Is...it...real?

[Sonnar Brian]

I just replaced the rear module of a pre-war, uncoated Sonnar with one from a J-3.

If you want to restore the lens to original condition, $220 to fix the separation is reasonable. It is labor intensive.

The biggest difference with the new rear module: reduced flare.

Wide-Open, with the J-3 rear module.



Flare was reduced, and performance across the image was improved.

 

[Highway 61]

I sent him a note and asked for 100USD refund for CLA. Henry claims he can fix the seperation for 220USD. The glass is very clear other than this. We'll see what happens 😉

TY for input.
Charlie

Besides that Henry is spreading his infamous cantankerous comments and theories about this or that I highly doubt he can actually fix the separation.

It's very easy to uncement the elements and remove all the old crackled balsam (everybody can do this at home using an oven, a saucepan and some acetone) but not easy at all to recement the lens using modern UV-curing glue AND properly centering the elements - centering is critical, very minimal errors will cause heavy blurring on the photos corners...

For centering the elements you need special machines and AFAIK nobody can do it any longer (but for Focal Point maybe).

For instance SK Grimes don't do it any longer but you can still find some information here :

http://www.skgrimes.com/library/old-news/old-lenses-can-be-restored-by-re-cementing

So you have the idea - AFAIK Henry doesn't own all those machines.

And for $220 you can find a near mint similar Sonnar 50/1.5 without separation.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

If you're worried about it you've several choices. Dirt cheap is look for a Helios and use it but display with the original lens. (I think the Helios fits but can't be certain as I didn't go down that path but they are sharper, cheaper and coated.)

The other extreme is look around for someone with the expertise and equipment to do the repair and then keep and use the original but in "as new" condition. That's what I'd do if a lot younger and planning to keep it forever and a day.

And the cheapest answer is just to use B&W film...

Regards, David

 

[uhoh7]

Besides that Henry is spreading his infamous cantankerous comments and theories about this or that I highly doubt he can actually fix the separation.

It's very easy to uncement the elements and remove all the old crackled balsam (everybody can do this at home using an oven, a saucepan and some acetone) but not easy at all to recement the lens using modern UV-curing glue AND properly centering the elements - centering is critical, very minimal errors will cause heavy blurring on the photos corners...

For centering the elements you need special machines and AFAIK nobody can do it any longer (but for Focal Point maybe).

For instance SK Grimes don't do it any longer but you can still find some information here :

http://www.skgrimes.com/library/old-news/old-lenses-can-be-restored-by-re-cementing

So you have the idea - AFAIK Henry doesn't own all those machines.

And for $220 you can find a near mint similar Sonnar 50/1.5 without separation.

here is what you get for 220 these days

http://www.ebay.com/itm/280750493662?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1438.l2649

perhaps they will pop up here for a reasonable price--but its fairly rare.

This one is dirty but the glass other than seperation is utterly scratch free--it shows no signs of ever having been apart.

Serials on the lens match both front and rear. In this case I felt it was worth a restoration. I don't plan to resell, but out in the big world a CLA by Henry does add value--rightly or wrongly.

"The process does not affect the coatings, lens centering, element alignment or any other optical attribute of the lens other than the separation. The procedure is permanent and does not use oil of any kind. The lens is actually separated into its component elements and then re cemented using a modern lens cement. The Separation process does not affect the original coatings or any other lens property. Unlike other separation processes that use great heat, remove the coatings, and require re polishing and re coating at great cost; the separation process used here has absolutely no effect on the lens or its coatings. Only the original lens cement is removed."

