Tales from the Greasy Side, 5cm f1.5 Sonnar "T" and More, SCARY, Lens Horror Stories!

[Sonnar Brian]

Tales from the Greasy Side, Wartime 5cm f1.5 Sonnar "T" and Lens Horror Stories!

Wartime 2726xxx CZJ 5cm F1.5 Sonnar "T", Basket Case, $75.

As received. Front element coating damage, fungus marks. Rear group- fogged. Metal corrosion.







Replaced front element with a 1939 element from an incomplete lens.
Replaced rear triplet with a KMZ.
Replaced the focus mount.

When shimmed for proper focus, the F-Stop markings aligned perfectly with the Index Dot on the pre-war mount.




The Middle Triplet is in good condition, coating survived.


A good thing: It had Canadian Balsam holding it in place. I've seen this once before- the triplet was "hot mounted", the barrel used to help center the triplet. I did not try to force it out, I've learned the hard way to quit while ahead and go for a 95% solution.


The knurling of the Wartime Sonnar is about 1mm wider than the pre-war.





The KMZ rear triplet is a drop-in replacement for the Zeiss. Fits perfectly into the Zeiss fixture. The ZOMZ and Valdai are different shapes and not Schott glass.

Lens looks and works much better now.



I ended up converting this one to Leica mount using a 1951 KMZ focus mount. The KMZ is going into Contax mount.

 

[raid]

This is very impressive, Brian. Out of a messed up basket case lens you have created a nice looking and working lens.

 

[raid]

Do you use an adapter for lenses requiring an internal link?

 

[xayraa33]

Very nice work, Brian !

 

[dexdog]

Brian, I would not have imagined that such a beat up lens could ever be salvaged. Good thing you had a variety of spare parts'

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Quick test on the Amedeo adapter on the M9. All wide-open.

 

[TenEleven]

Very nice work Brian. Excellent job, the depiction looks typical "war-time" - it has the typical Sonnar look plus this sharpness that stretches over most of the frame even at f/1.5 with very little in the ways of spherical aberration. I wonder what they did to the glass in these. I'm quite sure it was somehow "doped".

I actually had a "hot mounted" triplet on 1.8million Sonnar f/1.5 5cm. It was however coated during the wartime (same coatings - but no 'T' mark) - I tried to tap the triplet out on my wooden table, because I thought myself safe, this being a pre-war lens. Alas! The triplet came right apart, so I guess that's the 'hard lesson' you had to learn as well.

I managed to get it all out and actually re-cemented the lens - it was a complete white-knuckle operation but somehow I managed it - don't ask me how though - it being such an unique specimen I would have hated to have to replace glass on it. However you did a stellar job there.

 

[TenEleven]

I hope this doesn't count as a thread-hijack, but yeah - I basically completely understand what Brian says.
When you hack and repair lenses there will be always that dreaded moment, when your heart jumps and you just realize you've just done something incredibly stupid. So good on Brian for leaving that triplet in.



However "she" is back together and happy now. The transparency of the glass is astonishing (after all the stupid things I did to it). The rear coating on the triplet as shown above however had to be mostly polished off - it was as you probably can see a complete goner anyway.




Edit Note: Now I was so busy attaching images that I forgot to address the whole point of this post. Duh. Namely, as Brian already suggested, by 'hot mounting' the rear triplet you can sort of squeak by without having very expensive (and big) centering equipment. It is thinkable that some of that equipment got either destroyed or broke down during the war-time (with shortages of personnel and material exacerbating the situation) and this is how the Zeiss workers helped themselves in that situation.

The lens as shown above has near perfect centering, despite my butchery, even on a demanding digital camera such as the A7R basically proving Brians point.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

This thread officially open to ALL SONNAR REPAIR EXPERIENCE!

My "dreaded moment" was running into my first Sonnar with the hidden set screw that holds the namering in place. Had never encountered one, but encountered many stubborn namerings.
THIS LENS: No hidden set screws, but I always check anytime the namering sticks, or any serial number above 2.6M. I have early J-3's with the TAPS and Hole for the hidden set screws, but no set screw.

 

[TenEleven]

This thread officially open to ALL SONNAR REPAIR EXPERIENCE!

My "dreaded moment" was running into my first Sonnar with the hidden set screw that holds the namering in place. Had never encountered one, but encountered many stubborn namerings.
THIS LENS: No hidden set screws, but I always check anytime the namering sticks, or any serial number above 2.6M. I have early J-3's with the TAPS and Hole for the hidden set screws, but no set screw.

Oh yeah those set screws....they completely stumped me on my first f/2 Sonnar.

Luckily no damage was done to that one - I just couldn't get it further apart and could not for the life of me figure out why. This also brings back (repressed) memories of a relatively botched war-time Sonnar 13.5cm repair: The inner helical wouldn't undo despite me already having undone the set-screw? [Spoiler warning: there were two!]

So I twisted and twisted with all my might and it wouldn't come apart - until I discovered a second set-screw. So I undid that screw also and -- --
discovered that I had, in my idiotic effort to muscle it, frozen the helical in place.

In the end I managed to salvage it by drilling two very unsightly holes through both male and female parts of the helical - sticking the fattest screwdriver I had through and giving it a good twist. But hey -- better a lens with ugly holes inside than another parts basket-case!

 

[Bingley]

Quick test on the Amedeo adapter on the M9. All wide-open.

This is, for me, the Sonnar look. Beautiful photos and excellent description of what you did, Brian. I need to take some color photos with my 1943 Sonnar 1.5. My lens (which was serviced by DAG) looks good wide open, but not this good.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

This is, for me, the Sonnar look. Beautiful photos and excellent description of what you did, Brian. I need to take some color photos with my 1943 Sonnar 1.5. My lens (which was serviced by DAG) looks good wide open, but not this good.

Thankyou! "I lucked out" on this one, often some extra adjustments are required when replacing elements. Usually shimming, sometimes increasing or decreasing spacing between the front and rear section.

Forgot to mention: The corrosion on the aperture ring and rear fixture- I use 3M Fiber Optic Connector Polishing Sheets cut up into strips. Started with silver polish, finished with the polishing sheets. I've used it to smooth corroded aluminum on Jupiter fixtures for over 15 years, still one one pack of sheets.

Guide Screws with the Helical: I have a friend in Australia, bought a "new-old-Stock" Valdai from "the place in New York" that sells Russian lenses. Focus was way off, he sent it to me. At first- changed the shim, but not quite right. Opened it up: the Jupiter-3 only had one guide screw holding the helical together so it was going off center as you focused. So I put a second guide screw in place, reassembled. The focus JAMMED at about 2meters. The Slot for the screw that was left out was not cut right, the sides were at an angle and the screw jammed in the slot. Very fine file, and the 3M Polishing sheets and a lot of manual labor. My friend paid a lot for shipping back and forth to the US, but nothing for 8 hours of repair time...

The guide screws on the J-3 have to fit the slots exactly, many do not. That is responsible for the focus backlash on many J-3's. I have several spares, and have replaced screws that are too small for the slot on a few. Wrapped one in copper tape. But- often left with placing Vacuum pump grease (Heavy) in the slots to dampen the backlash.

 

[stoutstuff]

Simply Amazing Brian!

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Thankyou. It's been a while since I worked on some lenses, I am on "use/lose" most of the month. Yesterday- decided to put computers away and to some lens work.

I pulled out Two Jupiter lenses: a 1952 KMZ Jupiter-8 and a 1954 KMZ Jupiter-11. Both have very clean glass, bought for $40 and $30 respectively. Neither focused correctly, Both have the barrel thoroughly glued into the focus mounts, and glass that just will not come out. SO- this post is "Plan B".

The Jupiter-8, barrel stuck. I took the helical apart to get a better grip- no luck. The barrel is too far out, the lens close-focuses on a Leica by ~2m at 5m. The lens will not focus to infinity. The Rangefinder coupling is accurate, so this would be a case of reducing the Shim to move the optics closer to the image plane. The rear fixture partially unscrews: and that is "Plan B". Figure the threads are about 0.5mm per turn. Unscrewing the rear optic about 1/4 turn has "about" the same effect as reducing the shim by 0.125mm. The focal length increases ever-so-slightly.





Jupiter-11, somewhat stiff focus, aperture index a full half-turn from the focus index- so the barrel had been unscrewed 1/2 turn AND the lens also close-focuses. Barrel will not budge from the focus mount. Partial disassembly to get to helical, worked some grease into it- smoother action. Made a new index for the aperture ring and lined up with the focus index. The close-focus is slight, but I cannot move the optics in. The rear element fits into the main barrel, and is held in place with a retaining ring. You could make a thin shim to fit under the rear element then hold in place with the retaining ring. This is how I adjusted a Summarit to optimize for wide-open/close-up work. BUT: I have a Leica M Monochrom. This is a Sonnar lens. Focus is towards Infinity with a deep orange or red filter. I put an Orange filter on it. If I get tired of that, the shim under the rear element will get made.

Lenses coming out of the FSU: Unless it is dirt cheap and worth it for parts alone, do not expect much. The last few years prices are up, and lenses have been "made to look good" but are often unusable. Some are modified with extra aperture blades, "look nice" but cannot focus- no attention given whatsoever to the impact that the modifications has on the optical properties of the lens. The same is true of many of the conversions, especially J8M's being put into modified Industar 26 mounts. The barrel is just "thrown in" and the lens put on Ebay.

Some lenses- figure they are for parts, and a learning adventure. Completely no use otherwise. Clean glass in barrels that are improperly spaced and cannot focus- seen it. Lenses with "random optics" put in to just look complete. Seen it. Parts that fill an entire file cabinet. Have it.

 

[bluesun267]

Brian,
What do you think of the 1980s Black J-3?

I just obtained a SN 82XXXXX that came mounted on a dead Minolta II rangefinder. The lens was in great shape though. I shot a roll of B/W with the lens on my IIIg and to my surprise, it seemed spot-on focus wise, even wide open. What are the chances? A happy accident or was it possibly serviced before?

BUT, as a long time Nikkor S.C 50/1.4 shooter, I wasn't all that excited about the rendition. Seemed lackluster compared to the Nikkor and my brief experience with a Sonnar f2 on a Contax rangefinder years ago. Maybe it was me that was shooting lackluster that day but it seemed like it had all the earmarks of a Sonnar (bokeh) but none of the depth and soul. Strange.

 

[TenEleven]

Brian is going to be way more knowledgeable on this as he's the Jupiter modification expert here. But in my experience the black Jupiter-8s have rigidly mounted elements that can't easily shimmed. If I were a betting man I'd bet that it's a confluence of factors:

-the Russian data-sheets usually give the tolerance of the focal length as 52.4mm +/- 1% - in that case the low-end would be 51.8mm which would be a 0.2mm difference which for a f/2 lens would be practically unnoticeable unless you're doing very very rigorous tests
-film is generally more forgiving as it has some depth to it as opposed to a digital sensor, meaning all grains aren't just arranged on a flat plane - there's always some very very minor +/- in the focal plane anyways
-the camera itself may also have tolerances that while in-spec add in favor to this

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Brian,
What do you think of the 1980s Black J-3?

I just obtained a SN 82XXXXX that came mounted on a dead Minolta II rangefinder. The lens was in great shape though. I shot a roll of B/W with the lens on my IIIg and to my surprise, it seemed spot-on focus wise, even wide open. What are the chances? A happy accident or was it possibly serviced before?

BUT, as a long time Nikkor S.C 50/1.4 shooter, I wasn't all that excited about the rendition. Seemed lackluster compared to the Nikkor and my brief experience with a Sonnar f2 on a Contax rangefinder years ago. Maybe it was me that was shooting lackluster that day but it seemed like it had all the earmarks of a Sonnar (bokeh) but none of the depth and soul. Strange.

I'll have to post my Valdai Rebuild which included grinding the mount down to screw the helical in deeper so it could reach infinity.

I've gone through a dozen Valdai Jupiter-3's to get one good one. The glass was perfect, several bought new-old-stock. I parted half of those out and used the front element to repair ZOMZ and KMZ lenses. The Valdai build quality is usually bad. The one that I have now- had never been opened. The person that tapped out holes for the set screws left the metal filings in the lens, and they got into the helical. Two sets of holes for the guide screws, good thing I marked the ones that were actually used. Focus was way off, required the shim to be increased 0.6mm. I ended putting a good ZOMZ front element into the lens that improved the performance.

filings_inlens by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

inner_helical_whoops by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

Helical_in_deeper_to_mount by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr


focus_ring_ready_for_drilling by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

L1007938-Edit by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

 

[Sonnar Brian]

valdai_on_M9 by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

It's nice Looking. I would not suggest buying a Valdai lens unless you see images made using it on a Rangefinder camera, and have return privilege.

I wanted a full collection of J-3's, "Cherry pick the best of the best" from KMZ, ZOMZ, and Valdai. This is the best Valdai I've ever seen, and the odds of getting one that is better is about 1 in 20. The best J-3's are KMZ made from 1951 through to 1956, ZOMZ from 1958 through 1963. KMZ made in 1950- "Still getting things right", might need work- always worth it. ZOMZ from 1964 through the 70s, "great to just Okay". The condition of the glass has a large effect on performance.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Compare with this picture with the 1934 5cm F1.5 Sonnar, wide-open.

Manassas Christmastime by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

Warm November day by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

Also in a Valdai mount.

sonnar_1607_2 by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr
Valdai Jupiter-3's are good for this conversion.

 

[bluesun267]

Fascinating, thanks for the knowledge! The rendering of 1930s Sonnar is incredible. And the idea of using the J-3 mount for a Zeiss/Contax lens conversion is intriguing to say the least.

On second look, I guess I was a bit harsh on the first impression of my copy; it is quite lovely actually and it seems to focus as accurately as any of my other 50s on the IIIg--at least I'm happy and it's a 50 that I feel I can trust. I took about a dozen wide open shots and all were as good as this:

J-3 82xxxxxx @ f1.5



@ f5.6: