raid
Dad Photographer
It is good that there are many good repair people available to us. Just choose the person you are comfortable with.
Carl Zeiss LTM Finally! ~ I bought a "wartime" 1943 CZJ Sonnar T f1.5/50 in LTM
- Thread starter CameraQuest
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 638
- Views 222K
Carl Zeiss M39 lenses
capitalK
Warrior Poet :P
I only have 2 lenses right now... a ZM 35mm Biogon and a 1970's J-3 that was shimmed by Brian by the previous owner. I will admit that I haven't used the J-3 much since buying it because I like the 35mm focal length so much but this thread is making me think I need to shoot with the J-3 some more. It's funny, because I prefer the way the J-3 draws a scene.
That begs the question: is there anything in 35mm that will give me a similar look?
That begs the question: is there anything in 35mm that will give me a similar look?
Bingley
Veteran
Tom -- That's good news indeed on the lens!
Tom & Jim -- Thanks for your comments on the photo; yes, it was shot wide open (Canon 50/1.5, but you probably knew that).
Jim -- Like you, I'm left-eye dominant. I can't imagine learning to shoot w/ my right eye, so you have my sympathies if that's the ultimate outcome. But I hope your left eye heals up so you can back to shooting w/ it.
Tom & Jim -- Thanks for your comments on the photo; yes, it was shot wide open (Canon 50/1.5, but you probably knew that).
Jim -- Like you, I'm left-eye dominant. I can't imagine learning to shoot w/ my right eye, so you have my sympathies if that's the ultimate outcome. But I hope your left eye heals up so you can back to shooting w/ it.
Mr_Flibble
In Tabulas Argenteas Refero
Except or your Viewfinder problem it sounds like good news all the way! I'm quite interested to see what you can do with this lens.
Fuji still has the roll of film. The focus on the lens looked good out of the box. The mechanics of it were a mess. Only One of the set screws was in good shape.
Using it on the camera revealed that the tap for the set screw that holds the helical into the mount was too big,. This allowed play in it when using it on the camera. I used a little was of Jon Goodman's double-sided sticky tape in it to shore things up. I am a lens hacker.
Using it on the camera revealed that the tap for the set screw that holds the helical into the mount was too big,. This allowed play in it when using it on the camera. I used a little was of Jon Goodman's double-sided sticky tape in it to shore things up. I am a lens hacker.
I knew I should have flown the lens to Florida to test it.
raid
Dad Photographer
Brian,
I will carry your suitcase for you as your assistant!
I will carry your suitcase for you as your assistant!
Mr_Flibble
In Tabulas Argenteas Refero
Ghah....my Sunday pales in comparison. Shooting pictures of my friends playing in a beach volleyball tournament. Life is so unfair 😀
Well, we'll just have to wait for Tom's up close-up and wide open focus tests.
I'll post the ones that I used to check the lens.
Wide-Open at F1.5 on the Canon P
Nailed the focus on this one!
There was a reason that it was sold for parts only.
The solidified grease gummed things up fairly bad. Nothing that Ronsonol and a few minutes in the ultrasonic cleaner could not cure.
And the ultrasound and Silver Polish really got the tarnish off of the lens.
Dr. Tongues House of 3-D Focus tests...
I'll post the ones that I used to check the lens.
Wide-Open at F1.5 on the Canon P
Nailed the focus on this one!
There was a reason that it was sold for parts only.
The solidified grease gummed things up fairly bad. Nothing that Ronsonol and a few minutes in the ultrasonic cleaner could not cure.
And the ultrasound and Silver Polish really got the tarnish off of the lens.
Dr. Tongues House of 3-D Focus tests...
john neal
fallor ergo sum
Hmm, a sure-fire recipe for camera shake?
hans voralberg
Veteran
Ultra-sonic cleaner, what is that Brian, sounds very extreme for cleaning a lens !! Can I buy one lol
Mael
Established
Someone has sent me exactly the same lens for repair/cleaning. The internal component were absolutely identical. But I'm not convinced it is a true Zeiss lens. I think original Zeiss Sonnar in LTM, has a brass internal mount, and external aluminium rings. A french collector showed me one time an expertised authentic Sonnar LTM, and it was slightly different from yours and from the one I repaired. To me, your sample looks like very much early russian ZK lens for Fed/Zorki from 1949-1950. What gave me reasons to doubt with my sample was the lens and components were oxydized and showed wear, but the front engraved ring seemed just leaving the factory.
Early ZK have brass internal mount too from 1947-1948 (S/N000001 to approx. S/N 000700)
See this, copyright DVDtechcameras
Late ZK lenses has aluminium internal mount, like this one (S/N 000700 until Jupiter name appears and aperture ears disappeared)
I think every Sonnar LTM lens with aluminium internal mount must be considered a fake.
Anyway, it seems a very good performer, and this is what's important.😉
Early ZK have brass internal mount too from 1947-1948 (S/N000001 to approx. S/N 000700)
See this, copyright DVDtechcameras
Late ZK lenses has aluminium internal mount, like this one (S/N 000700 until Jupiter name appears and aperture ears disappeared)
I think every Sonnar LTM lens with aluminium internal mount must be considered a fake.
Anyway, it seems a very good performer, and this is what's important.😉
Last edited:
Mael
Established
Another thing is that true Zeiss Jena lens, according to the collector I just called, has no ears on aperture ring, aperture depth of field engravings do not have a comma separator but instead a point. The more I see pictures from this lens, the more it reminds me russian engravings.
Mael
Established
Perhaps, I am no ear's expert ! Archived S/N are one thing, but fakes another. The one I repaired was S/N 2724613. (BTW it has been stolen during french post shipping, if you see it some day...). I had the opportunity to compare it to the internal ZK LTM components I had and they were absolutely identical. S/N from the zeiss lens was reported on the internal barrel, but that is no proof, because engraving is easy to do.
Anyway, I do not want to offense you, just to share informations.
Maybe there were real Zeiss lens variations during manufacturing. The only thing I meant is that some russian early lenses shares absolutely the same internal and external construction, and that is surprising.
Anyway, I do not want to offense you, just to share informations.
Maybe there were real Zeiss lens variations during manufacturing. The only thing I meant is that some russian early lenses shares absolutely the same internal and external construction, and that is surprising.
>Another thing is that true Zeiss Jena lens, according to the collector I just called, has no
>ears on aperture ring, aperture depth of field engravings do not have a comma separator
>but instead a point. The more I see pictures from this lens, the more it reminds me russian
> engravings.
That information is wrong if he is referring to a Wartime Zeiss Lens in LTM. Your collector friend might be confusing a post-war CZJ 5cm F1.5 in LTM with a Wartime CZJ SOnnar in LTM I've seen photo's of the post-war lens in LTM, and it fits his description.
I've taken apart early J-3's with ears, and the optics barrel is different.
I've taken apart pre-war Contax mount lenses, wartime Contax mount lenses, Wartime Arriflex mount lenses, and wartime LTM lenses, and post-war Russian "copies".
http://ziforums.com/showthread.php?t=120
http://ziforums.com/showthread.php?t=143
http://ziforums.com/showthread.php?t=224
>ears on aperture ring, aperture depth of field engravings do not have a comma separator
>but instead a point. The more I see pictures from this lens, the more it reminds me russian
> engravings.
That information is wrong if he is referring to a Wartime Zeiss Lens in LTM. Your collector friend might be confusing a post-war CZJ 5cm F1.5 in LTM with a Wartime CZJ SOnnar in LTM I've seen photo's of the post-war lens in LTM, and it fits his description.
I've taken apart early J-3's with ears, and the optics barrel is different.
I've taken apart pre-war Contax mount lenses, wartime Contax mount lenses, Wartime Arriflex mount lenses, and wartime LTM lenses, and post-war Russian "copies".
http://ziforums.com/showthread.php?t=120
http://ziforums.com/showthread.php?t=143
http://ziforums.com/showthread.php?t=224
Last edited:
Oh- and the ultrasonic cleaner was $30 in Ebay, shipped. Works quite well. Fill with water, drop in the metal parts. My wife had me clean her gold and platinum rings with it as well.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
So, what do I recognise a wartime CZJ Sonnar lens by? Any characteristic they surely possess? Anything they certainly do not possess?
I'd like to own and shoot a lens like that one day, but the one I sold in the past might have been one to start with? That one had a black front rim, capital 'M' for meters and comma-separated aperture digits. No aperture ears, 1939 serial number. Might have been real after all? Sold it off for the price of a well-kept Jupiter-3... 🙁
I'd like to own and shoot a lens like that one day, but the one I sold in the past might have been one to start with? That one had a black front rim, capital 'M' for meters and comma-separated aperture digits. No aperture ears, 1939 serial number. Might have been real after all? Sold it off for the price of a well-kept Jupiter-3... 🙁
It would have a small "m" for meters if it was a genuine wartime lens.
On a real one: the only way to know for sure is to take it apart and look at the inner serial numbers. The SN on the lens ring matches a stamped number on the read module. There are set screws underneath the aperture ring holding the name plate in place, and a set screw holding the rear module in. The helical has matching numbers on its three sections.
My later German LTM Sonnar has a black nose, the earlier one has a chrome nose.
And to really confuse things, I modify Contax mount Sonnars to LTM by using a J-3 and J-8 focus mount for the F1.5 and F2 lenses, respectively.
On a real one: the only way to know for sure is to take it apart and look at the inner serial numbers. The SN on the lens ring matches a stamped number on the read module. There are set screws underneath the aperture ring holding the name plate in place, and a set screw holding the rear module in. The helical has matching numbers on its three sections.
My later German LTM Sonnar has a black nose, the earlier one has a chrome nose.
And to really confuse things, I modify Contax mount Sonnars to LTM by using a J-3 and J-8 focus mount for the F1.5 and F2 lenses, respectively.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
Brian, those wartime Sonnar focus pic tests look no different than your Sweeneyfied J-3 test pics.
My 1953 J-3 uses German Glass. The 1950's J-3's are 1st rate lenses. After that, they varied from lens to lens.
Test of many J-3's, from the best I've owned to one that I ended up using for parts. Even though it was mint.
http://ziforums.com/album.php?albumid=97
Test of many J-3's, from the best I've owned to one that I ended up using for parts. Even though it was mint.
http://ziforums.com/album.php?albumid=97
Similar threads
- Article
