S.H.
Picture taker
Looks right to me too (big screw, small "m"). Here is a pic of the back :
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Tom,
if I'm not mistaking this rear element collar is different from both yours and the oversized Jupiter-12 rear element?
Quite interesting!
if I'm not mistaking this rear element collar is different from both yours and the oversized Jupiter-12 rear element?
Quite interesting!
S.H.
Picture taker
I just tried to mount it on my M8 : no fit (I did not try too hard). Probably because of the metal ring.
No problem on my M4 and III.
No problem on my M4 and III.
-Nash-
Established
I've spotted a LTM Sonnar for £400 over here -
http://vintageclassiccamera.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=4&products_id=3716
I'd love to own it, but at £400? Hmm.
http://vintageclassiccamera.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=4&products_id=3716
I'd love to own it, but at £400? Hmm.
siracusa
Well-known
And speaking of overpriced Soviet Sonnars, a J3 just went on UK eBay for £261. It was an early ZK so I guess likely to have Zeiss glass. Price still seems a tad steep for a J3 unless I'm out of touch.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
eBay item nr please? Interesting!
siracusa
Well-known
390503311920
Lens has an interesting early s/n too.
Lens has an interesting early s/n too.
S.H.
Picture taker
390503311920
It should have 1945 or 46 Zeiss glass in it, it is an early ZK. Much rarer than a J3. I bid but it went higher.
I have found not long ago a J3 in Kiev mount, it has Zeiss lenses produced December 1945 and delivered without mount (in Kiev mount, it is easy to spot the Zeiss s/n on the back ring of the lens
). This was item 170937152821. Almost unused, even the aperture ring is almost frozen. Wide open as good as a Sonnar.
It should have 1945 or 46 Zeiss glass in it, it is an early ZK. Much rarer than a J3. I bid but it went higher.
I have found not long ago a J3 in Kiev mount, it has Zeiss lenses produced December 1945 and delivered without mount (in Kiev mount, it is easy to spot the Zeiss s/n on the back ring of the lens
). This was item 170937152821. Almost unused, even the aperture ring is almost frozen. Wide open as good as a Sonnar.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Agreed. It's less than 150 numbers away from my 1947 2.0/50mm ZK Sonnar.
Price is steep but to Russian collectors these lenses are likely worth more than the original Zeiss lenses due to Russian provenance. It only takes two to drive the price up!
dexdog
Veteran
I considered bidding on this but was unsure of the serial number. Why does a 1950 lens start with 00 instead of 50? My 1949 ZK lenses have serial numbers that start with 49. I agree that it appears to be early production due to the ears on the aperture ring.
siracusa
Well-known
It's not a 1950 lens - its one of the earlier ZK lenses.
dexdog
Veteran
I am familiar with the format of the early ZK lenses, i.e., the serial number is separate from the production year, which is given as 19-rhombus symbol-48 for a 1948 year lens. I find it curious that the seller did not mention this in the description, or show a picture of the rhombus symbol, and also called the lens a J-3, when the ZK marking is clearly seen on the beauty ring. I wasn't quite sure what to make of it, so did not bid once the price climbed.
S.H.
Picture taker
HU:
http://www.ebay.de/itm//390512443112
Looks like a 1941 Zeiss lens in a regular J9 barrel, no? I have one with a close s/n but in a early/prototype-looking barrel. This production batch was intended for Contax and Arriflex.
http://www.ebay.de/itm//390512443112
Looks like a 1941 Zeiss lens in a regular J9 barrel, no? I have one with a close s/n but in a early/prototype-looking barrel. This production batch was intended for Contax and Arriflex.
dexdog
Veteran
yes, I agree that it looks like an early J-9 barrel. I saw this one and ran the serial number in Thiele's book.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Interesting!
this lens has the aperture mark about 3/4th of an inch left of the distance mark, like mine has!
Mine is agreeing 100% with a Leica in focusing, something that 'normal' Jupiter-9s don't do.
Leica standard lenses are 51,6mm, the FED and Zorki-designated lenses are 52,4mm.
