Carl Zeiss LTM Unusual 6cm f1.5 Sonnar in LTM

Carl Zeiss M39 lenses
dexdog said:
I will have to check out the Kcameras site, at least to chuckle at the prices. Also, I at least qualified by saying "usually". Thanks for the tip, HL
Click to expand...

Just browsed his "Connaisseur's Corner", Mark. Check out zeiss_50_r_sonnar_2800427 ...

;)

Roland.
 
L39UK said:
Hello Roland
I couldn't get your thumbnails to open to compare but will try again tomorrow
as it is now 2.35 am in England and I will have to be going to bed.Look forward to further discussions on this interesting thread tomorrow.
Good night to you all,
Kindest Regards,
William
Click to expand...

Good night William. If you just download the PDF file you can
see the pictures.

Best,

Roland.
 
ferider said:
Just browsed his "Connaisseur's Corner", Mark. Check out zeiss_50_r_sonnar_2800427 ...;)Roland.
Click to expand...

Thanks Roland, that was informative. I doubt that the pictures Kcameras' lens produces are three times better than the ones my lens produces.
 
William,
You make a good point, but it could also be that someone later on (after 1933) converted a Zeiss lens into LTM. Isn't this a possibility that this is a custom job?
 
raid said:
William,
You make a good point, but it could also be that someone later on (after 1933) converted a Zeiss lens into LTM. Isn't this a possibility that this is a custom job?
Click to expand...
That might explain the inconsistencies in the reverse orientation of the DOF lettering, as well as for the lower quality of the barrel, but who would go to such lengths to make such a lens?
 
I would tend to agree that this is a forgery. I'm not positive, but I would tend to believe that.

I think William's arguments against it being genuine are very sound.

This lens is the topic of a discussion on the Zeiss Ikon Collectors Group on Yahoo. A Carl Zeiss and Zeiss Ikon authority believes this to be a well-made fake.

The serial number of the lens actually belongs to a group of 10.5cm Tessar lenses made for the Super Ikonta C. This means that whoever engraved the lens probably just picked a number out of the air, thinking that it probably belonged to a 5cm Sonnar and didn't know that records exist that would indicate that a) it wasn't for a 5cm lens and b) the serial number wasn't even for a Sonnar.

Short version: FAKE, albeit a better made one than what you often see.
 
Last edited:
I also support what William has concluded. I wrote the seller a short note,asking whether they were 100% sure about the lens being genuine Zeiss made, considering the serial number.
 
Thanks, William.

Still I wish somebody would comment on the very similar lenses
described in the German article that I quoted (serial numbers
in similar range), in Germany obviously considered genuine.

Here the link again, in case you missed it above:

http://www.leica-historica.de/VIDOM_92.pdf

Roland.
 
Last edited:
Roland,
I took a look; what are you looking for?
I don't know how knowlegeable the author is.
 
raid said:
Roland,
I took a look; what are you looking for?
I don't know how knowlegeable the author is.
Click to expand...

From the publication and references, I assume he (a)
owns a very similar lens and (b) knows more about
the subject than me for sure, Raid :)
 
Last edited:
ferider said:
What are your thoughts on the article, Raid ?

You are fluid in German, you said.

Roland.
Click to expand...

Roland, I have been fluid with German beer once or twice.

I was just looking at the lens pictures on eBay, and the lettering on the front bezel is not consistent in size- the Sonnar 6cm part is a lot bigger type than the CZJ part. Also, the spacing of the words Carl Zeiss Jena is unlike any of the 20 or so CZJ lenses that I own- the words are too far apart.

Lastly, how is "Jena" pronounced? Is it pronounced "Yay-na"? I don't know any German, and have no idea how to pronounce this word.
 
Below, the author is concluding that the lens is similar to the 58mm Biotar and is not a 60mm lens. He also concludes that the lens is obviously larger in diameter than Contax lens 50/1.5.


"Der Durchmesser der Frontlinse des hier besprochenen
Objektivs ist auffällig größer als der eines 5-cm-
CONTAX-Objektivs der Lichtstärke 1,5 (immerhin
1⁄2 cm). Schon deshalb kann die Richtigkeit der angegebenen
Brennweite bezweifelt werden. I

ch habe die Feststellung zum Anlaß genommen, Bildausschnittsvergleiche
durchzuführen. Als Vergleichsoptiken dienten
diverse 50-mm-Objektive unterschiedlicher Hersteller
(LEICA, CANON, STEINHEIL, UdSSR) sowie ein auf
LEICA adaptiertes M-42-Biotar 2 / 58 von CARL ZEISS
JENA. Ergebnis: Es gab völlige Gesichtsfeldübereinstimmung
zwischen dem Prüfling und dem Vergleichsstück
namens Biotar, wohingegen alle übrigen für den Test
eingesetzten Objektive deutlich mehr abbildeten.

Resümee:
Es kann wohl davon ausgegangen werden, daß die für
die LEICA gefertigten 1,5er Sonnare ohne Herstellerangabe
auf einer einheitlichen Rechnung beruhen, die
auf eine Brennweite von 5,8 cm hinausgelaufen ist, ganz
gleich, ob diese auf dem einzelnen Objektiv auch so, mit
5 oder mit 6 cm angegeben ist."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom