Carl Zeiss LTM Finally! ~ I bought a "wartime" 1943 CZJ Sonnar T f1.5/50 in LTM

[johannielscom]

The price is way too high, and I saw this seller peddle some obvious fakes. If the s/n do not match, it may well be because it was a damaged lens put together from spare parts. Can be a dog, can be a good one.

Agree.

It will likely be good since the Zeiss tolerances were pretty tight. Or, shimming it to get it good is as easy as pie.

But, then you'd have an overpriced lens for shooting. While it still had no increased collectibility value, due to non-matching numbers. Like you said, it could have been mismatched any time, from manufacturing date until last week.

I guess somebody read here and didn't think it through all the way. Still, I'd like to see pictures from it, since I always like to see Sonnar shots!

 

[Jacques M.]

I agree too.

Really, I am a bit surprised... Someone says there are two Zeiss numbers and the lens is immediately sold... And if I was a liar?

That being said, we know well that heaps of Sonnar parts were sent in Russia just after the end of the war. This particular lens seems one of them: I would not say the same for all the Sonnars sold by Russian sellers...

Anyway, at that price...

Jacques.

 

[Yan Silis]

Hello, Guys! No chance to find real CZ Sonnar for LTM at this time, they all are hold in private collections and no one in his clear mind will not sell one, contrary, every serious collector is ready to buy new one, more'n'more. I have four but so love it that really think to buy the last in ebay (honkong's seller). Not so many still live, even in 40's it was the rarest thing near 400 ever made and for sure just dozens on hands now...

 

[Jacques M.]

Interesting.
Could you give the serial numbers for my data?

Thanks. Jacques.

 

[Yan Silis]

Interesting.
Could you give the serial numbers for my data?

Thanks. Jacques.

Sure.
#2725524
#2678131
#2790084
#2858562

My close friend, famous actor and also hungry camera collector has one genuine too, but interesting number: 3215798 - it is near 1949-1951's made... strange date, but absolutly not fake.

 

[Jacques M.]

Thanks Yan.
BTW, I have a Sonnar from the same batch of your 2858562. It's the s/n 2860843. Rebadged Jupiter 3 by KMZ in ... 1974!🙂

Jacques.

 

[xleic]

Fake?

Fake?

Hi

I'm new into this.

If I understand the only cheap option is to get an early Jupiter 3 / ZK lens.

What you think about this one? The barrel looks like an ZK Jupiter 3 from 1949-1950. But the lens element looks newer to me.

A fake, isn't it? Will such a thing be worth shooting or maybe a late black one would be even better?
Did they faked only the Date or the whole lens with cheap glass elements?

What do you think?

 

[raid]

There is no "fake" FSU lens. They were made in FSU, and they are sharp lenses when correctly matched/shimmed.

 

[johannielscom]

Yup,

Only two pages back in this thread I asked info on a similar lens that turned out to be a fake and not the transition lens I mistook it for...
It also was a '3K' marked '1947' with the tombstone sign between '19' and '47'...

 

[KoNickon]

Since you asked, I have a 5cm/1.5 that I bought locally maybe 3-4 years ago, no. 2854441. Brass nose with black paint largely worn off. All the fonts and periods and commas appear proper to a CZJ Sonnar, but I'm afraid to take it apart to confirm the serial number. I'd love to figure out how to shift the aperture ring since minimum aperture lines up with about f11 rather than f22.

The guy I bought it from had bought the lens and a IIIc from a coworker at a local aerospace manufacturer, who had brought them when he came from Germany ca. 1950.

 

[xleic]

Thanks all for your replies.

Yes, I should had read all the tread more carefully :bang:

Is the any way to estimate the production date of the glass, from apperture blades or color of coating? Are war CZJ or pre 1950 ZKs different from late Jupiter-3?

Would such "rebranded" ZK will be better than an late black Jupiter-3 lens?
Hope that the black ones are not faked too, repainting silver Jupiter-3...

I'm not an collector (and didn't got the "1947 ZK" yet). So what wold you suggest for the real CZJ 3D look?

 

[raid]

I found out today that my Contax mount J3 5cm 1.5 has German glass from 1943 based on the stamped number at the rear element, while the production of the lens was in 1951 as written on the front of the lens. The glass looks crystal clear. I am looking for a damaged ltm mount J3.

I also found out that my "ZK" labeled other lens also has German glass. It is not fake.

Both lenses have uncoated rear elements. I also own a Zeiss 50/2 in ltm via an Elmar barrel that someone created in the past. It is a sharp lens. I also have a Zeiss 50/1.5 LTM in a J3 barrel.

 

[johannielscom]

Astro-Berlin with a Jupiter barrel

Astro-Berlin with a Jupiter barrel

Astro-Berlin LSM 1.8/50mm with a Jupiter barrel, most pricey fake using a Jupiter lens I've seen so far:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Astro-Berli...69741051?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item3cc8f81bfb

Can't believe Kevin did not spot this himself...!? 😱

 

[S.H.]

Not "fake", it is just an optical cell put into a J3 mount. A fake would be a J3 disguised as another lens.

 

[johannielscom]

Not "fake", it is just an optical cell put into a J3 mount. A fake would be a J3 disguised as another lens.

Sure doesn't say that in the ad. Not a word about an optical cell put into another mount in there. Sounds like passing it off as genuine to me...

 

[Jan Pedersen]

Is the any way to estimate the production date of the glass, from apperture blades or color of coating? Are war CZJ or pre 1950 ZKs different from late Jupiter-3?

Would such "rebranded" ZK will be better than an late black Jupiter-3 lens?
Hope that the black ones are not faked too, repainting silver Jupiter-3...

I'm not an collector (and didn't got the "1947 ZK" yet). So what wold you suggest for the real CZJ 3D look?

The coating changed somewhere around 1956. Earlier than 56 the coating is faint blueish and after 56 it is more pronounced blue with a purple tint.
I have two J-3, one from 53 and one from 57 and it is easy to see the different coating color.
I also have two J-8, one from 52 and one from 58 and again the difference is easy to see.
I think there could be Zeiss glass in the two early models.

Apart from the coating difference there is also a different inscription to both meter scale and aperture on the J-3's. The numbers are more clean and defined on the early 53 model and the focusing ring is slightly wider.

 

[Pirate]

Since this seems to be the Sonnar room, I'd like to ask if anyone here can tell me if this looks like an original or a 'fake'. I just purchased it from the bay and posted about it in the 'clone' forum but I would like to get more opinions if possible:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Carl-Zeiss-...Ba%2FmXFuoXqu4AfmD2hg%3D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc

Thanks for any input!

 

[Pirate]

So what is the sharpest f/stop you guys have found for your lenses? I know the average f/stop for the best sharpness on a small format camera is f/5.6 and a medium format is f/22 and large format is f/22, so I'm curious as to what you all have found is the sharpest for your sonnar lenses.

 

[johannielscom]

Pirate,

Id' say you did pretty good, seems a totally legit transition lens to me.

276 series was the last true wartime series, 279 was early post-war, 284 and 285 were bigger series when the Russians had completely taken over Zeiss plants and production. IIRC.

Sample variation aside, these LTM Sonnar lenses (due to being a Contax design that was carried over to a Leitz lens mount) always have mild focusing shift when used with factory specs and wide open. So, stop 1.5 at minimum focus distance usually gets you a plane of sharpness several centimters short of what you focused at. Not a biggie if you know how many centimeters that will be (just lean in a bit), and if you back up to 2 mtrs the increased DOF will cover it. Also, stop down to 2.8 and it's covered too.

Sharpness is best at 5.6 and even across the image. Some lenses are best at 8.0.
At 11 you'll still be fine, at 16 the image again suffers in the sharp department.

It is possible to shim the lens so that it'll be spot-on at 1.5 and increased distance and DOF will cover focus shift at longer distances, but personally I wouldn't bother. Just get the hang of shooting it and remember how much to hang in when shooting up close and wide open, and you'll be fine.

All in all, great lenses and often great prices too.

Have fun shooting it!

 

[Pirate]

Thanks for the info, it's a releif to here that it looks genuine.

Are there any hoods for these?