Looking forward to it, Johan!
I spent the morning hacking an "odd-ball" 5cm F1.5 Sonnar "T" in Contax mount, stange "276xxxx" block serial number. It was a mess, but was only $80 on Ebay. The rear optics are very different from any other Sonnar that I have seen, smaller in diameter and a different fixture from the full-frame wartime lenses, but much larger than the Arriflex version which has a truncated rear optic. The curvatures of the optical surfaces and threads match the wartime lenses. Anyway, all cleared up EXCEPT the oddball rear module which is badly hazed over. Ended up spending the morning filing down a J-3 rear optics fixture to go into the lens: the threads are same diameter, but in a different location. Past the threads, the fixture had a band that prevented it from screwing in.
I'll get some shots of the oddball rear fixture, and post some shots with the lens. I tried it out on the EP2 and it works. Checked distance scale vs RF using a TTL viewer, and it looks good.
After taking apart a dozen "oddball" lenses that do not fit into the pre-war, wartime, or post-war "standard" production lenses- my personal belief is these lenses are "one-offs" made before the regular production line could be restored after the war. This lens was bought from a Ebay seller in the US. No internal serial numbers. The COntax mount itself looks identical to the post-war East German CZJ Sonnar lenses. It does not look like an early J-3 Contax/Kiev mount.
I'll get some shots of the oddball rear fixture, and post some shots with the lens. I tried it out on the EP2 and it works. Checked distance scale vs RF using a TTL viewer, and it looks good.
After taking apart a dozen "oddball" lenses that do not fit into the pre-war, wartime, or post-war "standard" production lenses- my personal belief is these lenses are "one-offs" made before the regular production line could be restored after the war. This lens was bought from a Ebay seller in the US. No internal serial numbers. The COntax mount itself looks identical to the post-war East German CZJ Sonnar lenses. It does not look like an early J-3 Contax/Kiev mount.
This Sonnar has a different rear optic and a well machined fixture made for it. I would put it at a transition lens between wartime Sonnar and Post-war CZJ Sonnar.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
As promised (and just posted in the Show your LTM thread as well):
Both 1943 Sonnar T lenses and their 1939 Elmar 90/4.0 best friend have finally teamed up with the 1942 IIIc Stepper that LeicaTom sold me. Youxin Ye brought it back to perfect working condition and fitted GripTac on it. HuubL's lyre-shaped VIOOH completes this kit.
I'd like a nice 1930's-1945 35mm lens to go with it, but that will be a summertime acquisition since I broke the bank over this kit.
Both 1943 Sonnar T lenses and their 1939 Elmar 90/4.0 best friend have finally teamed up with the 1942 IIIc Stepper that LeicaTom sold me. Youxin Ye brought it back to perfect working condition and fitted GripTac on it. HuubL's lyre-shaped VIOOH completes this kit.
I'd like a nice 1930's-1945 35mm lens to go with it, but that will be a summertime acquisition since I broke the bank over this kit.
Very nice outfit. That Sonnar should feel right at home.
millus1974
Film Shooter...Forever!!
I'm still looking for a sonnar of course, but the more information i read the more confusion i have about the LTM version...
Reading information on this site:
http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Zeiss_Fakes.html
most if not all the Sonnar 50\1.5 in LTM i have seen in the last year were faked version in J3 barrel...so i ask to the expert...should i follow these description in the search or are there different opinions?
I was watching this on the Bay:
http://cgi.ebay.it/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=220715041185&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT
but i wasn't shure about front lettering and also the barrel was full of detail described as a fake...but i repeat i'm not shure if they are all correct (like the ears on the diaphragm ring...some people tell me they should be there, other than the original one is without "ears")
I'm a user so i thing in the end i will buy some Contax version of the lens and an Amedeo Adapter, but i'm just curious to understand if there is a correct way to avoid fake just looking at some picure.
What about this one?
http://cgi.ebay.it/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=160514944903&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT
The BIG "M" on the barrel should be from a jupiter...did i understand well the lesson?
Let me know
Thanks
Emiliano
Reading information on this site:
http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Zeiss_Fakes.html
most if not all the Sonnar 50\1.5 in LTM i have seen in the last year were faked version in J3 barrel...so i ask to the expert...should i follow these description in the search or are there different opinions?
I was watching this on the Bay:
http://cgi.ebay.it/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=220715041185&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT
but i wasn't shure about front lettering and also the barrel was full of detail described as a fake...but i repeat i'm not shure if they are all correct (like the ears on the diaphragm ring...some people tell me they should be there, other than the original one is without "ears")
I'm a user so i thing in the end i will buy some Contax version of the lens and an Amedeo Adapter, but i'm just curious to understand if there is a correct way to avoid fake just looking at some picure.
What about this one?
http://cgi.ebay.it/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=160514944903&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT
The BIG "M" on the barrel should be from a jupiter...did i understand well the lesson?
Let me know
Thanks
Emiliano
It's not as easy to tell a fake as one might think.
The Second lens shown: it is in a Jupiter-3 mount, but probably the optics module is from a Contax mount lens and is transplanted into the J-3.
First one- probably a "transition lens" cobbled together from parts as the factories were rebuilding.
The Second lens shown: it is in a Jupiter-3 mount, but probably the optics module is from a Contax mount lens and is transplanted into the J-3.
First one- probably a "transition lens" cobbled together from parts as the factories were rebuilding.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Emiliano,
I had a 1952 Jupiter-3 lens that without doubt had original Carl Zeiss optical blcok fitted (unscrewed it and it had part of a Zeiss number on it) and it was a terrifec performer. I sold it to a fellow RFF member in Iceland who could not believe its quality on his M8...
