Wartime Leica-Sonnar 5cm f/2.0 T: Keep & repair or return?

[Peter de Waal]

Hi everyone,

I recently bought a Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 5cm f/2.0 from the usual large auction site. It was described as being "in excellent condition", however it has substantial coating damage to the front element on both sides, plus many deep scratches on the rear element.

The body is made of chrome-plated brass and has an infinity lock, so I don't think this is some Jupiter-8 lash-up. The serial number is "2686432" which to my knowledge puts it's production in the late-WWII Zeiss serials range, insofar as you can trust a serial number! The aperture ring goes to f/22; but the depth-of-field scale on the mount goes down to only f/12.5. I was wondering if it is made up from two old Sonnars?

Perhaps it was a 'bitsa' made on someone's kitchen table in Dresden circa 1945 to keep the family fed?

In any case I paid $300 for it, but after talking with John Van Stelten it seems the front element could cost $295 to fix; the rear $350 - as it's a cemented doublet and would have to be separated first before polishing and re-coating etc.

I know value is what something means to you, and price is what the market will bear, but this lens could end up owing me $1000 before I can take a picture with it...

I would be interested to hear people's opinions on what they would do if they had the options?

Cheers,
Peter

 

[Brian Legge]

I'd return it personally. It isn't as described and repair would cost you over 2x what you spent already. With time, you could probably find one without these issues for significantly less.

 

[LeicaTom]

Peter please check your mail...

 

[johannielscom]

The serial makes it a pre-war lens. Also, it should be a collapsible lens if it were a true CZJ Sonnar 2.0/50mm in native LTM mount.

It's a 'Bitsa' to say the least, and might be compiled from parts recently to bring the seller some cash...

 

[Jacques M.]

Hello,

I had seen this lens, and it had interested me much. But I aways had something else to buy...
As a user, I would resend it, no doubt. As a collector, I would keep it, as it is. The body has several features which make this lens interesting. F11 for the depth of field scale, for example. But too the "mtr" rather than m for meter.
It is not a Jupiter. But I am not sure at all it is an original Sonnar: it can be a Contax mount-LTM converted one...

If it can help...

Amitiés. Jacques.

 

[Peter de Waal]

thank you all. Most interesting. I have a copy of James Mark Small's "Non-Leitz Leica Thread-Mount Lenses", in which he indicates that #28xx,xxx is around 1944 production? I have repaired a lot of old Zeiss cine stuff like Zeiss standards on Arri II's and the mount appears genuine to me. If it is a knock off it must have been made in a formidable backyard shop, as the brass body has a thick chrome plating and even the alloy beauty ring which unscrews as one piece off the front is chrome-plated on the sides!
I'm leaning towards keeping it out of curiosity. I don't have a Leica digital, but I mounted the lens in a Zenit 3M and the image produced in the macro range was very sharp in the centre with nice bokeh (to my eyes).

 

[Jacques M.]

By Thiele, your lens belongs to a series of 5000 2/5cm Sonnars made with a Contax mount.
The date of delivery by Zeiss is missing. Probably in 1940.
I agree with you about about the body. In those numbers, brass is the rule, and certainly such a chrome cannot have been made in a cellar!

"mtr" makes me think of a conversion made afterwards, perhaps by the factory... For the rigid body, it does not look like an original Zeiss one, but it's not a Jup's!

Jacques.

 

[johannielscom]

Hi,

Serials #28xxxxx is 1944-1945 alright, but yours is #26xxxxx!

Does not seem like a factory conversion, but an interesting one! The rear focusing mount might be Japanese, I've seen that infrared marking on some other lens before, but don't think it was a Zeiss. The tube to fix the optical unit to the focusing mount probably was made to size and chromed so it would match the rest of it.

As Jacques says, it's certainly not a Jupiter!

You could have John van Stelten do the rear element only, and he'd separate and reglue it so anything close to the focal plane would be much better. Front element can be quite scratched before it shows on the pictures, as long as rear element is clean, providing you use a large hood on it. Just a thought.

Interesting lens!

 

[Rob-F]

Peter, John Van Stelten does top work, but no matter who does it, re-surfacing the rear element to get rid of that scratch will change the optical formula. It makes the lens thinner, after which it will no longer perform as an original Sonnar. It won't be as sharp, and may not have the same "signature." If you don't have it resurfaced, that's not good, either. The rear element is a bad place for a scratch (there is no good place).

These are some cautions to have in mind when deciding.

 

[raid]

Good thoughts: It works very well for photography.
Negative Thoughts: Think of it as a $300 lens paper weight with lots of history.

....... Go with the positive thoughts.

 

[Peter de Waal]

A conclusion of sorts...

A conclusion of sorts...

okay, after a bit of prowling I have decided that I am wrong and buzzardkid is entirely correct, this IS a 'bitsa' cobbled together from a variety of places. I will present some evidence, gathered from a quick search of the web:

(1) the engraving 'mtr' is identical to that found on the "5cmSummarIndex" image.

(2) the rear of the lens has tangs milled out for the lock mechanism of a collapsing lens tube identical to the "5cmSummarRr" image.

So to conclude, this "Sonnar" is based on a collapsible Leitz mount that stopped down to f/12.5. Thanks to Jaques M. we know the optical part was produced around 1940. So my guess is an old pre-war 5cm Summar is the donor body, and there are plenty of ruined Summars ready to be used for such purposes.

It seems somebody has indeed machined and chrome-plated "...The tube to fix the optical unit to the focusing mount probably was made to size and chromed so it would match the rest of it."

As there are nicks and dings all over the chrome I would say it was constructed a while back. Or it's been artificially aged like a modern pair of Levi's.

Well that's been an interesting lesson...

But should I keep it?

 

[raid]

I have a Sonnar 50/2 ltm that most likely was crafted from an Elmar shell and Zeiss optics. I love it.

 

[Jacques M.]

All that sounds logical, Peter... So, this lens would be a Summar/Sonnar with a "home made" part.

About your question, the answer is not simple. If you feel everything has been discovered about this lens, I would say you had better to return it. Probably. Unless you are a collector interested to put it on a wartime Leica III with red curtain, for example...

Jacques.

 

[Boris Stupak]

I would keep it. I would not spend any more money on it. Shoot with it if you like.

I would think if you described it correctly and relisted it on eBay in a year or two you could double your money.

 

[LeicaTom]

Peter,

I tried to email you again after I got back from the VW Show.

That's a Summar base!!!!!! And Barrel, that's NUTS!!!!!! Kool as hell as is, I'd KEEP IT!!!!!!!
It might shoot better Bokeh than the real LTM mounted lenses, "hacks" are even more "artistic" than the normal lenses....

Tom

 

[Rob-F]

What if it's a Summar with a Sonnar retaining ring?

 

[raid]

Hi Tom,
You may recall my Sonnar 50/2 in an Elmar housing. The glass is crystal clear. The collapsability was removed by the person who did the adaptation in the past.
My optics are from a batch of glass for the Contaflex TLR sold to Sweden in return for iron ore. DAG cleaned it up and shimmed it for me.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Just a minor point, in the late 30's a lot of people dreamed of a Contax lens on a Leica body* and several firms made conversions. So not exactly "home-made". These lenses commanded high prices by the end of the 30's: well, the prices asked for them were high.

Add to that the shortage of good Leicas and Contaxes and you get an interesting situation by the end of the war. The military in Britain were desperate for them.



Anyway, that's my take on it and I'll stick to it. Or am I stuck with it?

Regards, David

* The Jupiter-8 on a FED 1 is highly praised by many, for comparison.

 

[johannielscom]

i think the mount is actually a pre-1945 5cm summitar, not a summar. pre- 45 summitars have minimum aperture of 12.5

The Summar that the OP shows in his last post is also with a smallest aperture of 12,5... 😕


David may have a point, kind of a Mortimer Street conversion of a lens.

Apparently there were some shops in Mortimer Street (what city?) that converted Leica screw mount camera's during WWII, due to lack of spare parts. Some interesting cobbled-up and fine-working cameras have been shown here over the years.

 

[Jerevan]

Mortimer Street sounds like London to me, but I may be wrong. The Summar idea sounds plausible - I thought it looked a bit familiar with the three screws in the rear.