How to identify a real sonnar 50/1.5?

ericzhu

Established
Local time
3:39 PM
Joined
Aug 12, 2005
Messages
182
Hope to add a f1.5 to my iiif. A little interested in Carl Zeiss Sonnar 50/1.5, but seems lots of fake ones from Russia.

From this website: http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Zeiss_Fakes.html , I am a little puzzled, it is said that no black front ring, no ears on the f/stop ring is identified a true one.

any further info for reference such as the serial no., etc.?

Thanks.
 
You should do a search on the various fora, this issue has been discussed several times in the past. There is no single definitive indicator because the rare LTM Sonnars were made from the (slightly less-rare) T-coated Contax RF (&, quite possibly, Contaflex TLR) versions &, like all Sonnars, those lenses underwent various cosmetic changes (changes in shape of various parts, different metals & finishes used in barrels, etc.) over their production lifetime that have no strict connection to any serial #s. IMHO, the most definitive way to tell is to disassemble the lens & look @ the rear of the optical element; if genuine, you will see 6 digits engraved along the rim of the rear element that should match the last 6 digits of the serial # marked on the front bezel. If you're already a Contax collector or know 1, another "quick & dirty" way to authenticate is to compare the lettering & markings on the front bezel & aperture ring w/those from a contemporary wartime Sonnar in Contax RF mount. Even then, there's nothing to stop a dedicated forger from adapting a Contax RF lens or using parts from 1 & putting it in a Jupiter barrel--after all, that was basically the process by which the real LTM Sonnars were produced during WWII. So it's like authenticating any old object: you have to look @ the whole thing in question, including its provenance, & compare w/the real thing.

To the best of my knowledge, the presence of the 2 "ears" on the aperture ring does *not* automatically mean the lens is fake, as almost all pre-WWII & WWII Contax RF Sonnars (both f/1.5 & f/2 versions) have the ears. I have a genuine 5cm/1.5 LTM Sonnar & it has the ears. Finding a lens without ears might mean it's genuine (albeit an unusual variation on the standard Sonnar), but the presence of the ears doesn't mean it's fake.
 
I have to disagree with just about everything on that website.Mine has been taken apart before and identified as a real Sonnar,and yet has ears and a black front ring.It also has a larger triangle for the focusing ring.
The simple fact is, if by an absolute miracle it turned out that somehow mine was a fake, it takes great pictures and I paid 250 bucks for it, so I don't really care.
There does seem to be an influx this week of Sonnar 1.5 screw mounts on Ebay though....????
 
Just like life. 😛 It's your money & time. If you want the same performance & aren't obsessed w/collector issues, I agree w/the recommendations on Frank's site (the 1 you cited) that you simply get 1 of the Sonnar clones/copies/variants, like a Jupiter, Nikkor-S, Canon, etc. That said, the genuine articles aren't super-rare like the Zunow 50/1.1, Voigtlander LTM 50/1.5 Nokton, etc.

ericzhu said:
It seems complicated. Do you think this lens is good and worth the risk of gambling?
 
Last edited:
I don't necessarily think Frank's web site is wrong (I'm pretty sure he participates on this forum, BTW), it just demonstrates the perils of extrapolating from a limited, heterogeneous sample. As he acknowledges on the page, CZJ made very few LTM Sonnars & they were manufactured on an ad hoc/special order basis, so there were bound to be variations that make life difficult for future collectors. To further complicate matters, it was not uncommon for people to have genuine Contax mount Sonnars (among many non-Leitz lenses) adapted to LTM by a local optical shop. Since this also happened in the former USSR & East Bloc countries, not every LTM Sonnar that comes from that part of the world is a forgery.

ulyssescat said:
I have to disagree with just about everything on that website.Mine has been taken apart before and identified as a real Sonnar,and yet has ears and a black front ring.It also has a larger triangle for the focusing ring.
The simple fact is, if by an absolute miracle it turned out that somehow mine was a fake, it takes great pictures and I paid 250 bucks for it, so I don't really care.
There does seem to be an influx this week of Sonnar 1.5 screw mounts on Ebay though....????
 
Last edited:
ericzhu said:
It seems complicated. Do you think this lens is good and worth the risk of gambling?

I have actually decided to not pursue a real LTM Sonnar. They are rear and relatively expensive.

One option is to get a genuine fake, the J3. Our member Brian Sweeney has taken to testing and reshimming them so that they focus correctly on standard Leica LTM cameras and then reselling them. Keep your eyes open for any that become available. A well adjusted J3 is a very nice thing, and relatively inexpensive.
 
Heres an intersting one for you.
After reading this I thought I would check with Dr. Wolfgang Wimmer at Zeiss on the history of my lense.I had contacted him previously and he had confirmed its authenticity.
It would appear upon more detailed research that my lense was converted to the LTM as they did not make LTM Sonnars in 1945.The barrel and glass are Carl Zeiss but the mount is a conversion.
I quote:

"Although your lense is a real zeiss,it appears the mount was converted by a 3rd party.as far as we know Carl Zeiss didn't produce Sonnar lenses for Leica cameras
in 1945.
Most of the so called "Leica-Sonnars" we know were reconstructions which
were made
by private persons almost always for American soldiers who were in Jena in 1945.The lense enjoys the freedom of mounting to a Leica,but has the superior quality of the Zeiss glass".

I like the last bit.Made me giggle a bit.After all,he does work for Zeiss.
It does however leave alot of peoples info a bit up in the air.I always thought they did produce Sonnar LTMs throughout the war,and post war.

Anyway,my previous statement stands.It shoots fine and I love it.
 
Back
Top Bottom