J-3/J-8 and Zeiss Jena 5cm 1.5/2.0

raid

raid

Dad Photographer
Local time
4:07 AM
Joined
Nov 2, 2005
Messages
36,565
Are the "real" Zeiss Jena lenses heavier than fake Zeiss lenses, or this depends on when the lens was produced?

I have a Zeiss Jena 5cm 2.0 that resembles more a J-8 [maybe], but I have no lens to compare it to from the same year.

I have two 5cm 2.0 "Zeiss Jena" lenses. They look different. One is smaller than the other but is heavier. I suspect that it is a real Zeiss Jena lens.

One has on it engraved GERMANY. Is this a give-away that it is SOVIET UNION instead?

I know that during the war and even after war there was shortage of metals, and the lenses were most likely lighter than lenses made when metals were readily available.

Do you by now have your own set guidelines for distinguishing real from FSU copies? Please share with us your techniques.
 
I take them all apart and look for the stamped SN's on the interior pieces. So far, the real German lenses seem to have the SN's stamped the components of the lens, and the Russian lenses have some numbers more crudely engraved on them.

I have a 1950 J-3 that looks like it used a heavy brass barrel from a pre-war SOnnar on it, and Sonnar's that look like they were used for assembly practice. Little things like NO NUMBERS ON THE FOCUS RING FOR THE DISTANCE SCALE!

How come no one else has replied yet?
 
The only FSU lens I've taken apart is a J-12. Looking at every component I found no markings at all, not even crudely engraved numbers ect..
 
Well, Brian, I am not as trained as you are in the handling of optics.
I happen to own two CZJ 5cm 2.0 in LTM and two in Contax mount.
The lenses differ in weight [even when in same mount].
By how many grams do you expect an LTM lens to differ from a Contax mount lens?
I have lenses ranging from 145 grams to 185 grams.

One lens is collapsible in Contax mount [it looks genuine Zeiss to me] while the second Contax mount is not collapsible.

One of the two LTM lenses has on its side engraved finely GERMANY. It is the lightest of all four lenses with a weight of 145 grams. A comparable J-8 weighs about 135 grams.


All lenses are sharp, so this is not an issue here.

One lens has been modified by someone in the past into LTM. It is the heaviest of all four lenses at 185 grams. It may be a Sonnar module inserted into an Elmar shell.
 
Last edited:
Raid, May I ask, in the politest way, what you mean by fake? My understanding is that the Carl Zeiss factory in Jena was rebuilt and then turned out lenses etc. OK the government was different from the 1930's one but as CZJ clearly identifies it I don't see it as fake. Merely made under new ownership and newer machinery but probably the same people who worked there in the 30's.

Regards, David
 
I believe Raid means Russian lenses rebadged as CZJ; since the designs of the former were based on the latter, in some respects optically unchanged, and prices on market are different, there's a lot of incentive to do this.
 
David Hughes said:
Raid, May I ask, in the politest way, what you mean by fake? My understanding is that the Carl Zeiss factory in Jena was rebuilt and then turned out lenses etc. OK the government was different from the 1930's one but as CZJ clearly identifies it I don't see it as fake. Merely made under new ownership and newer machinery but probably the same people who worked there in the 30's.

Regards, David
Click to expand...

Hello David,
I was referring to lenses made in the FSU as J-8 or J-3 and then branded Carl Zeiss Jena by some smart guys in marketing.
 
Last edited:
Armoured said:
I believe Raid means Russian lenses rebadged as CZJ; since the designs of the former were based on the latter, in some respects optically unchanged, and prices on market are different, there's a lot of incentive to do this.
Click to expand...


Yes, I meant such lenses. I am not putting anyone's lenses down but am just trying to distinguish between these [fine] lenses.
 
There have been a number of J-3's and J-8's, perfectly good lenses, where someone files down the name ring and re-engraves it as a "Zeiss 5sm" lens. In this case, the "sm" in place of "cm" is a sure-fire fake! Others are done a little bit better. Some are impossible to tell apart, as they use German parts. They are not fakes in my mind, but part of the process that went into the Russians taking over the Sonnar line and making it their own product.

In many ways, the J-3 LTM design is better than the wartime Zeiss lenses in LTM. The J-3 is much easier to work on. You can take the focus ring off of a J-3 without taking the helical out of the mount. J-3's got VERY smart and started using three set screws to hold the helical in place in the mount, the original Sonnar in LTM used one set screw. Sometimes, it does not work very well. My smoothest and best handling CZJ 5cm F1.5 Sonnars are the ones placed in a relubed J-3 mount. I have one Wartime F1.5 Sonnar that I had to make a paper sleeve to keep the lens from wobbling in the mount. But at what I paid for it, no complaints.
 
I have a feeling that even the "genuine Zeiss" lenses lost in material quality during war times, so it is even more difficult to distinguish between the lenses by just inspecting them from the outside.
 
Raid,
I have a J-3 and toe J-8 lenses currently: one honest LTM version and one fake Zeiss version on my fake Contax--that set was originally a Kiev 4( or 4M, not sure which) and has been re-engraved and painted black.
Of the three, the J-3 is the lightest--thought that may well be because Brian worked on it for me and cleaned all the accumulated crud out of it ;)--and the J-8s feel fairly close. I will put all of them on my kitchen scale later today and report back on the actual weights.
Except for the click stops, the two J-8s are very close in performance: very good, I think. The "Zeiss" one apparently has much more brass and the LTM one is mainly aluminum.
Rob
 
raid said:
I have a feeling that even the "genuine Zeiss" lenses lost in material quality during war times, so it is even more difficult to distinguish between the lenses by just inspecting them from the outside.
Click to expand...
I would be astonished were it other wise; I have a friend who collects WWII German weapons--pistols and rifles--and there is a very clear difference in finish and materials between those made before the war and those made during. And a big difference between early and late war-time production.
And I think that there are fairly well established dates for the changes. So I can only believe that lenses must've had similar differences.
Rob
 
Rob,

I forgot to mention that among all my CZJ 5cm 2.0 and J-8 lenses only the J-8 M has aperture stops clicks. The weight may be a useful factor for distinguishing some lenses, but there could be also lighter CZJ lenses out there. The "war efforts" required all metals in Germany,so even lenses made in Germany may have gotten lower grade [or lighter] materials for a while.
 
rbiemer said:
I would be astonished were it other wise; I have a friend who collects WWII German weapons--pistols and rifles--and there is a very clear difference in finish and materials between those made before the war and those made during. And a big difference between early and late war-time production.
And I think that there are fairly well established dates for the changes. So I can only believe that lenses must've had similar differences.
Rob
Click to expand...


We are back then to looking at mislabeled lenses and poorly enscribed ones, plus the option to take lenses apart and look for serial numbers inside the lenses.
 
raid said:
We are back then to looking at mislabeled lenses and poorly enscribed ones, plus the option to take lenses apart and look for serial numbers inside the lenses.
Click to expand...
And poor or non-existant records as well!
One of our fellow RFF members had started a database of FSU lenses, I'll see if I can still find it. I don't recall that he had weight listed,though.
Rob
 
I inspected the writings on the lenses with a 10X loupe, and there are examples where part of the white paint has flaked off. No clue whether Zeiss lenses always had better paint or not.

It has been pointed out to me by Brian that a collapsible Sonnar is genuine.
 
I was thinking of "Darkavenger"'s project. I just looked at the site but it the page is blank.
Frank's site is very good, my German is non existant so I don't get all of the text on a lot of it but still enjoy it.
Rob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom