Zeiss 5cm f/1.5 Sonnar Contax mount

[notraces]

I've been looking for one of these lenses in EX+ condition. I thought I had one secured from the Leica Shop in Austria -- but they just wrote to say they tested the lens before they sent it an found a major flaw in the optics. I'm happy they didn't send the lens, but now I need one (want one).

Where's a good place to find them - besides the obvious big auction site.

Thanks.

Bob

 

[notraces]

As a follow up -- what's the opinion of the group as to which version of this lens is best -- Opton? T? T*?

Thanks much.

I've been looking for one of these lenses in EX+ condition. I thought I had one secured from the Leica Shop in Austria -- but they just wrote to say they tested the lens before they sent it an found a major flaw in the optics. I'm happy they didn't send the lens, but now I need one (want one).

Where's a good place to find them - besides the obvious big auction site.

Thanks.

Bob

 

[dexdog]

The consensus seems to be that the Zeiss- Opton "T" is the best. The later lenses from Carl Zeiss are also very good, but tend to be more prone to separation of glued elements. Note that the Carl Zeiss lenses are coated, but will not be marked with a red T. The CZJ lenses from Soviet-occupied Germany and DDR usually have very good glass, but many folks do not care for the aluminum lens barrels. The CZJ lenses will also be marked with a red "T".

There are no Contax RF marked "T*". I am pretty sure that the T* marking is a later development from Zeiss that indicates the lens is multi-coated.

 

[xayraa33]

KEH has two in bargain shape for sale.
they look to be post war east german Jena examples and kind of rough looking.

the west german Opton ones look to be the most desirable, but the later west german ones only marked Carl Zeiss seem to have element separation problems, as they changed the balsam formula used to combine the glass elements.

the pre war Zeiss Jena Sonnar would be interesting especially if it is un coated, but more owned as an addition later on for a "look' that is something different from the norm.

 

[furcafe]

A couple caveats to what others have posted: although the later "Carl Zeiss" lenses are more prone to suffer from separation (due to the introduction of a different cement as noted by xayraa33), I don't think the majority of them have that problem. Personally, I have no problem w/a Carl Zeiss lens that has no separation, as I think those that were going to separate already have. E.g.,, I have 1 CZ 50/1.5 Sonnar that has visible separation & the separation has not gotten any worse over the past 4-5 years & none of my other vintage CZ lenses (Contax RF, Contarex, Rolleiflex) that didn't have separation has developed any separation.

Also, some of the early Zeiss-Opton lenses suffer from improper/sloppy construction (due to the Oberkochen factory's initial inexperience in building lenses, as compared to Jena) & that's not something that's as easily spotted as separation.

As a follow up -- what's the opinion of the group as to which version of this lens is best -- Opton? T? T*?

Thanks much.

 

[dexdog]

Agree with furcafe that if the CZ lens has not already separated, it is not likely to in the future. I have 2 or 3 such lenses in great shape that I have owned for several years.

 

[mhv]

Best place to find a good 50mm 1.5 Sonnar is right here on RFF.

I got one from a user, 225$ + postage, Carl Zeiss Opton T-coated, pristine as could ever be possible, and a star on both my Contax IIa and my Kiev 4a.

Keep looking for the classifieds, and you might eventually chance upon one.

 

[notraces]

I managed to pick up what appears to be a pre-war CZJ 5cm f/1.5 for about less than 150 on the big site. It looks to be in great shape - so I'm going to give it a whirl and keep looking for a really nice Zeiss Opton T.

The interesting thing about the lens I just picked up (serial #2269xxx) is that it only stops down to f/11. Does anyone know why?

If anyone has a nice Zeiss Opton T -- let me know!

 

[xayraa33]

I managed to pick up what appears to be a pre-war CZJ 5cm f/1.5 for about less than 150 on the big site. It looks to be in great shape - so I'm going to give it a whirl and keep looking for a really nice Zeiss Opton T.

The interesting thing about the lens I just picked up (serial #2269xxx) is that it only stops down to f/11. Does anyone know why?

If anyone has a nice Zeiss Opton T -- let me know!

The early speed Sonnars suffered diffraction issues at tiny aperture rating and f 11 was the most that was tolerated.
The rare Nikkor 50mm f 1.5 lens copied this feature.

 

[dexdog]

The minimum aperture of f11 is typical of the older 50/1.5 lenses, although 50/2 lenses of the same age stop down to f22. John Keesing, in his book Contax Rangerfinder Lenses 1932-1963, hypothesizes that this was done to limit internal diffractions. According to Hartmut Theile's book, your lens dates to 1938.

 

[xayraa33]

Here is a write up on this subject.

http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/diffraction-small-apertures.html

 

[xayraa33]

The mundane Canon/Serenar 50mm f1.9 lens, although of a Planar design, also fully stopped down to f11

 

[notraces]

That's what I love about this place -- good information - and fast, too!

 

[jmkelly]

I was under the impression that diffraction was a function of aperture alone. Perhaps with the older lenses there were other aberrrations due to the glass that, when summed with the diffraction at small aperture, produced unacceptable sharpness?

Maybe the reason these lenses didn't stop down further was simpler. How fast was the fastest film available 70 years ago?

 

[mhv]

I was under the impression that diffraction was a function of aperture alone.

A function of the absolute size of the aperture (in mm, microns, etc), not a function of the relative size of the aperture (f-stops).

 

[ZeissFan]

Also, keep in mind that all lens calculations were done by hand, not by computer.

I recall reading that one lens could yield hundreds of pages of mathematical calculations. What could take weeks and months are now spit out by a computer in a few seconds or minutes.

The fact that any lenses could form a sharp image then and now is a testament to the men who created the original designs, as well as the manufacturing and assembly process required to produce optical elements and lenses that met demanding specifications.

 

[VinceC]

>>a testament to the men who created the original designs<<

Before computers, groups of women frequently were employed to do large-scale calculations ... they had the patience, attention to detail, and could be hired inexpensively in large numbers.

 

[ZeissFan]

Ah -- excellent point. You're right -- men AND women.

 

[outfitter]

The most important factor in the quality of a lens of this vintage is that it be cleaned and adjusted properly.

Two examples, I had a late Carl Zeiss Sonnar 50mm/f1.5 with bad lens separation. Harry Scherer cleaned, adjusted and attempted to re-amalgamate the cement (which I think was epoxy) but wasn't wholly successful (Harry only charged me $25 because oif this "failure") as there was a big bubble in the center (looks like a puddle). I've got to tell you the lens is excellent, better than earlier versions of the f1.5 I have used. So I have to vote for the late Carl Zeiss lenses.

On the other hand, I have a pre-war 1.5 that was aftermarket coated but has a chip in the front element. Harry CLA'd the lens (and replaced the front element) and it is a fine lens today. For me this demonstrates servicing the old Sonnar 50mm/f1'5 lenses is more important than what version it is - I would spend more on the CLA than for the lens.

 

[ERV]

I have a few Sonnars that I bought on ebay, all for very reasonable prices.
Coated, uncoated, 1930's to 1950's.
All are incredible lenses with distinct signatures.

Here is my most recent find- a 1938 Jena Sonnar f2.0 collapsible mounted on my M8 with a Contax to Leica M adapter.
It is beautiful condition and works perfectly for a 70 year old lens.
I paid $100.00 for it!