The front optical block and name ring of the last one of your little lens list seem completely original CZJ to me. Price is quite good too and I would not hesitate to get it myself.
Best part (maybe Brian can confirm?) is that both the 1952 Jupiter-3 with CZJ optics and my CZJ Sonnar T lens from 1943, never exhibited any front focus. Not like the completely Russian Jupiter-3 lenses, which do show front focus when shot close up.
IMHO a good CZJ lens is the best you can get in Sonnar design, optically it almost matches a modern Sonnar, but in ergonomics it wins due to no click stops vs. the 2/3 click stops of a modern Sonnar, and due to being LTM!
I had a 1952 Jupiter-3 lens that without doubt had original Carl Zeiss optical blcok fitted (unscrewed it and it had part of a Zeiss number on it) and it was a terrifec performer. I sold it to a fellow RFF member in Iceland who could not believe its quality on his M8...
The front optical block and name ring of the last one of your little lens list seem completely original CZJ to me. Price is quite good too and I would not hesitate to get it myself.
Best part (maybe Brian can confirm?) is that both the 1952 Jupiter-3 with CZJ optics and my CZJ Sonnar T lens from 1943, never exhibited any front focus. Not like the completely Russian Jupiter-3 lenses, which do show front focus when shot close up.
IMHO a good CZJ lens is the best you can get in Sonnar design, optically it almost matches a modern Sonnar, but in ergonomics it wins due to no click stops vs. the 2/3 click stops of a modern Sonnar, and due to being LTM!
It is possible to shorten the focal length of a Sonnar "ever so slightly" to bring it closer to the Leica standard 51.6mm. Basically, move the rear group in slightly. My 272 block and 285 block CZJ's in Leica mount are good from close-up to infinity. Both required some work when I got them: the 272 was misassembled with a loose group and the 285 was not operational.
SO: whether cherry-picked or modified, the original Leica Mount Zeiss lenses work better with a Leica than do most of the adjusted J-3's. My ZK-Sonnar 5cm F1.5 has a Zeiss optical block, but reuired a shim for use close-up and wide-open. Same with the four 1953 J-3's that I have worked on.
SO: whether cherry-picked or modified, the original Leica Mount Zeiss lenses work better with a Leica than do most of the adjusted J-3's. My ZK-Sonnar 5cm F1.5 has a Zeiss optical block, but reuired a shim for use close-up and wide-open. Same with the four 1953 J-3's that I have worked on.
squinza
Established
A question: yesterday I was trying some bokeh shots with the sonnar and a strobe with a Christmas tree as background. The result follows:
Turuzzu meets the Sonnar by Il conte di Luna, on Flickr
OK, it's sharp and focused perfectly, but what are those bubbles in the bokeh?!?!?
Turuzzu meets the Sonnar by Il conte di Luna, on Flickr
OK, it's sharp and focused perfectly, but what are those bubbles in the bokeh?!?!?
The Sonnars from the 1930s and 1940s tend to have an "Individual Personality". I have several, and have shot with many. "Each is a little different". Yours appears to have more over-correction for spherical aberration than "usual", but also makes it sharp when used wide-open.
Last edited:
A pre-war Uncoated Sonnar 5cm F1.5 is on my M8 more than all of the other lenses combined. The pre-war lenses are in a heavy brass barrel, much more substantial than the wartime alloy used. Even in a J-3 mount, they have some real heft. And the uncoated optics on the M8... I just like the color that it produces.
This lens just arrived today. Glass is in super shape, the focusing and aperture are a bit stiff but usable. Gonna be very careful with the aperture motion until it can be professionally cleaned; there is some gummy oil on the blades. Despite what the auction says...
Surprisingly light! Never had an aluminum barrel lens before...
Will put it on my NEX tomorrow and do some comparisons with the Opton Sonnar.
Surprisingly light! Never had an aluminum barrel lens before...
Will put it on my NEX tomorrow and do some comparisons with the Opton Sonnar.
Last edited by a moderator:
RF_newbie
RF_newbie John
Thanks John, I thought you'd like my post. 
When you have a professional clean the Sonnar: Do not try to remove the front name ring until removing the aperture ring entirely.
1) Remove optics module from mount;
2) Take off variable stand-off ring
3) take off link screw between aperture mechanism and the aperture ring;
4) Unscrew the aperture ring to reveal a hidden set screw. Remove it before attempting to take off the name ring.
5) Also- see the set screw for taling out rear group after removing optics module from the focus mount.
http://www.ziforums.com/showthread.php?t=120
http://www.ziforums.com/showthread.php?t=143
1) Remove optics module from mount;
2) Take off variable stand-off ring
3) take off link screw between aperture mechanism and the aperture ring;
4) Unscrew the aperture ring to reveal a hidden set screw. Remove it before attempting to take off the name ring.
5) Also- see the set screw for taling out rear group after removing optics module from the focus mount.
http://www.ziforums.com/showthread.php?t=120
http://www.ziforums.com/showthread.php?t=143
Thanks for the tips, Brian. It's usable as-is, albeit focus is a bit slow. It was REALLY slow right out of the shipping box due to cold weather.
I think I'll wait a bit before sending it out for service. It seems like these aluminum parts would be easy to break or strip threads...
I think I'll wait a bit before sending it out for service. It seems like these aluminum parts would be easy to break or strip threads...
