Highway 61
Revisited
Absolutely.
And the shimming suggested by Roland would not do it. This lens would require a specific outer helical with a specific pitch precisely matching its actual focal length.
Even with the Nikkor-S standard lenses, shimming the lenses to use them on some Contax bodies doesn't really solve the Contax/Nikon focusing uncompatibility. So, with a ~60mm lens...
S.H.
Picture taker
The front ring is cleanly engraved 5cm.
On the other hand, in Kuc's book, a black/nickel 5.8cm 1.5 sonnar is shown on a contax I, and it is said to be usable from 3m to infinity.
On the other hand, in Kuc's book, a black/nickel 5.8cm 1.5 sonnar is shown on a contax I, and it is said to be usable from 3m to infinity.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
There is a rather wide range of possible interpretations of "usable" - as in "can be used when scale focusing with the help of a translation table" it can doubtlessly be true, if only the lens is shimmed for infinity. But no shimming can make it focus with the rangefinder or for scale focusing directly with the on-body scale (except for one single, static distance, that is).
S.H.
Picture taker
The exact text is "the camera's rangefinder could be used from 3 meters to infinity". But you are right, it does not say that perfect focus @1.5 is achieved throughout the range.
Mine looks more or less OK at infinity on M8 + adapter. So I think it could be possible to tweak the RF of a specific body to have a working combination. For example, a Zorki (I have one at hand).
Mine looks more or less OK at infinity on M8 + adapter. So I think it could be possible to tweak the RF of a specific body to have a working combination. For example, a Zorki (I have one at hand).
Highway 61
Revisited
I don't think so. The problem will come from some mismatching between the adapter helical pitch and what it should be according to the lens 58mm FL.
In other words, you should have an adapter specifically made for this FL, having an helical pitch matching the lens exact FL.
Amedeo could do it (he can now made some Contax/M or Nikon/M adapters without using any Zeiss or Nikon parts) but this will cost you a kidney !
ferider
Veteran
1) The typical Sonnar can be shimmed with two shims, changing both infinity collimation and focal length (for adjustment to Leica 51.6mm). The first shim is in the normal place under the optical block, the second one spaces the optics before and after aperture.
This is well documented: Brian and Kim have done the two shim correction several times on Jupiter 9 and 3 copies. I've done it once on a Jupiter 9 myself. This can cover the 1-2mm differences typically necessary for an LTM Russian lens (depending on the batch), not sure if this is possible to correct for the more than 6mm apparently necessary in the OP's case ....
2) One can also buy a cheaper Contax/Leica adapter and grind the RF cam (so that it looks like the cam of, say, a 40 Summicron-C). I've done that once, wasn't too hard.
Before hearing further wrong absolutes in this thread of what and what won't work, I do recommend that the OP sends an email to Amedeo and/or Biran (who offers Sonnar adjustments on ebay now).
Then again, if you don't mind using film only with this lens, a custom adjusted body sounds like a good way to proceed.
There you go. A great story explaining the 5.8/6cm lenses on the market. I wonder what Marc will comment on your ZICG post. And how much of this lens is "fake" ?
Roland.
Highway 61
Revisited
Seducing. But the grinding should be made with great precision, so that the bias introduced in the helical pitch by grinding the cam perfectly corrects the focusing gap because of the native FL of that lens, and at any distance.
Any of those attempts to get this forgery lens working +/- well isn't worth the trouble IMO.
I've spent much time at properly and precisely collimating my truly mint prewar Sonnar 50/1.5 (which left the Jena factory quite off the mark, as it wasn't so rare, it seems), but I wouldn't go for the waste of time hacking this lens would be for sure.
I don't want to argue but you weren't right 100% about a few points, either... so don't try to say that the "further wrong absolutes" are from others than yourself only. We all did our best to help the OP it seems. Thanks.
ferider
Veteran
I didn't ("try to say that the 'further wrong absolutes' are from others than" myself). Clearly I was wrong about the Amedeo adapter.
Read what I write please, and not what I "try to say". Thanks
Read what I write please, and not what I "try to say". Thanks
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Altering the RF cam on a Contax to LTM or M adapter seems the only feasible option - the dedicated Contax/Kiev body will be beyond the means of most camera repairers, even more so in the 1950s when CNC lathes and 3d printers did not exist, as Contax type cameras use no cam but cogs and wheels to couple to the helical.
But at the price of Contax adapters it seems rather daring to mate one permanently to a lens of questionable origin which was not even intended for photography to start with.
But at the price of Contax adapters it seems rather daring to mate one permanently to a lens of questionable origin which was not even intended for photography to start with.
S.H.
Picture taker
I will keep you posted about what is said on the ZICG list (nothing so far).
I will have to think more about this, but altering a cheap Zorki body is theoretically possible, no? you can change the infinity and the close distance settings on the RF easily, and the mount to film distance if needed. I don't mind using it for film only at first.
Or salvage a biotar helical and start from it.
An interesting problem indeed.
I will have to think more about this, but altering a cheap Zorki body is theoretically possible, no? you can change the infinity and the close distance settings on the RF easily, and the mount to film distance if needed. I don't mind using it for film only at first.
Or salvage a biotar helical and start from it.
An interesting problem indeed
.
Elmar Lang
Well-known
Hello,
I find the story behind this curious lens, as highly interesting under the historical point of view.
It coincides with other info also given in Kuc's "Auf den Spuren der Contax" vol. 2, where it's well described the situation of the back-to-work Jena and Saalfeld plants after the Soviet occupants unscupulous dismantling.
The workers, actually had (or found) the chance to take home "discarded" cameras and parts of the new "Jena Contax"-"Volga"-"Kiev" project or simply arrange cameras and lenses with older, remaining parts and sell/trade their "products" with something more useful to everyday's life.
It is most possible that this lens was made with the lens group of something else, then mounted to have the appearance (and, possibly) the functionality of a good lens.
It's a pity that most of the documentation of those difficult times are now lost or forgotten somewhere. Most of the eyewitnesses are also very old or passed away...
Best wishes,
Enzo (E.L.)
I find the story behind this curious lens, as highly interesting under the historical point of view.
It coincides with other info also given in Kuc's "Auf den Spuren der Contax" vol. 2, where it's well described the situation of the back-to-work Jena and Saalfeld plants after the Soviet occupants unscupulous dismantling.
The workers, actually had (or found) the chance to take home "discarded" cameras and parts of the new "Jena Contax"-"Volga"-"Kiev" project or simply arrange cameras and lenses with older, remaining parts and sell/trade their "products" with something more useful to everyday's life.
It is most possible that this lens was made with the lens group of something else, then mounted to have the appearance (and, possibly) the functionality of a good lens.
It's a pity that most of the documentation of those difficult times are now lost or forgotten somewhere. Most of the eyewitnesses are also very old or passed away...
Best wishes,
Enzo (E.L.)
Amedeo Muscelli
Established
Hello,
For this lens can be used a Contax to Leica adapter, but the edge than push the rangefinder cam must be machined in ramp, thus if the adapter helical move 4,5mm per turn, the rangefinder cam must move 3.85mm +/- 0.03mm.
I already make something as this for my stardard adapters, the Leica body rangefinder mechanism was calibrated for 50mm ( not 100% sure ), the Sonnar 50/1.5 is around 52mm, the difference between the helical and rangefinder cam is 0.07mm ( 100% sure ).
Best regards,
Amedeo Muscelli.
For this lens can be used a Contax to Leica adapter, but the edge than push the rangefinder cam must be machined in ramp, thus if the adapter helical move 4,5mm per turn, the rangefinder cam must move 3.85mm +/- 0.03mm.
I already make something as this for my stardard adapters, the Leica body rangefinder mechanism was calibrated for 50mm ( not 100% sure ), the Sonnar 50/1.5 is around 52mm, the difference between the helical and rangefinder cam is 0.07mm ( 100% sure ).
Best regards,
Amedeo Muscelli.
S.H.
Picture taker
Thanks for the precisions. If I can find someone to modify such an adapter, this would be great.
Highway 61
Revisited
Quite frankly I don't see where the benefit from spending money to try this frankenlens out would be.
Waste of time and energy IMO.
At the very best you will get inferior results than those you have with a regular and well collimated Sonnar 1.5.
Waste of time and energy IMO.
At the very best you will get inferior results than those you have with a regular and well collimated Sonnar 1.5.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Whether the lenses accurately focused at whatever camera's or not, this is quite interesting information since it can account for the 5.8cm 1.5 lenses that can be found for sale online and whose origin is always debated!
What a shame that Marc James Small isn't active on the forum anymore to comment on this!
S.H.
Picture taker
I posted this on the ZICG list but no reply.