breathstealer
Established
I was just browsing a local camera exchange site and stumbled upon this:
http://hklfc.com/forum/?o=topic&act=show&id=23090&page=1
There's no way Zeiss ever made engravings like that, right? I wonder if that guy knows what he's selling.
This lead me to wonder how common real LTM Sonnars are - I've seen quite a few in local stores. I was under the impression they were fabulously rare...
http://hklfc.com/forum/?o=topic&act=show&id=23090&page=1
There's no way Zeiss ever made engravings like that, right? I wonder if that guy knows what he's selling.
This lead me to wonder how common real LTM Sonnars are - I've seen quite a few in local stores. I was under the impression they were fabulously rare...
dexdog
Veteran
Yes, I have also read that real Sonnars in LTM are pretty rare. I think that the lens in question is likely a Jupiter 3 faked to look like a Zeiss product. The capital "M" on the distance scale is a tip-off, because real Zeiss lenses used a lower-case "m". Also, the engraving on the lens bezel is way too big- the real thing has smaller lettering. Oh, I forgot to mention that the big equilateral triangle on the distance scale also looks characteristic of the Jupiter- the triangles on the Zeiss lenses typically have a base side that is shorter than the other two sides.
This web page might be useful. http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Zeiss_Fakes.html
Last edited:
tripod
Well-known
At $3000 a pop, Brian Sweeney could make a lot of money!
QUAsit
Established
Jupiter-3 of early 70s ZOMZ production for $3000... nice business.
Last edited:
raid
Dad Photographer
I may have one of those rare LTM Sonnars. At least, this is what I have understood from Marc Small. Most fakes are J-3 lenses, as was pointed out above. My copy is the rare 50mm/2.0 LTM and not the more readily available 50mm/1.5 LTM. If I am lucky [I hope so], then my lens came from a batch of 200 Sonnar lenses that were traded to Sweden in return for metal ore.
I just received a 50mm/2.8 Tessar LTM, but this one is clearly a custom job by someone. The mount was machined and added to a lens that was meant to be a M-42 lens.
I just received a 50mm/2.8 Tessar LTM, but this one is clearly a custom job by someone. The mount was machined and added to a lens that was meant to be a M-42 lens.
It's a J-3 with a re-engraved front ring.
Here's a real Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar in a J-3 mount:
I put the module there myself. It's from 1935 and stops down only to F11.
and made a J-3 for the Nikon out of the left-over parts.
Here's a real Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar in a J-3 mount:
I put the module there myself. It's from 1935 and stops down only to F11.
and made a J-3 for the Nikon out of the left-over parts.
Last edited:
breathstealer
Established
That's in Hong Kong Dollars. Comes out to 384USD.
Thanks for the info, everyone. It's good to know my instinct was right.
Brian: My hunt for a decently priced Sonnar to do the same as you have continues fruitlessly
raid
Dad Photographer
The J-3 and the Canon 50/1.5 are two excellent Sonnars. The Nikko5 50mm/2 is a fantastic Sonnar too. All are reasonably priced.
breathstealer
Established
I'm looking for an uncoated Sonnar and a Jupiter to cannibalize for the focusing mount. It's pretty hard finding something trustworthy and cheap, though the two UG Sonnars on KEH may be exactly what I'm looking for.
If I were logical, I'd buy a Nikkor, Canon, or stick with my Canon 50/1.8. But the smell of old cameras has impaired my cognitive abilities
If I were logical, I'd buy a Nikkor, Canon, or stick with my Canon 50/1.8. But the smell of old cameras has impaired my cognitive abilities
raid
Dad Photographer
I nearly bought one of these UG KEH Sonnar myself today. I bet, they are not ugly.
harry01562
Registered semi-lurker
KEH grading
KEH grading
The bargain grade on KEH has been talked about on here before. I've never boght UG, but I have heard from several people who own such. The consensus seems to be that they are very used.Marks on the glass may or may not be there, but the cosmetics are not nice. I could live with that, if the glass was good I guess all you can do is try. If I see something that appeales to me, I might try, myself.
Harry
KEH grading
The bargain grade on KEH has been talked about on here before. I've never boght UG, but I have heard from several people who own such. The consensus seems to be that they are very used.Marks on the glass may or may not be there, but the cosmetics are not nice. I could live with that, if the glass was good I guess all you can do is try. If I see something that appeales to me, I might try, myself.
Harry
The UGLY Sonnar arrived from KEH.
The BAD:
1) It was a Zeiss Opton, not the Zeiss Jena as pictured.
2) It had a lot of internal haze and "spider webs"
3) Some corrosion around the retaining rings, enough to make it so the spanner could not be used to get the rear retaining rings off.
The GOOD:
1) Front retaining ring came off after using ammonia under the ring to loosen up. Front section cleaned up nicely.
2) Ronsonol and pliers (Round headed) worked on the rear retaining ring. Rear module dropped out, cleaned up perfectly except some marks in the coating at the very edges- will not have any effect.
3) each surface cleaned up, some light haze in the balsam seen if shining a light through, I've used lenses with much worse.
4) Needed to be shimmed- so it is now set for a Nikon. I'll be testing it.
Spent about 2 hours working on it. Had to sand the rings down from the pliers gripping it. This lens was probably stored in a hot/humid place.
Overall- figure the UGLY lenses are a gamble, you need to work on them, and they may end up being paperweights.
The BAD:
1) It was a Zeiss Opton, not the Zeiss Jena as pictured.
2) It had a lot of internal haze and "spider webs"
3) Some corrosion around the retaining rings, enough to make it so the spanner could not be used to get the rear retaining rings off.
The GOOD:
1) Front retaining ring came off after using ammonia under the ring to loosen up. Front section cleaned up nicely.
2) Ronsonol and pliers (Round headed) worked on the rear retaining ring. Rear module dropped out, cleaned up perfectly except some marks in the coating at the very edges- will not have any effect.
3) each surface cleaned up, some light haze in the balsam seen if shining a light through, I've used lenses with much worse.
4) Needed to be shimmed- so it is now set for a Nikon. I'll be testing it.
Spent about 2 hours working on it. Had to sand the rings down from the pliers gripping it. This lens was probably stored in a hot/humid place.
Overall- figure the UGLY lenses are a gamble, you need to work on them, and they may end up being paperweights.
raid
Dad Photographer
Good work, Brian. If I had a Nikon S, I woud have wanted one myself.