S.H.
Picture taker
Hello,
I already mentioned it here, I recently picked up a very strange light alloy uncoated CZJ Sonnar : it is bigger than the regular 5cm 1.5, and it is close to a 60mm focal length. Here it is, compared to a wartime 5cm T :
Here is a view of the internals, showing the aperture mechanism :
It has the serial number 3144116, which according to Thiele's listings should be on a Tessar from 1949... I tried it on an adpater on my M8, it does not focus right under 8 meters (wrong helicoid for the FL).
Any idea? (I also asked on the ZICG list).
I already mentioned it here, I recently picked up a very strange light alloy uncoated CZJ Sonnar : it is bigger than the regular 5cm 1.5, and it is close to a 60mm focal length. Here it is, compared to a wartime 5cm T :
Here is a view of the internals, showing the aperture mechanism :
It has the serial number 3144116, which according to Thiele's listings should be on a Tessar from 1949... I tried it on an adpater on my M8, it does not focus right under 8 meters (wrong helicoid for the FL).
Any idea? (I also asked on the ZICG list).
Highway 61
Revisited
If the FL isn't an actual 50.0mm, it won't focus accurately using the internal helicoid for sure. Keep in mind that even with "50" Nikkors having an actual FL of 51.8mm there is a visible focus problem on the Contax bodies.
Probably a prototype of some sort to match a modified camera (for some special purpose : macrophoto, astronomic photo, infrared photo) ?
Or might it be an hazardous attempt from Zeiss to build another 50/1.5 lens with a different formula than the Sonnar ? The barrel size and length remind those of the Olympic/Millenium Nikkor (which is a double-Gauss).
Did you try to contact Peter Hennig ?
Probably a prototype of some sort to match a modified camera (for some special purpose : macrophoto, astronomic photo, infrared photo) ?
Or might it be an hazardous attempt from Zeiss to build another 50/1.5 lens with a different formula than the Sonnar ? The barrel size and length remind those of the Olympic/Millenium Nikkor (which is a double-Gauss).
Did you try to contact Peter Hennig ?
S.H.
Picture taker
No, it did not think about it. Do you have his email address?
I'm toying with the idea of modifying a cheap body to go with it (why not a Zorki? I have a contax - ltm adapter, the RF would have to recalibrated)
I'm toying with the idea of modifying a cheap body to go with it (why not a Zorki? I have a contax - ltm adapter, the RF would have to recalibrated)
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Why would that have been inscribed "Sonnar", then? Even if it had been a Sonnar prototype, something so early in the design stage that it does not even have the proper focal length and can't focus wouldn't have been mounted at all, or even if it had, it would have had a plain or number only front ring...
I suspect a Frankenlens, made up of non-matching bits and pieces.
PS: Infrared, while a neat idea, won't do either - for one, you'd need a shorter focal length for the same helicoid, for the other, the differences are within a millimetre or two, not a whopping ten. And I don't believe they had (transparent) glass for short UV-C at that time - fluoride lenses were a novelty in the sixties.
ferider
Veteran
Solenn,
here is a description of another 6cm Sonnar, inscribed as a 5cm lens (in LTM though):
http://www.leica-historica.de/VIDOM_92.pdf
Coating only on the external surfaces. I'm sure Marc will also comment on your ZICG post.
Amedeo makes Contax/M adapters that correct for the Contax/Leica difference.
Roland.
here is a description of another 6cm Sonnar, inscribed as a 5cm lens (in LTM though):
http://www.leica-historica.de/VIDOM_92.pdf
Coating only on the external surfaces. I'm sure Marc will also comment on your ZICG post.
Amedeo makes Contax/M adapters that correct for the Contax/Leica difference.
Roland.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Sure these aren't Biotars faked into Sonnars? Zeiss would hardly have engraved a 58mm as 50mm.
ferider
Veteran
Lothar Thewes (in the article above) took his lens apart, Sevo. And compared the focal length of his Sonnar to a 5.8cm Biotar and found them identical.
Highway 61
Revisited
The "6cm Sonnar" in LTM is reknown for being a fake/forgery.
I had never seen any "6cm Sonnar" in Contax mount.
The Amedeo Contax/M adapter will work with lenses having an accurate FL of 50.0mm only so if Solenn's lens has a FL of about 60mm it can't be used on any camera, even infinity will be off.
Peter Hennig can be contacted easily through his LinkedIn profile.
ferider
Veteran
Not so. The Amedeo Contax/M adapter will work with 85mm too, for instance.
I remember reading somewhere that the Contax internal mount lens focal length was 52.4mm or something like that... its actually 50.0mm?
Edit: Nikon's website says 51.6mm for Nikon (and Leica) and 52.3mm for Contax.
http://imaging.nikon.com/history/legendary/rhnc09s-e/index.htm
I think Highway 61 meant for internal mount lenses.
Highway 61
Revisited
Yes, but because of the external helicoid of the 85mm lens.
