Help CZJSonnar 50/1.5 or copy?

R

ray_g

Guest
This came in the mail yesterday. I have been inspecting it closely, and while it is a beautiful lens, I am starting to think it is a soviet copy. I have gone through Taunusreiter's page on identifying contax copies, but am still unsure.

The seller has offered a 10 day return. I figured I would run it by you guys...

BTW, this lens is in Contax mount. The lens is uncoated.

Thanks,

ray
 
Ray, it looks pretty original from the shots you posted. What makes you think it might be a copy? If it was a Soviet copy it would probably be coated.

Regards, Paul C.
 
Quote from Henry Scherer: " If you look at the engraved aperture line you will see a small
triangle at the bottom of it. You will see the triangle is very precise and
the edges are sharp. In a Russian mount the triangle will ususally be
misshapen with the edges being very round. You will also see it in the
little rectangular tab that mounts with the lens spring catch on the camera.
On the German mount that tab will have a little engraved spot into which
shiny red paint is precisely placed. On the Russian mount that tab will
ususally not have an engraved spot and the paint will simply be applied to
cover the entire tab top and it is usually dull. If you look at the surface
of the aperture ring you will see how the finely machined surface is
irridescent because the lines have been so finely cut. This will apply to
the mount also. In the Russian mount the machining lines are usually
somewhat fine, but not fine enough or regularly cut enough to diffract light
and do not produce an irridescence. "
These differences are, obviously enough, much easier to spot when you have one of each lens. I only have the post war Sonnar so I can't post comparison shots.
 
I believe that yours is a copy. If you look at the aperature numbers they read 5,6
on original lens they read 5.6. Original lens use . instead of , for the decimal place.

I have both the original and the copy for what it is worth.

Wayne
 
Can you see the last few digits of the serial number engraved on the lens optical unit itself (at the end that goes on the body)?

henry
 
Paul, I confess I do not know that much about Contax RF lenses. I have been going mostly by this page:

http://translate.google.com/transla.../search?q=taunusreiter+canon+p&hl=en&lr=&sa=G

As Wayne mentioned, the use of the "," rather than a "." is one. The "ears" on the aperture ring (photo 3) are supposedly seen only on the russian copies, or so I am told. Also, the lens is uncoated. The seller says this is probably a pre-war lens. However, it appears to be made of alloy rather than brass.

But as I said, I am not even a novice at this, and I'd hate to send it back by mistake.
 
Wayne R. Scott said:
I believe that yours is a copy. If you look at the aperature numbers they read 5,6
on original lens they read 5.6. Original lens use . instead of , for the decimal place.

I have both the original and the copy for what it is worth.

Wayne
Click to expand...

Good catch, I would not have thought about that. The Europeans' adoption of the "," for fractions rather than "." is relatively recent. I'm no expert, but based on that alone I'd say that that is not an old lens (and hence all the conclusions that follow)
 
I am by no means an expert, but the serial number clearly places this lens prior to the war and therefore it not being coated would be appropiate.
 
Henry is correct. Pre-war Sonnars have the last 6 digits engraved on the rear end (the black-edged ring around the rear element.

cacs88 said:
Can you see the last few digits of the serial number engraved on the lens optical unit itself (at the end that goes on the body)?

henry
Click to expand...
 
I believe you are incorrect on this. The pre-WWII lenses use the comma instead of the period to denote the decimal, both on the lens bezel (hence "1: 1,5") & the aperture ring. It is the post-WWII W. German Sonnars (Zeiss-Opton & Carl Zeiss) that use the decimal point period (the E. German CZJ lenses continued w/the pre-WWII practice of using the comma). Also, the tabs ("ears") on the aperture ring are also typical of pre-WWII Sonnars. FWIW, I have about 10 genuine 5cm Sonnars from the 1930s-40s, as well as other pre & post-WWII Carl Zeiss Jena, Zeiss-Opton, & Carl Zeiss lenses in Contax mount.

From the pix you've posted, I believe you have a genuine Sonnar. I agree w/Paul Connet that if it was a Soviet/Ukrainian copy, it would be coated.

Wayne R. Scott said:
I believe that yours is a copy. If you look at the aperature numbers they read 5,6
on original lens they read 5.6. Original lens use . instead of , for the decimal place.

I have both the original and the copy for what it is worth.

Wayne
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I stand corrected. I do have a Post war 1.5 Sonnar and not the Pre-war.

I do have a question though. Have you shot any film with it yet? If it takes great pictures and you do not have a ton of money wrapped up in it does it really matter? Or are you working on getting a collection? Some people I know would love to get an uncoated lens to get that "look" to their pictures.

Wayne
 
Wayne R. Scott said:
Some people I know would love to get an uncoated lens to get that "look" to their pictures.

Wayne
Click to expand...

I'd be one of them. I love the "look" from my uncoated pre-war Sonnars, especially the 50/2 collapsable. I'd love someday to get ahold of an uncoated 50/1.5 that I could afford.

As a reference point, both of my prewar Sonnars use , on the aperture ring (50/2 & 135/4).

William
 
It is a little strange if the lens barrel is made of alloy rather than heavy chromed brass, as the serial # indicates that it was made around 1937, before rearmament & wartime shortages prompted the shift to alloy.

ray_g said:
The "ears" on the aperture ring (photo 3) are supposedly seen only on the russian copies, or so I am told. Also, the lens is uncoated. The seller says this is probably a pre-war lens. However, it appears to be made of alloy rather than brass.

But as I said, I am not even a novice at this, and I'd hate to send it back by mistake.
Click to expand...
 
Here are some pictures of the rear. Yes, the last 6 digits of the serial number are engraved on the black portion. Does that mean it is not a fake?

Rover, I read somewhere that the pre-war (uncoated) lenses were supposed to have cases made with brass, rather than alloy as in the postwar models. I am not sure how accurate this is, or if it applies to the Jena lenses.

Wayne, I would prefer the uncoated version myself. However, if this were a copy, I would probably be better served with a J3 which can be bought at a lower price. I have not shot with the lens. It just came yesterday. Perhaps this weekend. For those who have both, is there any difference optically? If none, what is a fair price for a copy? If it shoots well, I may offer to keep the lens, if he will give me a partial refund...

Thanks for all the responses so far.
 
I dug out my black barrel 135mm Sonnar that is uncoated and it does indeed use "," instead of ".". The same is true of my Ziess Biogon 21mm, it uses ",".

More proof that I was wrong in my original statement.

Wayne
 
The presence of the 6 digits is pretty much as close as you're going to get to definitive proof that you have a genuine pre-WWII Sonnar. The Soviet/Ukrainian copies (made from Jupiters) that I'm aware of have all been of the wartime Leica Thread Mount (LTM) 5cm/1.5 & 5cm/2 Sonnars, which are rare & valuable (Cartier-Bresson used a 5cm/1.5) & coated (which makes it easier for the fakers to make counterfeits from Jupiters). As I posted earlier, most (but not all) pre-WWII lenses have heavy brass & chrome barrels. At some point in the late 1930s & through the war, CZJ was forced to switch to other alloys as brass & chrome were needed for the arms industry; after the war, the E. German Jena lenses continued the practice.

ray_g said:
Here are some pictures of the rear. Yes, the last 6 digits of the serial number are engraved on the black portion. Does that mean it is not a fake?

Rover, I read somewhere that the pre-war (uncoated) lenses were supposed to have cases made with brass, rather than alloy as in the postwar models. I am not sure how accurate this is, or if it applies to the Jena lenses.

Thanks for all the responses so far.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
CZJ Sonnar 50/1.5 or copy

CZJ Sonnar 50/1.5 or copy

I think the lens is a legitimate pre-war Sonnar. I have a couple of 50/1.5s that have been overhauled by Henry Scherer, and they look very similar to the one you have, down to the use of "," rather than a "." and the last six digits of the serial number engraved on the base.
 
As you might expect, the uncoated lenses are less contrasty & more susceptible to flare than both the coated Sonnars (E. & W. German) & Jupiter copies (also coated), though they are still more contrasty & flare-resistant than the Leitz Xenon & other contemporary competing lenses because they have fewer elements/glass-to-air surfaces. The uncoated lenses are capable of great results as long as you avoid flarey lighting conditions (e.g., no shooting into the sun).

You can see some recent examples of my pix taken w/uncoated 5cm Sonnars here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/furcafe/tags/czj5cm2sonnarrigidc1936/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/furcafe/tags/czj5cm2sonnarcollapsiblec193637/

The main risk you run w/the Jupiters is that the quality control is "variable" & you can easily get 1 that is improperly assembled & hence won't focus properly; perhaps the guys on the Russian RF section can advise you on how to get a good 1.

ray_g said:
For those who have both, is there any difference optically? If none, what is a fair price for a copy? If it shoots well, I may offer to keep the lens, if he will give me a partial refund...

Thanks for all the responses so far.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Well, I learn something new every day. Once I get my Summarit back in the mail (still anxiously waiting) I should check into that. I have no old gear with decimal notations. I guess I could be a 24-hr "news" media commentator; all speculation and fact-checking later. :bang:
 
Hmmm... I thought the J3 also came uncoated. Shows what little I know.

Well, it looks like this will be a keeper. Good thing I asked before I contacted the seller and made an a** of myself, not to mention lose a good lens (pending some testing).

Thanks again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom