount over the original Zeiss LTM and ZK LTM focus mounts, the KMZ J-3 mount is especially good.

hahaha. Fair enough.

For us non-Millenium-falcon-having folk, getting a chromed brass Serenar that is made with the Leica standard in mind makes a lot of sense (especially when it's at price parity with an aluminum J-3 that will require work).

 

[Sonnar Brian]

$70 and Sweat Equity...



Sonnar (a later v2) was like Wax Paper and the Mount is made from left overs. So Smooth... $70 and Sweat Equity.
The barrel of the Sonnar gives much more weight to the pre-war converts compared to the original Zeiss LTM Sonnars.

J-3's used to go for $50 or so. Those days- gone. Canon 50/1.5- I remember getting a pair for under $100 each, still have one- traded the second for a 50/1.4.
The 50/1.8 Serenars can be found for under $100, but you are taking a gamble on the inner elements cleaning up. I can't remember how I got 3 of them, but they all cleaned up.

 

[dexdog]

hahaha. Fair enough.

For us non-Millenium-falcon-having folk, getting a chromed brass Serenar that is made with the Leica standard in mind makes a lot of sense (especially when it's at price parity with an aluminum J-3 that will require work).

i have to concur with slumgullion on this issue. i had 6 canon 50/1.5 lenses at one point, all worked well straight outta box from eBay sellers, except for one lens with a bit of fungus. Definately a much less "adventurous" lens than many Jupiter-3s, which can be a crap shoot.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I have one Canon 50/1.5 that required more work than most. The rear group was missing, probably due to etched glass that affects a lot of Canon lenses.

So I used a spare rear triplet from a Nikkor 5cm F1.4 to replace it. RF coupled, had the get the spacing of the replacement rear group "just right".

Also learned the Shim from a J-8 can be used on the Nikkor 5cm F2 LTM... Good trick to know, picked up a Nikkor that was way off.

 

[dexdog]

Another old J-3 from 1951. This lens is in Kiev mount, matte finish aluminum. Note rough texture above focusing ring. I will probably transfer optical fixture to a 1958 LTM mount.

This lens has lived a hard life. Luckily, glass is in good condition, although the front lens element has a lot of tiny pockmarks like it was pelted with sand. Not too bad, though

Collar above aperture ring is brass