Sonnar 2/50 on Kiev 4 /some questions

R

Roger Vadim

Well-known
Local time
3:26 PM
Joined
Feb 4, 2007
Messages
305
I am a very happy new owner of a Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 2/50mm - with a red T and nice blue unscratched coating. It must be post-war and made in the GDR, am I right? It looks beautiful, and the first film is going to be developed tonight...

The results my '61 J8 gave me on this Camera blew me away, very special rendering in B/W, so I am looking forward to the results with teh original!!

my question is: I just got a Kiev 4 Body with it, and the Sonnar is a tiny bit wobbly in the mount. is this normal? And because the bug hit me, is the lens flange difference on Nikon Rf's really a problem in real use with this lens? I'd love to get a Nikon RF in the near future, you know, GAS attack...

best, michael
 
Roger Vadim said:
I am a very happy new owner of a Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 2/50mm - with a red T and nice blue unscratched coating. It must be post-war and made in the GDR, am I right? It looks beautiful, and the first film is going to be developed tonight...
Click to expand...

Congrats! That should be a delightful lens. What is the serial number on your lens? That will tell more about when it was made. But be careful - soon you'll be looking for a 50/1.5 Sonnar & a 50/2.8 or 3.5 Tessar to complement it :D

The results my '61 J8 gave me on this Camera blew me away, very special rendering in B/W, so I am looking forward to the results with teh original!!

my question is: I just got a Kiev 4 Body with it, and the Sonnar is a tiny bit wobbly in the mount. is this normal? And because the bug hit me, is the lens flange difference on Nikon Rf's really a problem in real use with this lens? I'd love to get a Nikon RF in the near future, you know, GAS attack...

best, michael
Click to expand...

I've had lenses wobble & lenses be so tight I could barely mount them. I haven't noticed any problems associated with that, presuming the wobble isn't so great as to let in stray light.

As for on a Nikon, it will focus fine from about f5.6 on. At 2 there will be a noticable problem with the focus of the Contax mount Sonnar. Search the sight for postings by Brian Sweeney (who, alas, no longer posts here) for a correct explaination of the problem from someone who does optics for his living.

Enjoy!

William
 
wlewisiii said:
Congrats! That should be a delightful lens. What is the serial number on your lens? That will tell more about when it was made. But be careful - soon you'll be looking for a 50/1.5 Sonnar & a 50/2.8 or 3.5 Tessar to complement it :D
Click to expand...


well, the 1.5 does seem tempting:cool: the serial # is 3501543, I tried some research on the net, but wasn't very successful.

The Nikons are so hard to get here in europe, so I'll stick with the Kiev for a while - need to save some money anyway... although i've got all the fancy more contemporary gear, this camera, and the speed graphic;) seem to deliver the best results at the moment. only thing which is annoing with the Kiev (it works like a charm) is the finder - no framelines and quite dim. Are the Nikons better in this respect?

I'll post some results soon.
Michael
 
That will be a post-war Jena lens then. Aside from the lighter alloy mount it should be just as good, optically, as one from Oberkochen.

Nikon improved their design as they went along and by the Nikon S3 & SP were significantly more sophisticated than anything from Zeiss. There is a great overview of all of this at http://www.cameraquest.com/classics.htm Now if Zeiss had only put the Contax IV into production :bang:

I prefer my Contax over Nikon because of the glass. I just like the look from my Canon & Zeiss lenses over the look from Nikon & Leica lenses. If Nikon & Contax were actually interchangable, I'd be using a Nikon S3 body in a heartbeat.

William
 
Congrats! The old Sonnar 5cm lenses are awesome and inspiring. I have two such lenses in LTM and two in Contax mount.
 
Given situation, I don't think I'd make that fix until having tested the lens on a known good Contax. The CZJ lens, unlike a FSU lens or body, was probably made within specification and, if that issue is the source of the wobble, it is much more likely that it is the body that is incorrect. If you adjust the lens to fit the body, you may well leave it unable to be used on a correct body.

YMMV, but unless it's causing a light leak, why damage the lens?

William
 
the fix metioned in the link changes nothing about how the lens focuses, regardless of what body it is mounted to. It also damages nothing. Not sure why anyone would ever get the idea it did :confused: All you are doing is increasing the amount of friction between the mount and lens.
 
You are bending a part to decrease clearance - what you call "increasing friction". That is, however insignificant it may be, a modification of the part and I would consider it to be damage because if both camera body & lens are within spec it would not be necessary.

Go ahead and do it if you see fit; I just would not use that means personally for the reasons I've given.

William
 
Sorry dude, guess I just can't worship the ground you walk on. I have my own experiances with Contax & Kiev cameras to consider as well.

Have a nice day.

William
 
wlewisiii said:
You are bending a part to decrease clearance - what you call "increasing friction". That is, however insignificant it may be, a modification of the part and I would consider it to be damage because if both camera body & lens are within spec it would not be necessary.

Go ahead and do it if you see fit; I just would not use that means personally for the reasons I've given.

William
Click to expand...


If you take a look at a lens, what you are actually doing is ensuring the lens is seated on the flange properly. The play is caused by the lens being allowed to sit away from that flange. I would imagine years of use would cause this, as the part beneath the flange is the only thing forcing the lens to seat properly on the flange.

I think if one actually examined a lens, one would see that this part is actually intended to press against the back side of the mounting flange. It merely ensures the lens is the proper distance form the film. If one was concerned about infitesimal clearances and proper lens-to-film dimensions, one would make this adjustment as needed.

I'm not able to get so much as a razor blade in the slit on my J-3, which exhibits a very slight play in the mount. But my J-8's, which sit tight on the mount, have a slight bit more space on the far side of the "clamp," then on the near side. It's clear these pieces act on the film side of the mounting flange to ensure the lens seats properly.

Obviously if the lens sits tight on the mounting flange on the body and everything is within spec, there is no need to adjust anything. But from examination it is clear that no matter how much you could bend the clamp, the lens can sit no nearer the film than the body's mounting flange will allow. If "maintaining spec" is of prime concern, then this tiny adjustment would be the most important first step in ensuring proper lens-to-film distance. At worst, you would increase the force necessary to mount the lens and induce extra wear. Let me correct myself - at worst, one would do nothing and let the lens get progressively further *out* of spec.

Again, simple examination of the parts in question would make clear the purpose and remedy. The body's mounting flange will not change and the lens's mounting base will not be affected by adjustment of the mechanism designed to ensure proper lens mounting.
 
Sorry to come back to you so late!
thanks for the great advices, it is a fine lens. haven't scaned the first roll yet, but the lens is a real nice performer, esp. for portraits, smooth out of focus areas. on some frames i discovered a little backfocusing, but that could have to do with my sloopy focusing.

I'll post some pics when scanned,
cheers, michael
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom