santino
FSU gear head
Hi!
Is that lens a original Sonnar or just a J3 with Sonnar inscription? it's kinda strange that there's no Zeiss inscription and the lens doesn't seem to be coated + it doesn't seem to be of Zeiss quality. What do you think?
I think I'm gonna get even if it's a copy, I don't have such a fast lens
thanks
Is that lens a original Sonnar or just a J3 with Sonnar inscription? it's kinda strange that there's no Zeiss inscription and the lens doesn't seem to be coated + it doesn't seem to be of Zeiss quality. What do you think?
I think I'm gonna get even if it's a copy, I don't have such a fast lens
thanks
Attachments
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Looks highly suspect. Look at the "M" (for meters in the focusing scale); if it's a capital "M", then it's for sure a fake.
If you get a good J-3 copy, they're nice. But if you're going to get a premium because it says "Sonnar", I think you should get the "real" J-3, or a real Sonnar f/1.5
If you get a good J-3 copy, they're nice. But if you're going to get a premium because it says "Sonnar", I think you should get the "real" J-3, or a real Sonnar f/1.5
dexdog
Veteran
The lens is most likely a J-3, with replaced front bezel.
- The serial number corresponds to early Zeiss Contax production of 1933 or so, and all such Contax lenses are black and nickel finish.
- The lens body appears to be aluminum, and is not consistent with early Contax lenses, which are either brass or nickel. About the time of the Contax II in 1936, Contax lenses were chromed brass. Contax lenses were produced in aluminum during and after WW2, but the serial number on this lens does not correspond to the WW2 serial numbers of 270XXXX and higher.
- Lettering size and style is not characteristic of Contax lenses.
As Gabrielma said, the J-3 is a good lens, and I concur with his recommendation to get a real J-3. Don't buy this particular re-badged J-3, because it will cost more.
- The serial number corresponds to early Zeiss Contax production of 1933 or so, and all such Contax lenses are black and nickel finish.
- The lens body appears to be aluminum, and is not consistent with early Contax lenses, which are either brass or nickel. About the time of the Contax II in 1936, Contax lenses were chromed brass. Contax lenses were produced in aluminum during and after WW2, but the serial number on this lens does not correspond to the WW2 serial numbers of 270XXXX and higher.
- Lettering size and style is not characteristic of Contax lenses.
As Gabrielma said, the J-3 is a good lens, and I concur with his recommendation to get a real J-3. Don't buy this particular re-badged J-3, because it will cost more.
It does not look "right".
However, all the J-3's I've seen, including the one from 1950, are nicely coated.
However, all the J-3's I've seen, including the one from 1950, are nicely coated.
W
wlewisiii
Guest
I, too, am inclined to think that it's a J-3. However, Brian's observation is interesting - I have never seen any uncoated Jupiters...
That said, I'd pay a price appropriate to a J-3 (and either use it on a FSU camera or have it shimmed for a non-FSU camera) and have a very nice lens. But don't pay _anything_ extra because someone (probably...?) faked it up.
A good J-3 is a very fine thing to have in your bag. I do love using the my Sweeney/J-3
William
That said, I'd pay a price appropriate to a J-3 (and either use it on a FSU camera or have it shimmed for a non-FSU camera) and have a very nice lens. But don't pay _anything_ extra because someone (probably...?) faked it up.
A good J-3 is a very fine thing to have in your bag. I do love using the my Sweeney/J-3
William