Leica LTM Zeiss 50/1.5 Sonnar in LTM - REAL OR FAKE?

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
sleepyhead

sleepyhead

Well-known
Local time
11:16 AM
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
1,682
Location
Copenhagen, Denmark
View My Gallery
Hello,

I recently bought this lens in France:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1100/1069401383_6a025db735_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1218/1069401435_16199bb681_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1319/1069401591_484b049675_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1113/1069401717_bba5bf84ef_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1332/1069401747_5daa65afd1_o.jpg


The seller claimed it to be genuine (whatever THAT IS, given what I've read about the mayhem going on in the Zeiss factories during/after WWII).

Anyway, I was hoping that members out there with VASTLY more experience than me (not difficult to achieve!) could at least assure me that it's not an outright FAKE.

Thanks in advance for looking,
regards
 
Yaron,

It is genuine: small latin "m" on distance scale, ears on aperture ring, different proportion of serrated parts than on J-3. Can't tell if it is wartime or post-war however, but it should be good performer.
 
I think that it might be genuine, based on the appearance of the aperture scale (small numbers, small red triangle and lower case "m"). Often, fakes will have bigger numbers, a larger red triangle and an upper case "M". The only thing that looks a bit odd is the color of the aperture control ring on the front of the lens- it almost looks like steel. This is kind of unusual given that the rest of the lens barrel is aluminum.

As to telling the difference through photos, a lot of russian fakes will be based on the Jupiter 3 lens, which is a Sonnar copy. Many J-3s are very good quality, so telling the lenses apart based solely on how good a photo the lens produces may not be practicable.

Looks like a nice lens.
 
A big thanks to all of you who responded so quickly!

Payasam, I agree with you that it's the pictures that count, but no one wants to be intentionally ripped-off by an un-scrupulous seller claiming that something is real when it's fake. I paid around $400 for the lens!

I haven't received the lens yet - but will eagerly try it once it arrives!

CHEERS AGAIN
 
Looks genuine to me, in the sense that it probably has a real Zeiss optical unit. You would have to disassemble the lens & look @ the rear of the optical unit (no disassembly required for a Contax RF lens), which should have engraved on it the last 6 digits of the serial #. I don't think the non-matching aperture ring is dispositive as that's not unusual for wartime/immediate post-war construction; I have some Contax RF-mount Sonnars from late in WWII or right after that have a weird combination of metal parts. FWIW, it looks a lot like the 1 I own, which I know has a Zeiss optical unit, but was probably made after the war. Your lens as well may have been assembled after the war. As discussed in this thread ( http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44679 ), it doesn't appear to fall within a batch of serial #s that is known to have been of the wartime LTM production. But who knows, maybe it's the Sonnar that Cartier-Bresson used right after the war . . . 🙂
 
Last edited:
furcafe said:
As discussed in this thread ( http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44679 ), it doesn't appear to fall within a batch of serial #s that is known to have been of the wartime LTM production. But who knows, maybe it's the Sonnar that Cartier-Bresson used right after the war . . . 🙂
Click to expand...


Well, I DID buy it from a FRENCH SELLER - I think I'll dream that IT IS HCB's former lens and hope that some magic rubs off on me!

(needle...prick...burst bubble....oh yeah, it's not the equipment that makes the good photographer....damn!)
 
furcafe said:
I don't think the non-matching aperture ring is dispositive as that's not unusual for wartime/immediate post-war construction; I have some Contax RF-mount Sonnars from late in WWII or right after that have a weird combination of metal parts.
Click to expand...

F-cafe, I agree that the non-matching aperture ring is not dispositive (phrased like a lawyer, BTW). Given the chaotic situation during and after WW2, all sorts of odd combinations are known to occur with Zeiss lenses.
 
Hi Yaron, your lens looks absolutely genuine, and if you remove the rear lens group(it comes out as a discrete unit) I reckon you will find the last six digits of the serial number engraved in a depressed area in the brass. Your lens would be circa 1942 when German fortunes still seemed to be on the up.
A friend of mine here in Brisbane just outbid me on an almost identical lens but put together in the Krasnogorsk factory and marked 3K 1948 001052 1.5 50 . These markings are from memory and not exact, but the focusing mount is identical and the rear group was from a Zeiss Sonnar like yours.
 
Wow, now I REALLY can't wait receive the lens - I know that it may perform like a Jupiter-3, or worse, or better, but somehow as it seems to not be a fake, I have higher hopes that it may be a good performer.

What inspired me to buy this lens is some photos I saw recently, in B&W, taken with a Contax mount 50/1.5 with Leica adapter. There was really something special about the character of those photos. Something about the bokeh and the rendition of the highlights that even my 50mm pre-ASPH Summilux doesn't have.

Could it be that the plane of sharp focus with the Sonnar is more curved than the Summilux? I know nothing formally about optics, just from using different lenses, so this is probably stupid.

Still, if any of you Sonnar users out there (LTM or Contax) have also used the pre-ASPH Summilux, i would be interested in your comparison - not so much about sharpness/resolution, but character.
 
Henry Scherer of zeisscamera.com does outstanding work, but unfortunately, his waiting list is approaching 2 years. I am currently number 4 on the list, and have been on the waiting list since November 2005.
 
Mind you, any competent camera technician would do just as good job servicing a Sonnar.
 
Not stupid @ all. I'm also not an optical expert, but have read that the Sonnar is not as well-corrected for flatness of field as the Planar-type designs that are more common today. Your experience in comparison to the pre-ASPH Summilux is in accord w/mine. I'm not sure whether the 'lux is really a Planar, but it's definitely not a Sonnar/Ernostar. FYI, there have been a bunch of threads discussing the Sonnar "look" v. other designs, many prompted by Zeiss's introduction of their new 50/1.5 Sonnar ZM, so you might want to do some searching around this site.

sleepyhead said:
Could it be that the plane of sharp focus with the Sonnar is more curved than the Summilux? I know nothing formally about optics, just from using different lenses, so this is probably stupid.

Still, if any of you Sonnar users out there (LTM or Contax) have also used the pre-ASPH Summilux, i would be interested in your comparison - not so much about sharpness/resolution, but character.
Click to expand...
 
I think the pre-ASPH Lux is a modified Schneider Xenar design, which I believe is similar to a Planar. If I remember correctly Leica reworked the formula considerably over the decades, so it's been modified.

The Lux evolved from the pre-war Xenon, which was a Taylor-Hobson / Schneider design. Leica need something in a hurry to compete with the 1.5/50 Sonnar.

Xenon -> Summarit -> Summilux vers. 1 -> Summilux vers. 2 -> Summilux-ASPH (although the Lux-ASPH is based on the 2/75 ASPH and perhaps the 35 Lux ASPH)

The Sonnar was supplanted by the Planar in the late 1950's early 60's.
 
Last edited:
I`m not an expert on the Zeiss LTM lenses, but this one looks like it might be the real deal......what I want to see is some photos with this "wide open" and some of those beautiful Danish girls as subjects! 😎

Congrats on the lens, can wait to see some samples shot with it

Tom
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom