Pirate
Guitar playing Fotografer
Found one of these on ebay and bought it last night, then did some reading that says it may be a "fake". I would like to know what you guys think:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Carl-Zeiss-...Ba%2FmXFuoXqu4AfmD2hg%3D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc
From what I found on the net there are about 6 easy ways to tell if it's a fake. I can see 5 of them from the pictures and it only fails in 1 way- that's the tab on the aperture ring. Everything else that's visible says it's genuine.
So what do you guys think? Looks like a well used lens either way and I'll use it regardless, I'm just curious.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Carl-Zeiss-...Ba%2FmXFuoXqu4AfmD2hg%3D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc
From what I found on the net there are about 6 easy ways to tell if it's a fake. I can see 5 of them from the pictures and it only fails in 1 way- that's the tab on the aperture ring. Everything else that's visible says it's genuine.
So what do you guys think? Looks like a well used lens either way and I'll use it regardless, I'm just curious.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
It could be very well the genuine article, but only hands on inspection by someone knowledgeable on these can 100% determine that.
For the price of 256 dollars is now a days very close to the selling price of a grubby looking J-3 lens so you did not lose too much if that lens is really a worked over J-3 lens.
For the price of 256 dollars is now a days very close to the selling price of a grubby looking J-3 lens so you did not lose too much if that lens is really a worked over J-3 lens.
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
Look here: http://taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Zeiss_Fakes.html
I think yours looks like the real article. In any event, it looks like mine (a "285" lens). Note the size of the index triangle, and the use of periods rather than commas ("2.8" vs. "2,8"). I've seen some comments (including in a thread here on RfF; do a search) that says the index marking for the aperture ring should be a black line rather than a red dot; I believe the red dot alone doesn't make it fake, but rather indicates a postwar production lens rather than wartime. I'm guessing yours dates from 1946-47.
LeicaTom and others far more knowledgeable than I will weigh in, I hope. But regardless, it's a good price!
I think yours looks like the real article. In any event, it looks like mine (a "285" lens). Note the size of the index triangle, and the use of periods rather than commas ("2.8" vs. "2,8"). I've seen some comments (including in a thread here on RfF; do a search) that says the index marking for the aperture ring should be a black line rather than a red dot; I believe the red dot alone doesn't make it fake, but rather indicates a postwar production lens rather than wartime. I'm guessing yours dates from 1946-47.
LeicaTom and others far more knowledgeable than I will weigh in, I hope. But regardless, it's a good price!
Pirate
Guitar playing Fotografer
KoNickon, thats the reference i found that said the tab on the aperture ring makes it a fake.
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
Well, I did see that and I think that's not quite right. I have seen genuine ones with the two tabs.
paxnobiscum
Member
I'm no specialist but I noticed a strange thing when I shot a "family photograph" of several 50/1.5 lenses I have in LTM and Contax mount, using Leica M8 with no UV/IR cut filter on a J-9 lens. The black ring around the lens turned out purple on all but two; a original Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 50/1.5 from 1937 or 1938 and a J-3 1952 that I bought here with a "supposed" Zeiss optical module. The black on those two turned out perfectly black, but all other had a purple color cast.
It would be nice to know if it's possible to use an unfiltered lens on M8 to check if 50/1.5 Sonnars are fake or not.
It would be nice to know if it's possible to use an unfiltered lens on M8 to check if 50/1.5 Sonnars are fake or not.
Pirate
Guitar playing Fotografer
Sounds like anodizing. I've seen black anodizing look purple in direct sunlight.
paxnobiscum
Member
The black is black on all the lenses in daylight, or at least to my old eyes. But the IR over-sensitivity of M8 brings out a difference. I guess that Zeiss used a different black paint.
raid
Dad Photographer
In order to check for the origin of the lens you need to inspect the rear element and the part that holds it. Check if it is stamped with a number that is known to be German. No other "test" holds up as well as this one.
Pirate
Guitar playing Fotografer
Thanks, Raid. I'll have to wait till I get back from a business trip for that. It'll be another three weeks. Bummer...
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
If it's genuine, the two tabs are mandatory even.
See lots of examples in the 'Finally, I bought a wartime Sonnar' thread, in the Leica LTM forum.
I say that's one of the biggest thread on the board and a very comprehensive one on how to distinguish the faked lens from the real one.
As Raid says, once it arrives simply untwist the optical block from the focus mount and check whether part of the serial number is stamped into the metal collar of the rear element. If it is and it matches the front lens number, you have an original and matching set of optics.
Getting it shimmed for perfect Leica use is a piece of cake and you'll have a great-perfoming lens after that!
Pirate
Guitar playing Fotografer
So I have not been able to check for the second serial number at the back of this lens. I think I don't understand exactly how to check it. Can one of you please explain it to me again, slowly..... so I can see if the numbers match. What am I supposed to open up?
Meanwhile, since I had some trouble with my Leica IIIc that this lens was meant for, I put it on the M3 and ran a roll through it to check the focus. Seems to be ok close up, maybe even with just a little bit of front-focus. The infinity is out though. It won't make the rangefinder line up at infinity on a building across campus at the university, and anything focused at infinity comes out a little blurry.
Here are a couple shots at close and relatively close distances from today, with the first shot being from the IIIc, the others from the M3:
Sonnar on IIIc
Sonnar on M3
Sonnar on M3 (side of a small shuttle bus)
Sonnar on M3 at 1/1000 f/4
Next I'll have to take the new Sonnar with me and swap them out for the same pics and check out the difference.
Meanwhile, since I had some trouble with my Leica IIIc that this lens was meant for, I put it on the M3 and ran a roll through it to check the focus. Seems to be ok close up, maybe even with just a little bit of front-focus. The infinity is out though. It won't make the rangefinder line up at infinity on a building across campus at the university, and anything focused at infinity comes out a little blurry.
Here are a couple shots at close and relatively close distances from today, with the first shot being from the IIIc, the others from the M3:
Sonnar on IIIc
Sonnar on M3
Sonnar on M3 (side of a small shuttle bus)
Sonnar on M3 at 1/1000 f/4
Next I'll have to take the new Sonnar with me and swap them out for the same pics and check out the difference.