Transition CZJ 5cm F1.5 Sonnar compared with an Early 5cm F1.4 Nikkor-SC.

This is a most interesting topic. To see what changing elements and assembling them correctly does to the image quality.

I came across a centering device/microscope for cemented lenses a year ago on the antique market. Pledged to buy it with the money ready, but someone else bought it the next day. From what I've learned when it comes to placing the individual elements in the housing, the ring is shaped in such a way that it puts pressure on the edges of the element moving it towards the center. The ring is tightened very carefully, and the housing tapped gently with a nylon or wooden hammer to release tension. Tightening the ring after each 'tapping' until it is fixed in the center.

Many post-war Zeiss Jena lenses come with concentric rings, to center each individual element. Like some Tessar and Biometar lenses. The centering becomes very critical on wide angle lenses. Zeiss workers were very persistent on this type of assembly. I know only two workshops so far that can recenter them.

I regret selling my pre-war Sonnar 1.5 but I still have my Jupiter-3.
 
brusby said:
Funny, I thought this image was the most artistically and aesthetically pleasing of the entire group, even though you determined the optics were not right. To my eyes, there's something kinda soft, dreamy and just pleasing to look at about the way it handles things. I'd be very happy to use this lens just as it was configured here to do some dreamy portraits. Not saying I don't like the corrected optics, just that this one immediately caught my attention. Thanks for the analyses.
Click to expand...
The plane of best focus runs across the diagonal of the image- meaning if you have a subject laying down, across the diagonal- would be in focus.
I know why the optics did this- the middle triplet was poorly centered. SO- what we want is a lens with a positional middle triplet...
 
The full quote from Dr. Karl Bauer is: "We have not furnished any factory new Contax lenses for many years until we started distributing them in 1949-50 with the Contax cameras. We simply could not get enough lenses from the factory. It is, therefore, improbable that the Zeiss lenses compared in these tests were new, whereas the Nikkors were new lenses. It is also possible that the tested lenses were fraudulent copies of the Zeiss which appeared after the war. These were made abroad by people not connected with the Zeiss factory, from optical units taken from dismantled military instruments which were not intended or suited for photography. Fair comparative tests must naturally be made under equal conditions." "A Statement" New York Times, December 17, 1950, page 21. This statement was a followup to the Dreschin review in the NY Times the previous week that had praised the Nikkors highly. To me, it reads like a little sour grapes combined with deliberate mis information and with a prideful refusal to admit that any product that was not German could possibly be equal or superior to a product of the great and mighty Zeiss. It is possible what he said was true, and your tests point in that direction, but I also find it hard to believe Bogdanovitch would have chosen any old Zeiss-labeled lens for the comparison. He would have had access to the latest Zeiss lenses for the new Contax IIa that Bauer references in his statement. I enjoy reading and viewing the results of your research.
 
wes loder said:
The full quote from Dr. Karl Bauer is: "We have not furnished any factory new Contax lenses for many years until we started distributing them in 1949-50 with the Contax cameras. We simply could not get enough lenses from the factory. It is, therefore, improbable that the Zeiss lenses compared in these tests were new, whereas the Nikkors were new lenses. It is also possible that the tested lenses were fraudulent copies of the Zeiss which appeared after the war. These were made abroad by people not connected with the Zeiss factory, from optical units taken from dismantled military instruments which were not intended or suited for photography. Fair comparative tests must naturally be made under equal conditions." "A Statement" New York Times, December 17, 1950, page 21. This statement was a followup to the Dreschin review in the NY Times the previous week that had praised the Nikkors highly. To me, it reads like a little sour grapes combined with deliberate mis information and with a prideful refusal to admit that any product that was not German could possibly be equal or superior to a product of the great and mighty Zeiss. It is possible what he said was true, and your tests point in that direction, but I also find it hard to believe Bogdanovitch would have chosen any old Zeiss-labeled lens for the comparison. He would have had access to the latest Zeiss lenses for the new Contax IIa that Bauer references in his statement. I enjoy reading and viewing the results of your research.
Click to expand...

I do not doubt your citation or its validity. But I could not find any reference to Bauer, Zeiss or Contax in the NYT for that day. I am an old historian and compulsive researcher. Could you have mis-cited the quote? I'd love to read the original. Thanks.

Sunday 17Dec1950 page 21-2.png

Sunday, 17DEC1950 page 21.png​
 

From an article found online by Peter Hennig - agrees with comparisons that I've done.

"The Zeiss lens in the test had been manufactured just after the war, when production had been speeded up by the occupying Soviet administration, and was not up to their usual standards. New tests were done with a new lens manufactured the same year as the Nikkor lens and the Zeiss came out better, but by a very small margin. "

I will add- I compared the Nikkor 5cm F1.5 with my 272xxxx LTM Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar, the latter is probably the best vintage F1.5 Sonnar I have. Better than the post-war East German and West German Sonnars. The Sonnar is sharper edge-to-edge. I also had to remount the middle triplet on that one.

Commentarry: I disagree with this statement in the referenced article "the series of lenses were copied straight from well-known Zeiss lenses. It was plagiarism, but well-informed and competently executed plagiarism. "
The Nikkor lenses required new formulation. The 5cm lenses were built to the Leica standard, and the 8.5cm F2 is a 1-3-1 5 element in 3 group design.
 
Last edited:
Sonnar Brian said:

From an article found online by Peter Hennig - agrees with comparisons that I've done.

"The Zeiss lens in the test had been manufactured just after the war, when production had been speeded up by the occupying Soviet administration, and was not up to their usual standards. New tests were done with a new lens manufactured the same year as the Nikkor lens and the Zeiss came out better, but by a very small margin. "

I will add- I compared the Nikkor 5cm F1.5 with my 272xxxx LTM Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar, the latter is probably the best vintage F1.5 Sonnar I have. Better than the post-war East German and West German Sonnars. The Sonnar is sharper edge-to-edge. I also had to remount the middle triplet on that one.

Commentarry: I disagree with this statement in the referenced article "the series of lenses were copied straight from well-known Zeiss lenses. It was plagiarism, but well-informed and competently executed plagiarism. "
The Nikkor lenses required new formulation. The 5cm lenses were built to the Leica standard, and the 8.5cm F2 is a 1-3-1 5 element in 3 group design.
Click to expand...

This is the other side of Dunning-Kruger. The more you know about a subject the less sure it can be as more and more variables stray in. As for those 272nnnn's, I can second that evaluation. Remarkable lens for 1942 and during a war. Or even not during a war. The color and image are just so "right."
 
Boojum: Dr. Bauer's response was to the famous report on the Nikon and Nikkors in the December 10th, 1950 issue of the NYT. It is in the bottom corner of Deschin's December 17th column entitled "Bounce Light: Flash turned to ceiling for extra Illumination." My notes indicate it appeared in section II, page 17, third column. So I had the page wrong. Hope that helps. WES
 
wes loder said:
Boojum: Dr. Bauer's response was to the famous report on the Nikon and Nikkors in the December 10th, 1950 issue of the NYT. It is in the bottom corner of Deschin's December 17th column entitled "Bounce Light: Flash turned to ceiling for extra Illumination." My notes indicate it appeared in section II, page 17, third column. So I had the page wrong. Hope that helps. WES
Click to expand...

I suspected that it was something small like that but in my curiosity to see it in print I was perplexed to not find it. Thanks for straightening me out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom