xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
strange Zeiss Sonnar with a 6cm FL.
http://cgi.ebay.com/Rare-Zeiss-Sonn...ryZ30063QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
http://cgi.ebay.com/Rare-Zeiss-Sonn...ryZ30063QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I can hear the slobbering of the deep-pocket collectors setting their last-minute sniping bid bots now.
I wonder how good this lens is. :sigh:
I wonder how good this lens is. :sigh:
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Interesting item in a number of ways.
It does look like original construction, not a remount or conversion, but something about the barrel also looks (to my inexpert eye) like post-WWII East German Zeiss construction: the chromed (aluminum?) mounting thread, the somewhat coarse knurling, the setscrews sunk too deep in their holes. Being DDR-built doesn't preclude it from being rare, valuable, etc., but it does make it harder to know its background.
Another thing that struck me as peculiar is the orientation of the numbers on the DOF scale. Note that they face in the opposite direction to the numbers on the footage scale and f/stop scales. The footage and f/ scales are oriented to read correctly from the photographer's view, i.e., behind the lens; the DOF scale is oriented 180 degrees to that, so it reads correctly from the subject position, in front of the lens.
There looks to be plenty of space to run the numbers either way, so I wonder why they would have done that? It's as if the DOF scale were laid out to be read from a vertically-mounted camera, the way an enlarger lens's scales are set up. But an enlarger lens wouldn't need a DOF scale, and why would the other scales face the other way? The few other '50s Zeiss lenses I've owned have all the scales oriented to the photographer's viewpoint.
It would be very interesting to know more about the provenance of this lens.
It does look like original construction, not a remount or conversion, but something about the barrel also looks (to my inexpert eye) like post-WWII East German Zeiss construction: the chromed (aluminum?) mounting thread, the somewhat coarse knurling, the setscrews sunk too deep in their holes. Being DDR-built doesn't preclude it from being rare, valuable, etc., but it does make it harder to know its background.
Another thing that struck me as peculiar is the orientation of the numbers on the DOF scale. Note that they face in the opposite direction to the numbers on the footage scale and f/stop scales. The footage and f/ scales are oriented to read correctly from the photographer's view, i.e., behind the lens; the DOF scale is oriented 180 degrees to that, so it reads correctly from the subject position, in front of the lens.
There looks to be plenty of space to run the numbers either way, so I wonder why they would have done that? It's as if the DOF scale were laid out to be read from a vertically-mounted camera, the way an enlarger lens's scales are set up. But an enlarger lens wouldn't need a DOF scale, and why would the other scales face the other way? The few other '50s Zeiss lenses I've owned have all the scales oriented to the photographer's viewpoint.
It would be very interesting to know more about the provenance of this lens.
dexdog
Veteran
There is obviously something very interesting about this lens, as judged by the bidding. Price is up to $370 with 3.5 days left in the auction, 10 bids from 5 bidders.
Anyway, this lens has serial number1250302, which in the typical world of CZJ lenses indicates a production year of 1931. The Zeiss lens book by Theile would be the best source for correlating serial number to production date, but I don't own it, and can't read German anyway.
If I had to hazard a guess, I would say that it was remounted in LTM either during or after WW2. The barrel appears to be aluminum, and the design of the lens barrel itself does not look like a WW2-style Zeiss factory version. Also, the 6cm focal length is odd, and suggests to me that the lens was probably originally made for something other than the 35mm format.
The lens is not a prototype, because Zeiss usually emblazoned the German term for "test lens" on the bezel, and if a serial number was assigned, it was usually a string of zeros with consecutive numbers follwing, such as 0000000, 0000001, 0000002, etc. Zeiss did not use normal lens sequence serial numbers on prototypes.
With any luck, someone with the Theile book will chime in and enlighten us. One RFFer (whose name I cannot remenber, although I have it at home) was very helpful in describing the history of a Zeiss lens in LTM that I purchased from ferider last year, with proceeds going to Jorge to run the joint.
Anyway, this lens has serial number1250302, which in the typical world of CZJ lenses indicates a production year of 1931. The Zeiss lens book by Theile would be the best source for correlating serial number to production date, but I don't own it, and can't read German anyway.
If I had to hazard a guess, I would say that it was remounted in LTM either during or after WW2. The barrel appears to be aluminum, and the design of the lens barrel itself does not look like a WW2-style Zeiss factory version. Also, the 6cm focal length is odd, and suggests to me that the lens was probably originally made for something other than the 35mm format.
The lens is not a prototype, because Zeiss usually emblazoned the German term for "test lens" on the bezel, and if a serial number was assigned, it was usually a string of zeros with consecutive numbers follwing, such as 0000000, 0000001, 0000002, etc. Zeiss did not use normal lens sequence serial numbers on prototypes.
With any luck, someone with the Theile book will chime in and enlighten us. One RFFer (whose name I cannot remenber, although I have it at home) was very helpful in describing the history of a Zeiss lens in LTM that I purchased from ferider last year, with proceeds going to Jorge to run the joint.
raid
Dad Photographer
This lens will sell for about $450-$550 with a high probaabiltiy. [sigh sigh sigh]
Mark,
It would be interesting,as you said, if someone knowledgeable on Zeiss collectibles helps out here. Most likely, we will not see such a lens again for many years, if at all.
Mark,
It would be interesting,as you said, if someone knowledgeable on Zeiss collectibles helps out here. Most likely, we will not see such a lens again for many years, if at all.
dexdog
Veteran
raid said:This lens will sell for about $450-$550 with a high probaabiltiy. [sigh sigh sigh]
Raid, I bet it sells for closer to $900. One of the bidders has already bid 5 times, and shows no sign of quitting. We will just have to wait and see what happens.
Raid, does the barrel on this lens look like your 50mm CZJ in LTM?
raid
Dad Photographer
Mark,
The barrel on the 60mm lens looks like a barrel for a FSU lens. My lens looks more like a collapsible lens. I agree with you that with such an agressive bidder, we could see a very high ending price. $1000 sounds a target here.
The barrel on the 60mm lens looks like a barrel for a FSU lens. My lens looks more like a collapsible lens. I agree with you that with such an agressive bidder, we could see a very high ending price. $1000 sounds a target here.
ferider
Veteran
This seems to be an extraordinary lens. Barrel looks similar to the
58mm "Leica Sonnar", but focus turns in the other direction and
goes down to .9m (instead of 1). Serial nr. places it in the very
early 30s.
Roland.
58mm "Leica Sonnar", but focus turns in the other direction and
goes down to .9m (instead of 1). Serial nr. places it in the very
early 30s.
Roland.
raid
Dad Photographer
Roland,
So this will go over $1000?
I doubt it that its optical performance will be good wide open. It is too old. It is a collector's dream lens.
So this will go over $1000?
I doubt it that its optical performance will be good wide open. It is too old. It is a collector's dream lens.
ferider
Veteran
Yeah, it must be a lousy lens. And it doesn't even look like it's
in a shape good enough for a collector ...
(Good luck, Raid J/k )
Roland.
in a shape good enough for a collector ...
(Good luck, Raid
J/k )Roland.
Harry Lime
Practitioner
Kevincameras.com has a few Zeiss prototypes. Not all are marked as such.
Not cheap.
HL
Not cheap.
HL
dexdog
Veteran
Harry Lime 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
raid
Dad Photographer
I got lucky and I bought one Zeiss Jena 5cm/2 Sonnar lens that turned out to be genuine and rather rare. I will not risk it again, plus one old lens that is "rare" is enough for me. What I really would benefit from is a sharp lens with 1.4 max aperture.
ferider
Veteran
L39UK said:
What do you think about the focus direction (and min. focus distance),
different from all other Russian fakes out there ?
Also I don't think this lens is aluminum made, this should be easy to check
with the seller. As Marc also documented, many custom Zeiss
LTM adaptations were made. For use, not to deceive.
Here is a nice summary of Marc himself:
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache...zeiss+6cm+1.5+sonnar&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us
Last edited:
ferider
Veteran
Thanks, William. I have Marc's book, but unfortunately not Thiele's.
Roland.
Roland.
raid
Dad Photographer
L39UK said:
Hello William,
Thank you for the very informative posting above. I also suspect a J-3 clone, and that's what I hinted at. If there are only 25 genuine LTM versions of this lens, then this example on ebay is most likely not one of them. My Zeiss lens was "approved of" by Marc Small and Charles Barringer. Before their input, I was in doubt whether the 5cm/2 lens was a genuine Zeiss product or not. Now I enjoy having a small historical item, if I can even call it that way.
I have two genuine Petra (Jordan) oil lamps; now these really are historical items. When the warriors left Petra on a war misson, their wives would pour water in them,and then claim that they were tears!
raid
Dad Photographer
L39UK said:
This lens looks better made than the one on sale.
Is the comma between the 1 and the 5 more pronounced in the genuine version?
ferider
Veteran
William,
have a look at http://www.leica-historica.de/VIDOM_92.pdf
"ZEISS-Objektive mit LEICA-Wechselgewinde / Eine Ergänzung zum Beitrag von Rolf Fricke, Rochester, NY, in vidom Nr. 79 / von Lothar Thewes, Düsseldorf"
He describes a lens of his and refers to a similar 6cm lens of Fricke.
Among others he says:
"Der rückseitige sechsfach gekerbte Spannring dient der
Fixierung des Blendenkörpers sowie als Anlagefläche
der hinteren Linsengruppe. Diese ist allerdings von vorn
eingeschraubt, im Baufortschritt also vor dem Einbau
der Blende eingefügt."
Referring to the spanner ring on the rear of the lens that
has 6 indentations.
"Die Abtastrolle des LEICA-Entfernungsmessers läuft
bei dem in Rede stehenden Sonnar im Prinzip so, wie
dies bei den CL-Objektiven geschieht, nur nicht so
stark ausgeprägt (s. Fotos), in Richtung ∞ also auf einer
Schräge mit leichtem Gefälle, das am Ende in einen
kurzen und deshalb steilen Anstieg übergeht. Dieser
dient selbstverständlich nicht mehr der Steuerung des
Entfernungsmessers. Eine Tiefenschärfenskala fehlt bei
dem mit 5 cm Brennweite angegebenen Objektiv ebenso
wie bei der „f = 6 cm.“-Version."
Referring to the focus cam that looks similar than on CL lenses.
He shows a picture of the rear of his lens in the above report
that looks identical to ours.
He concludes that his lens (looking identical the one mentioned
above on ebay, except for the ring around the front element)
is identical to Fricke's authentic 6cm lens.
This is the ebay lens:
I have never seen a focus cam like this on any Russian replica.
Note also the 6 indentations of the spanner ring. All Russian
spanner rings I've seen have two.
These are two pictures from Thewes' lens that I cropped out
of his PDF report. Hopefully he'll forgive me. Check out the lower
half of the second picture and compare, please.
Roland.
have a look at http://www.leica-historica.de/VIDOM_92.pdf
"ZEISS-Objektive mit LEICA-Wechselgewinde / Eine Ergänzung zum Beitrag von Rolf Fricke, Rochester, NY, in vidom Nr. 79 / von Lothar Thewes, Düsseldorf"
He describes a lens of his and refers to a similar 6cm lens of Fricke.
Among others he says:
"Der rückseitige sechsfach gekerbte Spannring dient der
Fixierung des Blendenkörpers sowie als Anlagefläche
der hinteren Linsengruppe. Diese ist allerdings von vorn
eingeschraubt, im Baufortschritt also vor dem Einbau
der Blende eingefügt."
Referring to the spanner ring on the rear of the lens that
has 6 indentations.
"Die Abtastrolle des LEICA-Entfernungsmessers läuft
bei dem in Rede stehenden Sonnar im Prinzip so, wie
dies bei den CL-Objektiven geschieht, nur nicht so
stark ausgeprägt (s. Fotos), in Richtung ∞ also auf einer
Schräge mit leichtem Gefälle, das am Ende in einen
kurzen und deshalb steilen Anstieg übergeht. Dieser
dient selbstverständlich nicht mehr der Steuerung des
Entfernungsmessers. Eine Tiefenschärfenskala fehlt bei
dem mit 5 cm Brennweite angegebenen Objektiv ebenso
wie bei der „f = 6 cm.“-Version."
Referring to the focus cam that looks similar than on CL lenses.
He shows a picture of the rear of his lens in the above report
that looks identical to ours.
He concludes that his lens (looking identical the one mentioned
above on ebay, except for the ring around the front element)
is identical to Fricke's authentic 6cm lens.
This is the ebay lens:
I have never seen a focus cam like this on any Russian replica.
Note also the 6 indentations of the spanner ring. All Russian
spanner rings I've seen have two.
These are two pictures from Thewes' lens that I cropped out
of his PDF report. Hopefully he'll forgive me. Check out the lower
half of the second picture and compare, please.
Roland.
Last edited:
dexdog
Veteran
That's what I like to see, a healthy discussion of the bona fides of this lens! Thanks to all concerned.
erikhaugsby
killer of threads
Shame that people actually think it's real. 10 bids to $370 right now.
Take a look at the DOF scales--on the auction lens there is a defined slant to the indicator lines near the mount side, while on the real lens the indicators are straight throughout. No doubt in my mind that the auction lens is fake.
Take a look at the DOF scales--on the auction lens there is a defined slant to the indicator lines near the mount side, while on the real lens the indicators are straight throughout. No doubt in my mind that the auction lens is fake.