Leica LTM Wartime CZJ Sonnar 2\5cm in LTM

[drmatthes]

Here is another Zeiss Jena lens in LTM.

http://cgi.ebay.de/Carl-Zeiss-Sonna...616453744QQcategoryZ26844QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

NO fake IMHO. Quite a price, though.

Jesko

_______________

2006 AD
800 yrs Dresden
80 yrs Zeiss Ikon

 

[erikhaugsby]

Wow, 750 euros for a (collapsible?) 50.
This does seem like a slightly excessive price, possibly why there have been no bids.

4 days left.

 

[drmatthes]

... and here's the second one from the same series.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Zeiss-50-2-So...ryZ30063QQssPageNameZWD2VQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Do they all want to get rid of them?

Jesko

 

[drmatthes]

... and the fakes for comparison: No red "T", big clumsy numbers and red triangle.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/SONNAR-ZEISS-...ryZ30063QQssPageNameZWD2VQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/SONNAR-ZEISS-...ryZ30063QQssPageNameZWD2VQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Beware...

Jesko

 

[drmatthes]

Another fake, wrong serial number:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Zeiss-50-1-5-...ryZ30063QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

The serial number belongs to a series of 2/5 cm Sonnars. Note big red triangle. FSU fake.

 

[ericzhu]

How about this sonnar: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7612444200&rd=1&sspagename=STRK:MEWN:IT&rd=1

It has red "T", small red triangle and small "m". But the problem is that no dot in the "2.8" and "5.6" on the apperture ring. But the dot is lot lost in the distance ring. There are obvious bubbles in the inner element of glass.

Appreciate your reply.

 

[drmatthes]

I stand corrected by you, Roland - so the first example could be a fake, either, couldn't it? Serial number is perfect, though, and looks are as well.

*************************************

ericzhu,

looks real to me, either.

Serial number is missing from the original factory records, but this means not more than that this lens was produced under chaotic post-war cirumstances - either in Jena or, assembled from original parts, in the FSU, I think.

Serial number gap points to early 1946, a time in which the Contax production line and lots of lens parts were being transferred to the FSU.

The simple fact that the serial number fits in a gap stands against a fake IMHO; why bother with filling registry gaps if you just want to sell a fake lens?

I have answered you in a lengthy PM, but basically this is the message.

*************************************
Jesko

 

[raid]

I have a 50/2 that was identified by Marc Small to be genuine based on some photos and the serial number. Now I don't dare to check it again. I had a long thread on PN about the lens, and there conflicting views from several knowledgeable people. The thread is informative:

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00AwhI