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

[raid]

Rob,

I see Frank's site in English.

Too bad that the darkavenger site is gone.

 

[batterytypehah!]

Thanks for starting this thread, Raid, and for reminding me of Frank's site.

I'm putting together my first interchangeable lens RF kit (Contax IIa) at the moment. I quickly decided that I would just stay away from those Zeiss lenses that exist as Soviet copies. Budget being the #1 reason, naturally, but also to avoid getting duped.

So, I'm limiting myself to the Tessars, collapsible 5cm/2 Sonnar, and 85/4 Triotar. (Zeiss wides are out of my budget, so are the long teles but I have no interest in them, anyway.) Got lucky on the collapsible Sonnar already, or so I hope, as it isn't in my hands yet.

This was the soundest way for me to go. Otherwise I'd run into trouble sooner or later. I mean, who can resist bidding on that "1.5 Sonnar" that just "happens" to have only one, blurred, photo on the 'bay? Not me, unless I stick to my rule.

Sorry for being slightly OT, I'm sure this isn't really what you were asking for. Just felt that it needed to be said.

 

[raid]

Thanks for starting this thread, Raid, and for reminding me of Frank's site.

I'm putting together my first interchangeable lens RF kit (Contax IIa) at the moment. I quickly decided that I would just stay away from those Zeiss lenses that exist as Soviet copies. Budget being the #1 reason, naturally, but also to avoid getting duped.

So, I'm limiting myself to the Tessars, collapsible 5cm/2 Sonnar, and 85/4 Triotar. (Zeiss wides are out of my budget, so are the long teles but I have no interest in them, anyway.) Got lucky on the collapsible Sonnar already, or so I hope, as it isn't in my hands yet.

This was the soundest way for me to go. Otherwise I'd run into trouble sooner or later. I mean, who can resist bidding on that "1.5 Sonnar" that just "happens" to have only one, blurred, photo on the 'bay? Not me, unless I stick to my rule.

Sorry for being slightly OT, I'm sure this isn't really what you were asking for. Just felt that it needed to be said.

Hi,
Actually, your input explains to others how people go about avoiding "fakes" to stay within budget.

 

[johannielscom]

I used to own a Sonnar-branded 50mm 1.5 lens, but took it for a fake and sold it for the price of a well-kept Jupiter-3. It had the following characteristics: distance scale with capital 'M', aperture numbers separated with a comma, black front ring.

After reading up on the internet I found a site (cannot recall where, now) that said original Sonnars had a chrome front ring, small 'm' for meter scale, and aperture numbers separated with a dot. So, I might have owned (and sold!) a real Zeiss Sonnar after all? Are there any characteristics that make a lens a 'real' Sonnar beyond any doubt?


And, most important of all, do these lenses differ in optical quality at all? To clarify, I'm not looking for a scoop in the financial aspect, but like the Jupiter-3 and Jupiter-8 and if an even better lens from that design can be had at all, I'd like to go out and look for it.

Currently I have a 1953 Jupiter-8 on my shelf. I like that lens, it's the first version Jupiter, with focusing tab and with stationary front element, no rotating aperture scale when focusing.

 

[raid]

I used to own a Sonnar-branded 50mm 1.5 lens, but took it for a fake and sold it for the price of a well-kept Jupiter-3. It had the following characteristics: distance scale with capital 'M', aperture numbers separated with a comma, black front ring.

After reading up on the internet I found a site (cannot recall where, now) that said original Sonnars had a chrome front ring, small 'm' for meter scale, and aperture numbers separated with a dot. So, I might have owned (and sold!) a real Zeiss Sonnar after all? Are there any characteristics that make a lens a 'real' Sonnar beyond any doubt?


And, most important of all, do these lenses differ in optical quality at all? To clarify, I'm not looking for a scoop in the financial aspect, but like the Jupiter-3 and Jupiter-8 and if an even better lens from that design can be had at all, I'd like to go out and look for it.

Currently I have a 1953 Jupiter-8 on my shelf. I like that lens, it's the first version Jupiter, with focusing tab and with stationary front element, no rotating aperture scale when focusing.

Hello Johan,

I hope to get many useful comments on this topic here.

The lenses are all good to excellent regardless whether they are "genuine" or "fake" since the FSU lenses were copies of the Zeiss Jena lenses anyways.

As for your sold lens, a capital "M" is usually taken as a sign of a FSU Sonnar.

It seems that no collapsible Sonnars were made by FSU, so a collapsible Sonnar is a safe bet.

I would also weigh the lens. The Zeiss Sonnar lenses weight about 100 grams more than FSU Sonnars.

 

[rbiemer]

Raid,
A good chunk of Frank's site is in English but there is more stuff in German; I'd love to read what he has to say there based on how well I like the English portion of his pages.
OK, I weighed my lenses--not sure I've ever typed a "geekier" phrase!😀--and realized again why I do use a scale in the kitchen: The J-3 (1959) is the heaviest of the three at 150 grams and the J-8 (1954) is the lightest at 120 grams. The Kiev/"Zeiss" J-8m (No idea what year for the lens--sn 2521665--but the camera is likely 1966) is in between at just about 135.

Rob

 

[batterytypehah!]

Rob, I'm German and could help with translating what's of interest to you. Looks to me like most of the pages are available in English, though, except not all of them are linked from the home page. You need to go to the German version of the page first.

Let me know if this still leaves gaps. You'd have to have some patience as there's lots of text there, but I'd eventually get around to it.

 

[raid]

Raid,
A good chunk of Frank's site is in English but there is more stuff in German; I'd love to read what he has to say there based on how well I like the English portion of his pages.
OK, I weighed my lenses--not sure I've ever typed a "geekier" phrase!😀--and realized again why I do use a scale in the kitchen: The J-3 (1959) is the heaviest of the three at 150 grams and the J-8 (1954) is the lightest at 120 grams. The Kiev/"Zeiss" J-8m (No idea what year for the lens--sn 2521665--but the camera is likely 1966) is in between at just about 135.

Rob

It is better to compare 50/1.5 to 50/1.5 lenses since the weight will be higher than a 50/2. Your "Zeiss J-8M" is most likely too light to be a Zeiss lens.

Some of my lenses have been Sweeneysied by Brian, so the weight may be now lower since Brian places a Zeiss module into a J-3 barrel for the 5cm 1.5 and into a J-8 barrel for 5cm 2.0 lenses.

 

[BigOwl]

Here's another data point: I have a 1969 vintage J-3 that weighs in (without end caps) at 141.7 grams.

 

[raid]

I did not weigh my J-3 lenses but only my 5cm 2.0 lenses.

Thanks.

I will tomorrow weight the J-3 too.

 

[rbiemer]

Your "Zeiss J-8M" is most likely too light to be a Zeiss lens.

I am sure it is not a real Zeiss lens, and the camera with its lens was sold to me at a good Kiev price. And was sold as a copy.
Rob

 

[raid]

I weighed all my FSU & CZJ 50mm lenses on a postal scale. There may be room for some error, but it is an OK scale.

Menopta Contax mount 53mm : 160gm

I-50 rigid LTM 59XX : 115gm

Helios 103 Contax mount 81xx : 155gm

Sonnar CZJ 5cm 1.5 LTM 203XX : 220gm

Sonnar CZJ Contax mount 5cm 2.0 collapsible: 165gm

Sonnar CZJ Contax mount 5cm 2.0 198xx: 175gm

Sonnar CZJ Contax mount 5cm 2.0 310xx : 145 gm

J-8 LTM black :130gm

J-8 LTM 55xx : 133gm

J-8M Contax mount : 133 gm.

I-61 LTM 52/2.8 67xxx: 135 gm

I-61 LTM 52/2.8 69xx: 135 gm

I-61 LD Contax mount 55/2.8 95xx: 107gm

Sonnar LTM 5cm 2.0 CZJ 223xxx:185gm

Tessar 50/2.8 LTM CZJ : 165 gm

J-3 Contax mount 56xxx :145gm

Zeiss Opton Contax mount 50/1.5 : 175 gm

Zeiss Opton Contax mount 50/1.5 : 175 gm

J-3 Contax mount 60xxx : 140 gm

I removed any lens covers.

 

[raid]

Why don't you also weight your J-3/J8 and Sonnar lenses to comapre notes?

My Sonnar CZJ Contax mount 5cm 2.0 310xx may be too light at 145 gm to be "genuine" Zeiss.

 

[raid]

Here's another data point: I have a 1969 vintage J-3 that weighs in (without end caps) at 141.7 grams.

Thanks. My scales are not that precise as yours, but you can see differences. My J-3 lenses seem to weight above 140gm and less than 145gm.

 

[outfitter]

Most Zeiss Sonnars in LTM were put together from looted parts duriing the desperate times after the war or fakes made from FSU lenses - important to check serial numbers against known Zeiss factory LTM lens runs. Brian is correct that real Zeiss factory lenses have matching assembly numbers on all major components but put together LTM can have matching numbers on lens cells also.

Real Zeiss lenses were made of different materials over the years and have different internal element mounts so the weights are all over the place. Pre-war CJZ were heavy chrome or nickel over brass, WWII were a mixture of brass and aluminum, post war CJZ were lightweight aluminum and West German stuff was a mix (eg I have brass chrome 50mm lenses and light aluminium 135mm lenses). Most post war lenses are lighter than pre-war fixed (non-collapsible) lenses.

 

[raid]

Most Zeiss Sonnars in LTM were put together from looted parts duriing the desperate times after the war or fakes made from FSU lenses - important to check serial numbers against known Zeiss factory LTM lens runs. Brian is correct that real Zeiss factory lenses have matching assembly numbers on all major components but put together LTM can have matching numbers on lens cells also.

Real Zeiss lenses were made of different materials over the years and have different internal element mounts so the weights are all over the place. Pre-war CJZ were heavy chrome or nickel over brass, WWII were a mixture of brass and aluminum, post war CJZ were lightweight aluminum and West German stuff was a mix (eg I have brass chrome 50mm lenses and light aluminium 135mm lenses). Most post war lenses are lighter than pre-war fixed (non-collapsible) lenses.

This information is good to know. So the weight is not really an obvious factor in distinguishing between FSU and German lenses.

Sometimes it is better not to know; all lenses seem to be sharp and useful.

Thanks.

 

[outfitter]

Sometimes it is better not to know; all lenses seem to be sharp and useful.

Thanks.

Many were put together by Zeiss employees from Zeiss parts in order to eat immediately after the war; one assumes the craftsmanship and skill was there so no reason why many wouldn't be good lenses. The only point is that you just don't know for certain and of course the collector value isn't there.

 

[johannielscom]

production years and a PHP database?

production years and a PHP database?

Many were put together by Zeiss employees from Zeiss parts in order to eat immediately after the war; one assumes the craftsmanship and skill was there so no reason why many wouldn't be good lenses. The only point is that you just don't know for certain and of course the collector value isn't there.

The collector value only is part of the equasion if you already own a lens and due to established collectors value might be able to sell at a (considerable) profit. After that, its a PITA, since it would actually up the prices for a good lens.

I'm with Raid, sometimes it might be better not to know, if they're good lenses.

Yet it's fun to see if we can establish a way to decide with any degree of certainty if a lens is genuine Zeiss and from the era the serial number indicates. Is there any list with Zeiss lens serial numbers and production years you guys know of? And possibly a similar, indicative list for FSU lenses?

Anyone care to create an online database page in PHP, which allows for entering lens data, including weight? Seems this thing needs a substantial amount of data before anything can be concluded!

 

[dexdog]

Is there any list with Zeiss lens serial numbers and production years you guys know of?

Hartmut Thiele's book on CZJ lenses is the best such reference, although there are data gaps around WW2 years, and some people have questioned the accuracy of some of the data. On the whole, a great effort, though.

 

[raid]

I once researched for months my 5cm 2.0 CZJ that looks as if it was mounted into a barrel of a collapsible LTM lens that does somehow not collapse. The serial number is the right number for being one of 200 lenses made by Zeiss from Contaflex lenses for Sweden, but there is no proof that this particular lens was not adapted into LTM out of factory by an individual. Marc Small left it at that.

In the case of this lens, the parts are by Zeiss, but I don't know whether it is one of very few 5cm 2.0 LTM lenses by Zeiss [factory] or not.