So, a Leica standard lens is in fact 0,9847 focal length of the FED and Zorki standard (51,6 divided by 52,4 equals 0,9847). To make a Jupiter-9 agree with Leica focusing, it would have to be 'shortened' to 83,7mm (85 times 0,9847). For which there is no room in the Jupiter-9 barrel, unless this is done at the manufacturing plant. There it's a simple procedure to extend the thread for about an inch more.
My Jupiter-9 came with a Carl Zeiss optical cell in it (284xxxx serial number) and a passport from the factory saying it was corrected to 83,7mm. To achieve this, the optical cell threads further into the lens barrel than with a 'normal' Jupiter-9.
When it threads further into the barrel, the aperture mark goes past the focusing mark, like this lens has.
As a result I'm pretty confident that this will be focusing correct on a Leica! Mine is, at least...
this lens has the aperture mark about 3/4th of an inch left of the distance mark, like mine has!
Mine is agreeing 100% with a Leica in focusing, something that 'normal' Jupiter-9s don't do.
Leica standard lenses are 51,6mm, the FED and Zorki-designated lenses are 52,4mm.
So, a Leica standard lens is in fact 0,9847 focal length of the FED and Zorki standard (51,6 divided by 52,4 equals 0,9847). To make a Jupiter-9 agree with Leica focusing, it would have to be 'shortened' to 83,7mm (85 times 0,9847). For which there is no room in the Jupiter-9 barrel, unless this is done at the manufacturing plant. There it's a simple procedure to extend the thread for about an inch more.
My Jupiter-9 came with a Carl Zeiss optical cell in it (284xxxx serial number) and a passport from the factory saying it was corrected to 83,7mm. To achieve this, the optical cell threads further into the lens barrel than with a 'normal' Jupiter-9.
When it threads further into the barrel, the aperture mark goes past the focusing mark, like this lens has.
As a result I'm pretty confident that this will be focusing correct on a Leica! Mine is, at least...
S.H.
Picture taker
Mine is okay too. I think those early converted lenses were meant to be used on (captured?) Leica bodies rather than Zorkis.
S.H.
Picture taker
Well, that should end my quest for LTM Zeiss glass :
This Sonnar 1.5 should be from a batch completed in 11/1942, in Contax mount. The conversion is well made, with neat engravings (focus up to 0.8m, "1m" marking with small m).
Particularities : no screw anywhere on the barrel unlike the postwar ones, and unlike any Jupiter the RF cam is screwed in the mount. Never saw one like this.
It has to be recalibrated as is was recently greased but probably put together with bad shims (or perhaps none at all). Glass is clean, yay
This Sonnar 1.5 should be from a batch completed in 11/1942, in Contax mount. The conversion is well made, with neat engravings (focus up to 0.8m, "1m" marking with small m).
Particularities : no screw anywhere on the barrel unlike the postwar ones, and unlike any Jupiter the RF cam is screwed in the mount. Never saw one like this.
It has to be recalibrated as is was recently greased but probably put together with bad shims (or perhaps none at all). Glass is clean, yay
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Planning to sell my Leica-agreeing Jupiter-9 with Carl Zeiss optics, and the non-original 1947 2.0/50mm ZK Sonnar...
Need to cover some expenses and those lenses get the least use in my pack, they don't make me any money...
Keep an eye on the classifieds if you're interested in any one of those...
/Shameless plug mode off :angel:
Need to cover some expenses and those lenses get the least use in my pack, they don't make me any money...
Keep an eye on the classifieds if you're interested in any one of those...
/Shameless plug mode off :angel:
S.H.
Picture taker
Interesting, what's this? "non original" meaning ...?
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Means it's a 1947 lens and (according to posts in this thread) it should be a collapsible when it's that early but it is set into the mount of an early 1950s rigid Jupiter-8 lens. It's got numerous tiny coating scratches but the glass is okay. However, it's a true rarity (numbered N000918).
I shot some pictures just now (artificial light and I'm no genius with that) and will post it shortly. Also the 2.0/85mm 1951 Jupiter-9 and some vintage expired film.