dexdog
Mentor
Recent eBay acquistion, an irregular production Sonnar of sorts. Lens was associated with what I think is a a Leica IIc, but do not profess much knowledge of Leica gear. Camera body and lens in good condition.
dexdog
Mentor
Kinda surprised that the lens appears to focus accurately, a measured 5 meter mark in my house was pretty close with both the Leica and my Canon P. The lens is marked 5cm, but appears to be 5.8 cm. First pic is the irregular marked 5cm, second is my CZJ 5.8cm Biotar. Both taken on one of my Sonys, framing is pretty much the same. I put my Contax S in the frame with the Biotar to avoid a mix-up.
Last edited:
Probably one of the infamous 5.8cm F1.5 Sonnars- post a picture of the back of the lens, and namering when you get a chance.
The Cam should be indexed for it to focus across range.
The Cam should be indexed for it to focus across range.
dexdog
Mentor
Internal construction looks nothing like an LTM Sonnar. The shiny light gray streak in the first pic is a cam slot in the helical. The travel of the helical is driven by the small screw seen in the second pic. The grease on the helical is sticky like beeswax or that stuff that you apply to the bottom of cross country skis when you need more grip.
Last edited:
It is a 5.8cm lens- I recognize that index anywhere!
dexdog
Mentor
Now, the fun part! The lens has an indexed cam and the rear lens group has 6 slots in the fixture (which I was expecting, of course). Hard to get all the slots to show up, but there are 6.
Lastly, I have never seen a Sonnar that comes apart like this. Front element has a bit of dust and a fair amount of haze, and is uncoated. I think that it will clean up nicely. Not a task for this afternoon, but soon.
Lastly, I have never seen a Sonnar that comes apart like this. Front element has a bit of dust and a fair amount of haze, and is uncoated. I think that it will clean up nicely. Not a task for this afternoon, but soon.
Last edited:
I just checked my "5 cm F1.5" that is really 5.8cm- SN block is SN314xxxx. Front unscrews, just like yours. All uncoated optics.
In Contax Internal Mount: the camera would need to be adjusted for the lens, OR the lens can only be used at one distance.
Bizarre. I will use on a mirrorless camera.
In Contax Internal Mount: the camera would need to be adjusted for the lens, OR the lens can only be used at one distance.
Bizarre. I will use on a mirrorless camera.
dexdog
Mentor
I took the lens mount off the helical this morning to clean and lubricate. It was not until after I had cleaned the inside of the lens mount with lighter fluid and toothbrush that I found the number 29 scratched onto the surface. This lens mount was really dirty.
I also unscrewed the front lens element. Very hazy, used about 10 pieces of lens paper and 90% isopropanol to little effect, haze was stubborn. Finally decided to use lighter fluid, and that did the trick. Whatever was on the lens was greasy and I used 23 pieces of lens paper. Anyway, cleaned up nicely, as compared to last pic in post #6, above.
Aperture ring is a bit stiffer than I would normally prefer, but is perfectly usable as is, so will leave it alone for now. I think I will test drive the lens this morning if I can find something interesting to photograph. .
I also unscrewed the front lens element. Very hazy, used about 10 pieces of lens paper and 90% isopropanol to little effect, haze was stubborn. Finally decided to use lighter fluid, and that did the trick. Whatever was on the lens was greasy and I used 23 pieces of lens paper. Anyway, cleaned up nicely, as compared to last pic in post #6, above.
Aperture ring is a bit stiffer than I would normally prefer, but is perfectly usable as is, so will leave it alone for now. I think I will test drive the lens this morning if I can find something interesting to photograph. .
Räuber
Established
I stay away from those 58mm Sonnars. A lot of time has been spend on the subject and a lot has been written about it.
They where xrayed. Mr. Gubas has written about them in his book Zeiss and Photography. Mr. Thiele has written in depth about it in his book Fälschungen. In short Mr. Thiele says there are no Sonnar 5,2cm, no 5,5cm, no 5,8cm or 6cm optical calculations from Berthele or Zeiss Jena. There were official statements from Zeiss and Leica about those lenses and the official explanation is that a lot of parts where stolen by ex-Zeiss and non-Zeiss employees at the end of WWII. Those parts where used to create those fake lenses. There where a lot of workshops lifted by the police and people have been sued.
They where xrayed. Mr. Gubas has written about them in his book Zeiss and Photography. Mr. Thiele has written in depth about it in his book Fälschungen. In short Mr. Thiele says there are no Sonnar 5,2cm, no 5,5cm, no 5,8cm or 6cm optical calculations from Berthele or Zeiss Jena. There were official statements from Zeiss and Leica about those lenses and the official explanation is that a lot of parts where stolen by ex-Zeiss and non-Zeiss employees at the end of WWII. Those parts where used to create those fake lenses. There where a lot of workshops lifted by the police and people have been sued.
A lot has been written, and some have gone as far as to take the lenses apart and find out more about them. They fall into the "irregular production" and "survival" category of Zeiss history. They are not worth the ludicrous prices some want for them. They are worth picking up for a collection of Sonnar lenses, if you can get them for what they are worth- no more than a user condition post-war Sonnar. $250 or so? worth it just to take one apart. $1,000? no way.
I have a transition 5cm F1.5 in LTM- had to replace the middle triplet because the original was not polished, about 1/3 of the surface was left rough. Not a fake- has a proper SN on it, etc. Some parts are genuine like my other Wartime lenses, some parts are properly machined- just not finished. I got it to work, once a good middle triplet was installed, pretty good. I traded one of my pre-war converted lenses for it, back when I could get all the parts for $150.
I have a transition 5cm F1.5 in LTM- had to replace the middle triplet because the original was not polished, about 1/3 of the surface was left rough. Not a fake- has a proper SN on it, etc. Some parts are genuine like my other Wartime lenses, some parts are properly machined- just not finished. I got it to work, once a good middle triplet was installed, pretty good. I traded one of my pre-war converted lenses for it, back when I could get all the parts for $150.
Last edited:
dexdog
Mentor
I am am aware of the idea that these types of lenses were likely created with parts stolen from Zeiss factories soon after the end of WW2. Germany and its citizens were in dire straits after the war, struggling to find food and other necessities to support ones family. A thriving black market for all commodities soon developed, and people did whatever they could to earn money or have something to barter. Camera lenses were no different. I think that these sorts of lenses are interesting from a historical standpoint, which is why is decided to buy it. The fact that it focuses correctly and takes good images is a bonus, lagniappe, fringe benefit, etc. I called the lens "irregular production" in the thread title because calling a such a lens a "fake sonnar" proved to be inflammatory in an older thread.
Last edited:
milescl
Well-known
Happy to see you ended up with the lens, dexdog. Figured when I linked the listing the other week that you had already seen it or might be interested.
Thanks for continuing to share your findings, too. I love following along.
Thanks for continuing to share your findings, too. I love following along.
Räuber
Established
My comment was not meant as an insult. I just wanted to give some information about this lens in case someone ends up in this thread googling Sonnar 5,8cm f1,5. For those people that do not know this lens in short: it is not an authentic Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar lens. This means it has not been designed by Zeiss and has been manufactured by more or less skilled private craftsman after WWII. It is no secret Zeiss lens or super rare super sharp lens designed by an anonymous optical genius! 
Those 58mm Sonnars can be found quite regularly on Ebay and every lens seems to be unique. I see it like Brian they are not worth the high asking price of 1000 bugs.
That all said there is one thing I find mysterious about those lenses. Why 5,8cm? I know that a lot of those irregular lenses where build in private workshops to offer something to especially American soldiers (with their Leicas) on the black market. But if you could snatch parts from the Jena plant why build a 5,8cm Sonnar (if you round it up or down you get 5,5cm and 6cm)? You could easily offer a 5cm Leica Sonnar. And why did so many of those workshops produce the same not existing lens? At that time there was only one 5,8cm lens: the Biotar 5,8cm f/2. Maybe this is a mix of Sonnar 5cm and Biotar 5,8cm lenses in one lens barrel. Front Biotar, back Sonnar. The difference would be that the seconds lens group is not constructed from 3 cemented lenses but from 2. The question is the aperture. The Biotar is only f2. Even if you put the back group of a Sonnar on the Biotar front this does not create a f1,5 lens from a f2 lens. So another question to me is, is this Sonnar 5,8cm really f1,5 or is it f2?
You could compare the size of bokeh balls of a Biotar 5,8cm f/2 with this Sonnar 5,8cm f/1,5. Or you could calculate the diameter of the front lens this lens needs to realize a f/1,5 aperture.
Those 58mm Sonnars can be found quite regularly on Ebay and every lens seems to be unique. I see it like Brian they are not worth the high asking price of 1000 bugs.That all said there is one thing I find mysterious about those lenses. Why 5,8cm? I know that a lot of those irregular lenses where build in private workshops to offer something to especially American soldiers (with their Leicas) on the black market. But if you could snatch parts from the Jena plant why build a 5,8cm Sonnar (if you round it up or down you get 5,5cm and 6cm)? You could easily offer a 5cm Leica Sonnar. And why did so many of those workshops produce the same not existing lens? At that time there was only one 5,8cm lens: the Biotar 5,8cm f/2. Maybe this is a mix of Sonnar 5cm and Biotar 5,8cm lenses in one lens barrel. Front Biotar, back Sonnar. The difference would be that the seconds lens group is not constructed from 3 cemented lenses but from 2. The question is the aperture. The Biotar is only f2. Even if you put the back group of a Sonnar on the Biotar front this does not create a f1,5 lens from a f2 lens. So another question to me is, is this Sonnar 5,8cm really f1,5 or is it f2?
You could compare the size of bokeh balls of a Biotar 5,8cm f/2 with this Sonnar 5,8cm f/1,5. Or you could calculate the diameter of the front lens this lens needs to realize a f/1,5 aperture.
Räuber
Established
I really appreciate the effort of investigating the lens history of old Zeiss lenses. I'm guilty too. I have a growing number of Sonnar 5cm f/2 sitting here that might only have some historical value. For example this gear headed Sonnar lens. I like to shine some light on this post-war time too. Luckily those f2 lenses go for a lot less money as they do not share the fame of this 5,8cm Sonnar. It is a little bit sad that rare and historical significant does not correspond to collectors value. Maybe I should be lucky or else I would need to spend 500 or 1000 bugs instead of 50.
It is a little bit sad that rare and historical significant does not correspond to collectors value. Maybe I should be lucky or else I would need to spend 500 or 1000 bugs instead of 50.
The 5.8cm F1.5 is a Sonnar formula, classic 7 element in 3 group 1-3-3 design.
If this lens was not made at the Zeiss Factory, it was made by someone who worked there.
If this lens was not made at the Zeiss Factory, it was made by someone who worked there.
Räuber
Established
How sure are you about this 1-3-3 design? I only have seen x-ray images of the 5,8cm f/1,5 Sonnar. You can see the groups but you can not count the lenses in those groups. A mixup of Biotar and Sonnar would have 6 elements in 3 group 1-2-3 design. Difficult to tell this apart from a 7 element design.
Grinding and assembling those triplet groups is a very difficult (and therefore expensive) task. Creating Sonnar 5cm f/1,5 lenses was considered as expensive and time consuming by Zeiss too. Even if they wanted they could not create more Sonnar lenses because of the difficulty in production. Compare this to the high number of Tessar lenses (very simple design) Zeiss was creating. If I would try to make a living in post-war Germany as an ex-Zeiss employee I would build a simple lens. I would even sell a Tessar as a Sonnar 5,8cm f/1,5. If I even have access to parts and lenses from the Zeiss factory and I have the chance to get my hand on all 3 Sonnar 5cm f/1,5 lens groups then I would build a Sonnar 5cm and not a 5,8cm. The 5cm lens groups are not designed for the 5,8cm focal length.
There is a reason why all Sonnar lenses were calculated by Ludwig Bertele. Even after WWII the Zeiss-Opton Sonnars were all calculated by Bertele again. There were other optical experts that recalculated the Sonnar formula because they needed to use different glass. Nikon, Canon and even KMZ needed to do a recalculation of the design. And sure maybe there were optical experts that worked on a Sonnar clone to make a living but then you need a bunch of skilled craftsman to break glass, to grind glass, to manufacture all parts of the lens barrel and assemble it.
I find this idea made from aircraft gun visions? interesting from another point of view. Maybe it was a small established lens manufacturer that was not bombed during and disassembled after the war. But then all lenses would look the same. There are groups of 5,8cm f/1.5 Sonnars that look like from the same factory. But then there are a lot of different looking ones too.
And then there is the fact that a lot of those lenses are gobbled together. Unfinished lenses and stuff. This all strengthens the explanation of stolen or salvaged parts from the trash bin gobbled together by skilled craftsman that worked or still worked in the Jena factory. But then how did they know how to build a 5,8cm f/1,5 lens? A lens where no design exists?
You see no explanation makes complete sense. At least for me.
Grinding and assembling those triplet groups is a very difficult (and therefore expensive) task. Creating Sonnar 5cm f/1,5 lenses was considered as expensive and time consuming by Zeiss too. Even if they wanted they could not create more Sonnar lenses because of the difficulty in production. Compare this to the high number of Tessar lenses (very simple design) Zeiss was creating. If I would try to make a living in post-war Germany as an ex-Zeiss employee I would build a simple lens. I would even sell a Tessar as a Sonnar 5,8cm f/1,5. If I even have access to parts and lenses from the Zeiss factory and I have the chance to get my hand on all 3 Sonnar 5cm f/1,5 lens groups then I would build a Sonnar 5cm and not a 5,8cm. The 5cm lens groups are not designed for the 5,8cm focal length.
There is a reason why all Sonnar lenses were calculated by Ludwig Bertele. Even after WWII the Zeiss-Opton Sonnars were all calculated by Bertele again. There were other optical experts that recalculated the Sonnar formula because they needed to use different glass. Nikon, Canon and even KMZ needed to do a recalculation of the design. And sure maybe there were optical experts that worked on a Sonnar clone to make a living but then you need a bunch of skilled craftsman to break glass, to grind glass, to manufacture all parts of the lens barrel and assemble it.
I find this idea made from aircraft gun visions? interesting from another point of view. Maybe it was a small established lens manufacturer that was not bombed during and disassembled after the war. But then all lenses would look the same. There are groups of 5,8cm f/1.5 Sonnars that look like from the same factory. But then there are a lot of different looking ones too.
And then there is the fact that a lot of those lenses are gobbled together. Unfinished lenses and stuff. This all strengthens the explanation of stolen or salvaged parts from the trash bin gobbled together by skilled craftsman that worked or still worked in the Jena factory. But then how did they know how to build a 5,8cm f/1,5 lens? A lens where no design exists?
You see no explanation makes complete sense. At least for me.
I've mixed Sonnar and Biotar optics. Front section of a J-8 combined with a rear section of a Xenon. The astigmatism is extreme.
I've seen the X-Rays in the article on the 5.8cm F1.5, believe there is a faint outline of the rear elements- a triplet.
I have a bizarre 276xxxx 5cm F1.5 Sonnar, and it has a smaller rear group. Optics were very worn, but for $75- no complaints. The rear group is different from the Arriflex 5cm F1.5 Sonnar, which is truncated- much smaller diameter that will not cover full-frame 35mm. The bizarre 276xxxx covers the full frame.
I believe it is like this one, 1-3-2:
BUT: I am not going to separate the group to find out. I've done that for a J-8M, discovered the middle triplet was very different from the published formula.
This article sent to me has the X-Ray of the 5.8cm F1.5 and the 5cm F1.5.
It is clearly a Sonnar formula lens. The front element has the metal rim around it, but it is a single-element and a middle triplet.
I've seen the X-Rays in the article on the 5.8cm F1.5, believe there is a faint outline of the rear elements- a triplet.
I have a bizarre 276xxxx 5cm F1.5 Sonnar, and it has a smaller rear group. Optics were very worn, but for $75- no complaints. The rear group is different from the Arriflex 5cm F1.5 Sonnar, which is truncated- much smaller diameter that will not cover full-frame 35mm. The bizarre 276xxxx covers the full frame.
I believe it is like this one, 1-3-2:
BUT: I am not going to separate the group to find out. I've done that for a J-8M, discovered the middle triplet was very different from the published formula.
This article sent to me has the X-Ray of the 5.8cm F1.5 and the 5cm F1.5.
It is clearly a Sonnar formula lens. The front element has the metal rim around it, but it is a single-element and a middle triplet.
Last edited:
TenEleven
Well-known
I don't have much to add but perhaps this, the front element on my 5.8cm "Sturzvisier" Sonnar also unscrews like that. It appears to be permanently mated to the front like that. The name-ring is really just a name ring only if I recall correctly.
Mine however has only two slots and uses a secondary helical to achieve rangefinder coupling. The coupling between the two helicals is very crude - a long screw is run through the lens lengthwise which links these together. This makes reassembly of the lens very fun! But it does work well and the focus is accurate.
Mine however has only two slots and uses a secondary helical to achieve rangefinder coupling. The coupling between the two helicals is very crude - a long screw is run through the lens lengthwise which links these together. This makes reassembly of the lens very fun! But it does work well and the focus is accurate.
dexdog
Mentor
I have two of these lenses, they are different design. The 140 series lens has the secondary helical visible in this picture to the left of the circular shim; it does not have an indexed cam. Also, the front element of the140 series lens is held in place by the name ring, and can be removed with a spanner like a typical sonnar. The one without helical but with an indexed cam is seen in first pict in post #4 of this thread. I have not taken the second lens apart any further because it focuses well, and also because the thing is very tight, and I am afraid to employ brute force and ignorance to get it apart.
Last edited:
TenEleven
Well-known
I have had, well briefly, two as well. One was of the sloped cam type but I could not get it to focus right because the lens had no shims but would have needed to sit deeper into the mount still which of course was not possible without destroying or permanently altering it, so I returned it.
Regarding the differences, it is possible that yours (I need to check my serial #) is perhaps earlier than mine? It seems they started with a relatively good and elaborate design and then simplified it down more and more in order to get more throughput and profits to their fly-by-night operation. At least that's my theory.
Regarding the differences, it is possible that yours (I need to check my serial #) is perhaps earlier than mine? It seems they started with a relatively good and elaborate design and then simplified it down more and more in order to get more throughput and profits to their fly-by-night operation. At least that's my theory.