Solenn's lens, with a FL of 60mm, would require an external helicoid (i.e., within the lens and having its own pitch so that the RF isn't fooled by the Contax camera/adapter helicoid pitch which is designed for 50.0mm FL) to focus properly.
Any Contax mount lens deprived from its own hellicoid and focusing with the camera built-in helicoid (or the adapter one) must have a focal length of 50.0mm.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
That would be the OUTER bayonet, for lenses that bring their own helical.
A 58mm lens can be in focus on the Contax inner bayonet, by the way - for one single distance only, as a static difference in extension (but not the dynamic one needed to match the rangefinder across the range) can be built into the lens. So a special purpose single distance only lens might be possible.
Highway 61
Revisited
Stephen Gandy tells it's 50.0mm while "50mm" Nikkors FL is 51.8mm.
IIRC the FL of 52.4mm was for the late Jupiter-8M and Helios-103 lenses (the late Kiev helicoids pitch had been changed a bit to match those lenses).
But this is a long time since I last read things about that so I might be wrong, of course.
ferider
Veteran
Fine. Might be worth a check by email to Amedeo anyhow. I always thought his Contax adapters had a double helix. But I've been wrong before.
But why/how anybody would "fake" a complete Sonnar assembly, including larger front element, is beyond me. Not that it matters - I was just pointing the OP to another documented similar lens.
Carry on.
But why/how anybody would "fake" a complete Sonnar assembly, including larger front element, is beyond me. Not that it matters - I was just pointing the OP to another documented similar lens.
Carry on.
Highway 61
Revisited
They have the inner helix and the outer bayonet flanges so that outer bayonet lenses can mount and lock on, but they cannot have any double helix, because each outer bayonet lens (21 - 35 - 85 - 135) has a different helix pitch (matching each lens FL).
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
It is hard to determine how much faking was needed - it might have simply been a matter of screwing existing parts into each other. Besides, the war had created huge numbers of people that had spent the last five years working a lathe, which were unemployed and starving - what may have been a life-saving "job" back then can perfectly well be unprofitable or even lossy today.
There were plenty of optical bits and pieces around after the war - Sonnar derived lenses (by Zeiss and made under license by others, including makers in occupied countries) had been used under license to build night visors, gun and bomb sights and some more. People may have attempted to prettify their crate of surplus into something more marketable and valuable.
ferider
Veteran
Yes (I'm German, Sevo). In parallel, record keeping at the Jena factory at war end was really chaotic, so we'll never really know if there was an experimental 5.8cm batch or not, IMO. This has been discussed before on RFF, see for instance http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/printthread.php?&t=84334, we don't really need to rehash it.
I were the OP, I would try to use it (even if it requires shimming). Whatever the origin - if it's clean and works, it might go well together with a classic 35.
Roland.
I were the OP, I would try to use it (even if it requires shimming). Whatever the origin - if it's clean and works, it might go well together with a classic 35.
Roland.
S.H.
Picture taker
Well, I just asked the man where he bought it, he kindly replied :
"In 1954-55 I bought a Kiev-camera and this lens in a then still private shop for photo-articles in Halle Saale (East-Germany) Kiev-cameras were then assembled illegally by employees of Zeiss-Jena in the Saalfeld-facctory from left-over parts from the years 1947-48 and sold on the black market or to some private shops with Sonnars 2,0 of original production smuggled out. The 1,5 lens I additional bought then was made of left-over wartimes-production of Sonnar 6cm lens blocks, made for bomb-sights originally, f-stops mechanics and blades added later. Black market only, too. It was a quite big, illegal "enterprise", later with real good mechanical parts and engraving, some with coated front lenses. Ended in the mid-fifties with many prison-sentences. "
The Kiev was probably tuned to this lens specifically.
"In 1954-55 I bought a Kiev-camera and this lens in a then still private shop for photo-articles in Halle Saale (East-Germany) Kiev-cameras were then assembled illegally by employees of Zeiss-Jena in the Saalfeld-facctory from left-over parts from the years 1947-48 and sold on the black market or to some private shops with Sonnars 2,0 of original production smuggled out. The 1,5 lens I additional bought then was made of left-over wartimes-production of Sonnar 6cm lens blocks, made for bomb-sights originally, f-stops mechanics and blades added later. Black market only, too. It was a quite big, illegal "enterprise", later with real good mechanical parts and engraving, some with coated front lenses. Ended in the mid-fifties with many prison-sentences. "
The Kiev was probably tuned to this lens specifically.
S.H.
Picture taker
It is very clean and usable, but I'd leave it alone and dedicate a cheap Kiev or Zorki to it.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
That is rather unlikely - adapting a Contax type camera to another focal length for normals would require very significant changes to the tooling the helicals were made on, or the rangefinder gearing. If the front ring is engraved 5cm, the intention behind making and selling that lens probably was plain fraud, knowing that the buyer can't test the goods in a black market deal. If it is 6cm, it may have been a collectors gimmick, marketable in spite of its known uselessness for its curiosity value.