"The lens cement used is the latest high technology very slow curing military specification type. It has a higher index of refraction than previous generation cements, and this provides greater lens coupling with less internal dispersion resulting in greater lens clarity and brilliance providing greater color correction, sharpness and contrast. This is the lowest stress lens cement there is and this low stress further reduces the internal lens dispersion and enhances coupling.. it is is much clearer and will not discolor under high temperature. It is also highly shock resistant and does not over harden as the old epoxy cements do. it is just the best that there is available anywhere."
"Lens centering and leveling during the re cementing process is critical to the success of the process.. In order to ensure that lenses are aligned to tolerances greatly exceeding original factory tolerances a high precision Mitutoyo measuring microscope and an ultra-precision rotating table on a leveling mount is used to ensure centering to well within 1/100,000 of an inch and an absolutely level surface.. This is a picture of the rotating table with the center triplet from a 50mm f1.5 Sonnar lens placed on top of the optical flat which is used when a lens is re cemented."

http://www.zeisscamera.com/services_lens.shtml

Sounds good anyway 🙂

The body is damn clean and worth 100USD I think or more. So considering the partial refund I got this investment might not be so terrible.

I don't have to risk the lens, my time and frustration for a DIY CLA, and there's a decent chance it will come out well.

He says it's a two week turn around---can't complain there. For my body its only 4 years 😉

His CLA'D contaxes command real money as you know.

Yes, I know some have seen problems in a lens or two he's worked on, but that seems fairly rare, and he's put out alot of CLAs.

So, bottom line, we'll see 🙂

If it doesn't work out I can't say you didn't warn me, hehe.

I just want a great pre-war sonnar--can you blame me?

 

[Highway 61]

What Henry claims he can fix is the separation of the experimental epoxy cement used at the Zeiss Oberkochen (West Germany) factory in the late 1950's and the early 1960's. This separation affects the middle groups of the late Carl Zeiss Sonnar 50mm f/1.5 T lenses. The visible results of this kind of separation are a large rainbow inside the lens when viewed from the front. The photographic consequences are less contrast and more flare and muted colors.

Personally I have never inspected Henry's work on such a lens so I can't tell how successful he can be at totally uncementing the elements and cementing them back with UV-curing cement and a sophisticated centering machine under the UV-rays gun in a dedicated dust-free room without actually having the work done by an optical company and not doing it himself, alone in his small artisanal workshop, but this seems to be the same kind of story than the one describing the man who saw the man who saw the bear, if you get it.

Henry's tirade there has one goal, which is to spread discredit onto people having cleverly been successful at fixing the problem described above by filling the air gap left by the defective glue betwwen the elements with something (yes, oil) having the very same refraction properties as optical glass, which allowed the lens to be very usable again, at a very low cost, and that simple fix proved to be quite durable over time.

Well.

Back to your Sonnar : here with your own lens you have a very different problem. Your lens was made in the 1930's at the Carl Zeiss Jena factory. Your problem is separation too, but separation of the classic Canada balsam which has become brittle and dry powder instead of solid balsam, and the visible result are some golden droplets rings around the elements in the rear group of the lens. The photographic consequences are what I describe in my previous post, mainly huge vignetting at all apertures at middle and long focusing distances, because it's as if the rear original element had been replaced with a too narrow one : the golden droplets rings are blocking the light at the periphery of the lens.

To fix that peculiar kind of separation, the affected group must be heated so that the Canada balsam melts, then the formerly cemented elements are taken apart, then all the balsam residues are removed with solvents (acetone mainly), then the elements are cleaned and cemented again with UV-curing optical cement, in a machine which allows a perfect centering, as shown on the SK Grimes company website.

King Henry will **not** do this despite of all his schmitz-schmutz this that chit chat tabarnak.

Hope this helps.

I once found out a Jena Sonnar 1.5 similar to yours for $185 and it is perfectly like new with no Balsam issues.

Setadel Studios (which I visited in the flesh) have prices above average, in general.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I understand dropping money into an old item that you "just like" and want to see it like new. I have several cameras with only one or two rolls through after dropping ~$200 to have rebuilt, new curtains, etc.

So report back on how it comes out.

On the separation: I have a Canon 135/3.5 that had a separated front group, balsam was bad. I cleaned the elements with 99% Isopropyl alchohol. The fixture for the optics was very, very tight. So I used a drop of index-matching oil, that used in an oil-immersion microscope. Put the elements now joined by the Oil into the fixture. Tightened it down, still working without problems almost 7 years later. The surface tension of the matched elements was strong. Tightening it in the fixture squeezed all air out. No Newton's rings. The shape of the fixture was enough to center the elements, the oil allowed them to slide into place.

The lens was $15, the experiment seems successful.

Henry and I are very different.

 

[uhoh7]

Back to your Sonnar : here with your own lens you have a very different problem. Your lens was made in the 1930's at the Carl Zeiss Jena factory. Your problem is separation too, but separation of the classic Canada balsam which has become brittle and dry powder instead of solid balsam, and the visible result are some golden droplets rings around the elements in the rear group of the lens.

Henry agrees with you:

"The problem with your lens is oxidation of the lens cement in the rear element. The rear element is made of three lenses cemented together with balsam which is tree sap from balsam fir trees in Canada. Your lens was overheated in the past and this is what has caused this. The only fix is to separate and then re cement the lens. "

The photographic consequences are what I describe in my previous post, mainly huge vignetting at all apertures at middle and long focusing distances, because it's as if the rear original element had been replaced with a too narrow one : the golden droplets rings are blocking the light at the periphery of the lens.

In my test images I'm not seeing "huge vignetting" at any distance. Which is why I seriously considered just a simple CLA for the oil issue.

excuse the poor scan of small ektachrome 400 print

And to his credit, he did not push me into sending the lens

"Right now the separation has not gone far enough to have a visible effect on the optical performance of the lens. The condition is stable provided the lens is not overheated"

I once found out a Jena Sonnar 1.5 similar to yours for $185 and it is perfectly like new with no Balsam issues.

Setadel Studios (which I visited in the flesh) have prices above average, in general.

That lens in my ebay example started at 175. The final was set by bidders. Even J-3's are now hard to find under 120. Clean samples (german) are selling for over 300. You can do better buying with a body as I did, but lens condition is often a real crapshoot.

Reasonable deals do crop up though--just very time consuming to hunt them

It's a doubly important lens to me because of both it's performance as a portrait and "atmosphere" lens on aps-c, and it's the only lens I have for my IIIa

If he does what he claims, as Brian noted earlier, the price would not be outrageous.

It'll be fun to see what happens. I'm a bit more forgiving of his strong opinions--my orthopod is the same way, but he has good success anyway--but not always, hehe

 

[Highway 61]

😉

Nice shot, nice result actually.

And yes, tell'us how it turns out... 😉

BTW have a look at eBay item 1XXXXXXXXX (well, you've got a PM 😀)

 

[Highway 61]

And if you can live with a f/2 Sonnar instead of a f/1.5 there is also this one, eBay XXXXXXXXX (another PM in your mailbox 😀)

 

[uhoh7]

TY very much 61 for looking out 🙂

I was scannng the bay tonite and giving my shutter a workout (lens in post), and thinking I really did do fairly well with the body. Not a bump on the back and all speeds firing, focus gears smooth and very easy turning.

Somebody worked on the camera at some point, I think, signs of touchup laquer on the black strip under the top housing.

and the RF images align perfectly too 🙂

If the meter worked I'd have to keel over totally!

So all things considered, the lens was free!

and someday a fully coated late 50s sonnar will fall into my lap for a whistle, not to mention a clean J3. The nex-7 will be a great platform for these classics. The EFL is 75mm, so they are really all portrait lenses on aps-c. With amedeo's adapter contax and nikon RF go to M, and then you use the special close focus Hawk helicoid adpater M/emount. Here's the nikkor 5cm 1.4 (not tokyo or olympic) getting fairly close:

The old sonnar was shooting quite well on the colordial in its oily state, so it might do quality double duty with colordial and sony. 🙂

 

[uhoh7]

Lens came back, pics and first samples

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=111930