e_p_c
Newbie
I don’t suppose it’s m39/Ltm? The rotating front on the contax RF mount is a problem for me. The Leica version is fixed and hunting far a wide for one.
Found a "wartime" 135mm f4.0 Carl Zeiss Sonnar in LTM!
- Thread starter johannielscom
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 34
- Views 7K
analoged
Well-known
Yes it's LTM, I'll have to pull it out and let you know! Been awhile since I last used it! Actually received an LTM Elmar 135 and thought about comparing!
caninemoshpit
Member
Johannielscom died years ago here but caninemoshpit lives. And I happened to stumble onto RFF just tonight, for the first time in several months I reckon...
I sold that lens long time ago and have since bought another one. Those 135mm wartime Sonnar lenses have become slightly less cheap, let's keep it at that.
And no, I'm not selling this one. And yes, the aperture mark and name plate and filter thread remain stationary when you focus the lens.
If it's filters you want to use, just get any SLR with a 135mm lens, it surely isn't that you nééd a Sonnar design 135mm lens to shoot your stuff, haha.
splitimageview
Administrator
Good to see the reincarnation. 😆
e_p_c
Newbie
Fab. I’d been keen to see the comparison if it happens. I’m not so familiar with the Elmar’s but was these post war CZJs lenses are on my radar. Their Sonnar charm, subtle coating (flaring opportunities), and extreme blade count (circular highlight perfection) are an ideal for my video work. Truth be known - I clamp an anamorphic adapter on the front of my primes, hence the need for constant vertical alignment and LTM mount. All going well I’m interested buying it. Check you DMs 🙂
e_p_c
Newbie
RIP Johannielscom and his lens. Pleased you’ve both reincarnated into new forms. I agree that the “need” for 135 wartime glass is not crucial to anyones existence, but desire is a strong force! Ha! Do you have any photos taken with either one you can share?
analoged
Well-known
Leica SL 601, Leica M-L adapter, Sonnar 13.5cm f4, LTM Elmar f4
analoged
Well-known
Sonnar close focus wide open
analoged
Well-known
Bokeh, close focus wide open
analoged
Well-known
Bokeh, close focus f8
analoged
Well-known
Infinity, wide open
analoged
Well-known
Infinity, f8
analoged
Well-known
Not super scientific, all handheld but the Sonnar is sharp! Only mostly lacks contrast to the Elmar. Another negative for the Sonnar is close focus only 2.5m, to Elmar 1.5m. You are correct front doesn't rotate with focus.
e_p_c
Newbie
Thanks for sharing analoged. The Sonnar is indeed sharp (more so than the 135 triotar I’m looking to replace), and the bokeh very pleasant even stopped down. The 2.5M MFD is extreme! Do you know why this is the case with the Leica mount variant? From what I gather the contaxt-RF mounts have a much more usable 1.5M?
TenEleven
Well-known
A lot of the war-time LTM lenses have more strict near focal distances than their Contax mount equivalents. This is true for the 85/2 LTM as well where the NFD is 1.8 meters. There are transition and one off lenses that focus closer, but as designed by CZJ 1.8 meter was the limit. Even the 5cm Sonnars "only" go down to the LTM spec of 1 meter VS a sliver under 0.9meters as per the Contax.
One reason may be simply have been that they did not trust the Barnack Leica (which you have to remember was the only game in town then, no M system or even the later Barnacks) rangefinder to be accurate enough, or perhaps they simply wanted a moat between their rivals system (which Nazi high command forced them to make lenses for) and their own.
There is of course the counter-argument of the 28/8 which I also have - which has rangefinder coupling on the Leica, but not on the Contax.
There are also mechanical reasons. On my 135/4 LTM Wartime Sonnar the helical already runs near the length of the lens. Extending the NFD out would have required to either change the construction or to lengthen the lens body, either of which may have been deemed unacceptable. The 85/2 Sonnar had a bit more leeway.
We can see this in the Jupiter-11 which unlike the Jupiter-9 does not extend the NFD, which stays at 2.5 meters.
The Contax, with its helical and linkage inside of the body is not affected by this.
An external mount lenses just needs its own helical - so you can use all the space which would be otherwise required for the intermediate translation helical to 51.6mm. Some hacked lenses circumvent that by using a sloped cam.
One reason may be simply have been that they did not trust the Barnack Leica (which you have to remember was the only game in town then, no M system or even the later Barnacks) rangefinder to be accurate enough, or perhaps they simply wanted a moat between their rivals system (which Nazi high command forced them to make lenses for) and their own.
There is of course the counter-argument of the 28/8 which I also have - which has rangefinder coupling on the Leica, but not on the Contax.
There are also mechanical reasons. On my 135/4 LTM Wartime Sonnar the helical already runs near the length of the lens. Extending the NFD out would have required to either change the construction or to lengthen the lens body, either of which may have been deemed unacceptable. The 85/2 Sonnar had a bit more leeway.
We can see this in the Jupiter-11 which unlike the Jupiter-9 does not extend the NFD, which stays at 2.5 meters.
The Contax, with its helical and linkage inside of the body is not affected by this.
An external mount lenses just needs its own helical - so you can use all the space which would be otherwise required for the intermediate translation helical to 51.6mm. Some hacked lenses circumvent that by using a sloped cam.