Räuber
Established
That guy does amazing work. I bookmarked his site a few months ago. There is a 6cm Sonnar currently on eBay. It is different than others I have seen in that the aperture and focus directions are backwards.
Zeiss Sonnar 6cm F1.5 L-39 SM Unusual Rare Lens with Caps | eBay
I believe made in East Germany.www.ebay.com
It is not only that. This one is engraved Sonnar 6cm f/1,5 goes to f16 and to 0.9m MFD. If this is not only a showoff it could be a different Sonnar formula. On Facebook there is another Sonnar 6cm that has a similar "wrong" serial.
picture from top: top left Sonnar, picture from side: bottom left Sonnar
I'd like to take a 6cm F1.5 apart, if one ever comes my way. I suspect the 6cm was easier to engrave than 5.8cm. My lens is engraved 5cm, but is clearly a 5.8cm focal length.
Räuber
Established
I tried out this method from Jim Kason to detect decentering.
blog.kasson.com
Well, I find it pretty difficult to see decentering and how strong the lens is affected with this method. But if you like nightmares then this seems to be the perfect method to roast your perfect lens to ashes. I tried it with a dozen of my lenses and it shows more then decentering of lenses. It shows you defects! It is like the flashlight test for lenses... 🙈
My perfect clean glass Jupiter 3+ shows hints of decentering (left white crescend).
That is one of my bad East German post-war Sonnar 5cm f/1,5 T. I expected some decentering but it shows some spots that look like separation?
My Nikkor 5cm f/1,4 looks like it is affected heavily by decentering. Pretty clean though.
And now lets come to the star of the compilation... or should I say MOON... the Sonnar 5,8cm f/1,5
Looks like Apollo 11 has landed. What is this? Is this a case where some elements were not polished? Well, it looks not decentered at last. 😅
In comparison my bad Jupiter-3 from 1963.
Decentered and scratched? It does not look as bad as the 5,8cm.
Simple decentering test - the last word
I have a much better test than this one now. Here it is. I'm leaving this post up for historical reasons, but I strongly recommend that you use the new test. From the mailbag: I just found your blog and have been really enthralled by all the data you've got! I had a question I
blog.kasson.com
Well, I find it pretty difficult to see decentering and how strong the lens is affected with this method. But if you like nightmares then this seems to be the perfect method to roast your perfect lens to ashes. I tried it with a dozen of my lenses and it shows more then decentering of lenses. It shows you defects! It is like the flashlight test for lenses... 🙈
My perfect clean glass Jupiter 3+ shows hints of decentering (left white crescend).
That is one of my bad East German post-war Sonnar 5cm f/1,5 T. I expected some decentering but it shows some spots that look like separation?
My Nikkor 5cm f/1,4 looks like it is affected heavily by decentering. Pretty clean though.
And now lets come to the star of the compilation... or should I say MOON... the Sonnar 5,8cm f/1,5
Looks like Apollo 11 has landed. What is this? Is this a case where some elements were not polished? Well, it looks not decentered at last. 😅
In comparison my bad Jupiter-3 from 1963.
Decentered and scratched? It does not look as bad as the 5,8cm.
TenEleven
Well-known
This kind of test where you basically shows grinding defects and similar such issues mercilessly. The same thing happens in the "bokeh balls" if your lens has a particularly large bubble or scratch it can show up there despite not affecting the overall image. Which is, crudely speaking what you do with this test.
However, this mainly tests the lens on-axis and I am not fully convinced that this test actually tests for de-centering. For example if the paint on the lens elements itself has flaked it could cause internal reflections that will look just like that (and will also not go around the entire circumference of the lens). Further, also looking very similar is harsh outlining of bokeh-rings is often caused by the designer choosing to over-correct for spherical aberration (at that distance!!) and not necessarily de-centering.
Which I believe is what you are seeing with your Nikkor. Try it. Use the Nikkor up close near its NFD. No glow!
Because the designers chose to aggressively correct for Spherical aberration at portrait distances. The price for that is paid at longer distances, so now try infinity - lots of glow!
This is not a new discovery by the way, Dante Stella wrote about it here:
One thing we absolutely however do see with this test, which I guess if the "Sturzvisier" theory is correct should not be surprising:
The overall grinding level of finish and consistency of finish has more variance to it. Which makes sense, since the bar for "good enough" for an optical sight is likely lower than that for a camera lens. So you will get (by happenstance) some good samples, perhaps even the odd amazing one, and of course a lot of samples that would have been either parted out or rejected if they had to meet the quality bar for a camera lens.
However, this mainly tests the lens on-axis and I am not fully convinced that this test actually tests for de-centering. For example if the paint on the lens elements itself has flaked it could cause internal reflections that will look just like that (and will also not go around the entire circumference of the lens). Further, also looking very similar is harsh outlining of bokeh-rings is often caused by the designer choosing to over-correct for spherical aberration (at that distance!!) and not necessarily de-centering.
Which I believe is what you are seeing with your Nikkor. Try it. Use the Nikkor up close near its NFD. No glow!
Because the designers chose to aggressively correct for Spherical aberration at portrait distances. The price for that is paid at longer distances, so now try infinity - lots of glow!
This is not a new discovery by the way, Dante Stella wrote about it here:
One thing we absolutely however do see with this test, which I guess if the "Sturzvisier" theory is correct should not be surprising:
The overall grinding level of finish and consistency of finish has more variance to it. Which makes sense, since the bar for "good enough" for an optical sight is likely lower than that for a camera lens. So you will get (by happenstance) some good samples, perhaps even the odd amazing one, and of course a lot of samples that would have been either parted out or rejected if they had to meet the quality bar for a camera lens.
TenEleven
Well-known
Here's the test I described earlier, these guys know what they are talking about and I find them to be trustworthy:
brusby
Well-known
Very nice!
Räuber
Established
S.H.
Picture taker
Here is another one :
Zeiss Sonnar 5,8 cm 1,5 M 30 Schraunabaschluss | eBay
Das Objektiv ist in saubere Zustand, Die Funkrionen und die Linsen sind noch gut im innern ist Staub, aber kein Fungus.
www.ebay.de
Attachments
dexdog
Mentor
S. H., the lens barrel and mount looks a little different than the others I have seen recently. Better quality finish at least. The name ring looks too bright and shiny, engraving on name ring looks almost like CNC work. Finally, the screw in the lens mount that drives the helical is odd in that is a round head instead of a flat head screw. That said, I think that the lens is a Stuvi variant with 6 slots on rear fixture.
Last edited:
TenEleven
Well-known
Yeah, I think dexdog is right. The screw is indeed strange. It's supposed to be a flat-head screw that is countersunk. Not a domed screw.
I suppose it has gotten replaced over the life of the lens, you can see in another photo of the listing that the screw doesn't quite fit right. And the focus scale ring is missing its screw. So there definitely was some attempted disassembly done here.
Exempting the name ring which is indeed nicely done the fit and finish is similar to the one I have. Mine had a "T" engraved, which someone attempted to remove. Interestingly the removal of the "T" must have happened some time ago since the scratched brass is very oxidized.
Lastly the listing version has a sloped RF cam, which I presume is an earlier version of the lens.
The serial number, for what little that's worth, is also lower - 27.
I suppose it has gotten replaced over the life of the lens, you can see in another photo of the listing that the screw doesn't quite fit right. And the focus scale ring is missing its screw. So there definitely was some attempted disassembly done here.
Exempting the name ring which is indeed nicely done the fit and finish is similar to the one I have. Mine had a "T" engraved, which someone attempted to remove. Interestingly the removal of the "T" must have happened some time ago since the scratched brass is very oxidized.
Lastly the listing version has a sloped RF cam, which I presume is an earlier version of the lens.
The serial number, for what little that's worth, is also lower - 27.
Räuber
Established
I did a flashlight test with my Sonnar 5,8cm f/1,5. And it has some issues like a little bit of fungus. There is a little bit of fog inside the lens that could further decrease the contrast. The heavy structure you see in the bokeh ball sample of this lens comes from the rear element. While the other elements look polished this one has a rough surface to it that can be seen in the right angle of light. It seems it is the outside surface of the rear triplet that is affected this way. It very much reminds me of my v1 Sonnar 5cm f/2. This has a similar defect at the front lens. I have seen this with other v1 Sonnar 5cm f/2 lenses too. My Sonnar f2 has undergone a CLA but the front could not be fixed by cleaning. I imagine that a proper polishing could fix it. But I wanted to keep this Sonnar f2 in this state as it creates heavily vintage looking images. 😅
Lets wait if I give the 5,8cm a proper CLA with polishing. I will try to take some images to show this defect here. But not in the next days as my Lady wants to spend a nice time with me. 😄
Lets wait if I give the 5,8cm a proper CLA with polishing. I will try to take some images to show this defect here. But not in the next days as my Lady wants to spend a nice time with me. 😄
Last edited: