Krosya
Konicaze
I came across this lens:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=350294375440&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT
Does anyone know much about it? Is it even real or a fake? Is it a good price? Anyone use one of these? Anyone has any pics from one?
All info would help.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=350294375440&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT
Does anyone know much about it? Is it even real or a fake? Is it a good price? Anyone use one of these? Anyone has any pics from one?
All info would help.
Probably a custom conversion- but it does have an indexed cam to correct the focus for the 5.8cm focal length.
If it is anything like the other "hacks" that i have shot with, the quality is "okay" but not as good as the wartime 5cm f1.5 Sonnars that I have.
I took some "probably' russian conversions apart:
http://ziforums.com/showthread.php?t=224
If it is anything like the other "hacks" that i have shot with, the quality is "okay" but not as good as the wartime 5cm f1.5 Sonnars that I have.
I took some "probably' russian conversions apart:
http://ziforums.com/showthread.php?t=224
Last edited:
Krosya
Konicaze
Thanks for the comments. Now, how about this one - does this look like a real thing?:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=160389076989&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=160389076989&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT
dexdog
Mentor
I have never seen an LTM sonnar that looks like this one- the cross-hatched knurling is really odd. Also, the lettering on the front ring looks abnormally large. Might be a custom refit, might be a J-3 in disguise- anyone's guess.
The only way to really know for sure is to have someone like Brian take it apart for analysis.
The price is pretty expensive, IMO
The only way to really know for sure is to have someone like Brian take it apart for analysis.
The price is pretty expensive, IMO
The optics module looks real enough, but the knurling -as mentioned above- is not like any that I've seen before. Even if it was genuine, the price is too high.
To be honest, I prefer the feel of a CLA'd J-3 focus mount with a Zeiss Contax optics module in it. The Jupiter-3 mechanism is a simplification of the original Zeiss design, and one where the "KISS" design methodology was a big improvement over the original.
It is not hard to do, but getting the shims correct will either require a special viewer like the one i lucked into, or using a Loupe at the film-gate of your camera.
http://ziforums.com/showthread.php?t=360
To be honest, I prefer the feel of a CLA'd J-3 focus mount with a Zeiss Contax optics module in it. The Jupiter-3 mechanism is a simplification of the original Zeiss design, and one where the "KISS" design methodology was a big improvement over the original.
It is not hard to do, but getting the shims correct will either require a special viewer like the one i lucked into, or using a Loupe at the film-gate of your camera.
http://ziforums.com/showthread.php?t=360
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
jmkelly
rangefinder user
Kroysa - Stephan van den Zegel has at least one Sonnar that shows similar knurling to the lens in the second eBay listing. Whether these are "authentic factory production" or not will never be known.
Several folks, including myself, have speculated that there was cottage industry that may have started before the end of the war and continued into the post-war period where some unknown more-or-less skilled craftsmen hand-built a number of "Jena" lenses, probably in order to raise hard currency. I suspect that as things got dire for the Reich, some components may have left the Jena factory in empty lunch kits.
These lenses were NOT Jupiter-3's with faked trim rings. I owned one of these LTM lenses - the optical module was not Russian, nor was it a Jena factory product - it looked for all the world like a hand-machined and rather roughly finished all-alloy barrel (rather than brass). The serial number was not listed in Thiele. Brian Sweeney has this lens now. I also had a Contax-mount 50/1.5 Sonnar from the same period that was listed in Thiele, but had a somewhat roughly finished brass mount shell and a well done alloy optical module, except for the rear triplet assembly which was made of brass and stamped with the serial number matching the trim ring.
I think these oddball Sonnars are fascinating, and I wish I knew the real story behind each one of them. They have collector value to some, and this is reflected in the asking prices. I would not buy one of them expecting excellent or even adequate optical performance. If you want to USE a Jena Sonnar in LTM, get one of Brian's hybrids.
Or buy an authentic Contax-mount Sonnar (for the optics) and a decent-looking J-3 (for the mount) and build your own - Brian has posted good instructions. I have made a couple myself following these instructions, though I don't have a nifty through-the-lens viewer; I use the actual body I'm going to mount the lens on to set infinity, and the R-D1 to shim the optics for close-focus.
Several folks, including myself, have speculated that there was cottage industry that may have started before the end of the war and continued into the post-war period where some unknown more-or-less skilled craftsmen hand-built a number of "Jena" lenses, probably in order to raise hard currency. I suspect that as things got dire for the Reich, some components may have left the Jena factory in empty lunch kits.
These lenses were NOT Jupiter-3's with faked trim rings. I owned one of these LTM lenses - the optical module was not Russian, nor was it a Jena factory product - it looked for all the world like a hand-machined and rather roughly finished all-alloy barrel (rather than brass). The serial number was not listed in Thiele. Brian Sweeney has this lens now. I also had a Contax-mount 50/1.5 Sonnar from the same period that was listed in Thiele, but had a somewhat roughly finished brass mount shell and a well done alloy optical module, except for the rear triplet assembly which was made of brass and stamped with the serial number matching the trim ring.
I think these oddball Sonnars are fascinating, and I wish I knew the real story behind each one of them. They have collector value to some, and this is reflected in the asking prices. I would not buy one of them expecting excellent or even adequate optical performance. If you want to USE a Jena Sonnar in LTM, get one of Brian's hybrids.
Or buy an authentic Contax-mount Sonnar (for the optics) and a decent-looking J-3 (for the mount) and build your own - Brian has posted good instructions. I have made a couple myself following these instructions, though I don't have a nifty through-the-lens viewer; I use the actual body I'm going to mount the lens on to set infinity, and the R-D1 to shim the optics for close-focus.
sp9107sp
Well-known
5,8cm sonnar
5,8cm sonnar
Contax rangefinder lenses by John Keesing list the lens. "An experimental back and nickle lens from 1933, serial number 1459655 about 30 examples are known to exist in leica screw mount, only 1 is know to exist in contax mount"
5,8cm sonnar
Contax rangefinder lenses by John Keesing list the lens. "An experimental back and nickle lens from 1933, serial number 1459655 about 30 examples are known to exist in leica screw mount, only 1 is know to exist in contax mount"
sp9107sp
Well-known
M2user
Member
The John Keesing book was published well before the Carl Zeiss Jena factory production records were investigated by Hartmut Thiele and Thieles book of the production records proves that 5.8cm and 6cm Sonnars in Leica screw mount were never produced at the factory.
jmkelly
rangefinder user
I don't have Thiele's books but I have corresponded pretty extensively with several folks who do. My understanding is that Thiele's research did not produce a so-called "production card" showing completion of a batch of finished 5.8cm or 6cm lenses. This is not the same as proving that such lenses were never produced at the Jena factory.
It has been pointed out that recordkeeping at the Jena factory at the end of the war and after was chaotic, suggesting at least a few possibilities: 1) the lenses were made there but a production card was never completed, or was lost, or 2) the lenses were made elsewhere from parts that were produced at Jena but never authorized for production.
So from anyone who has copies of Thiele's works, for my own edification, does Thiele anywhere explicitly state that these lenses were not made at the factory? If so, what proofs are presented?
And playing devils advocate for a moment - supposing these lenses are fakes, what were they faked from? Does anyone have any theories?
It has been pointed out that recordkeeping at the Jena factory at the end of the war and after was chaotic, suggesting at least a few possibilities: 1) the lenses were made there but a production card was never completed, or was lost, or 2) the lenses were made elsewhere from parts that were produced at Jena but never authorized for production.
So from anyone who has copies of Thiele's works, for my own edification, does Thiele anywhere explicitly state that these lenses were not made at the factory? If so, what proofs are presented?
And playing devils advocate for a moment - supposing these lenses are fakes, what were they faked from? Does anyone have any theories?
LeicaTom
Watch that step!
Those 58 and 60mm Sonnars are from that Sonnar sourge in the 1980's, built to puzzle Leica collectors, they are 100% trumped up, billed as Leica Sonnar's, built up from Russian optics and fake CZJ rims/rings added, (I think they originated in Poland) ~
Back in the 1980's the market was flooded with tons of Russian junk and that's where these "fantasy" lenses came from.......
Tom
Back in the 1980's the market was flooded with tons of Russian junk and that's where these "fantasy" lenses came from.......
Tom
photovdz
Well-known
as for the knurled one...
it's perfectly machined and the glass is 100% zeiss... my idea is that it was modified to LTM from a contax mount block somewhere outside the factory... but by real zeiss people because the mount is the same functionnaly as the one designed at the factory (3 screws with one double, Brian will understand)... but they finished it with a bizarre font engraving and a diamant cut ring... may be because they had those tools available. you have to remember that dresden was bombed...
In the same finish, I also have seen a 8,5/2 (sold at the time by Kevin camera for a lot of money) and this one... probably there are others
I'm sure it's not a "valuta makers" production, otherwise they would have tried to look like a real zeiss lens ;-)
it's perfectly machined and the glass is 100% zeiss... my idea is that it was modified to LTM from a contax mount block somewhere outside the factory... but by real zeiss people because the mount is the same functionnaly as the one designed at the factory (3 screws with one double, Brian will understand)... but they finished it with a bizarre font engraving and a diamant cut ring... may be because they had those tools available. you have to remember that dresden was bombed...
In the same finish, I also have seen a 8,5/2 (sold at the time by Kevin camera for a lot of money) and this one... probably there are others
I'm sure it's not a "valuta makers" production, otherwise they would have tried to look like a real zeiss lens ;-)
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Stefan,
my Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar has four screws, two single ones and a pair. Serial no. is in the 27247xx block. Coated, with ears, small triangle and small m.
Years ago I bought a Jupiter-8 in Prague that had a metal rear cap with the diamond pattern, which now is on the lens. Metal Carl Zeiss Jena front cap.
Should you like any pictures, please PM me, I'll get them over to you.
my Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar has four screws, two single ones and a pair. Serial no. is in the 27247xx block. Coated, with ears, small triangle and small m.
Years ago I bought a Jupiter-8 in Prague that had a metal rear cap with the diamond pattern, which now is on the lens. Metal Carl Zeiss Jena front cap.
Should you like any pictures, please PM me, I'll get them over to you.
photovdz
Well-known
Knurled or normal ?
is the serial number identical on the rear of the optical block...
27247xx is ok for me... and the screw system seems ok how is the pair related to the other screws... (in the depth of the barrel)...
looks perfectly ok for me...
I own 2724793 which is a heavy metal version...
is the serial number identical on the rear of the optical block...
27247xx is ok for me... and the screw system seems ok how is the pair related to the other screws... (in the depth of the barrel)...
looks perfectly ok for me...
I own 2724793 which is a heavy metal version...
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
On the lens to which Krosya posted the link, the engravings on the aperture ring are in a different typefont from the engraving on the focusing ring and DOF scale.
This lens definitely was fitted into an LTM mount outside the factory. The 1,5 on the aperture ring looks flawed, maybe the optical block was thrown out of production after engraving went wrong? My guess is some employee took the specimens that were thrown out home with him and had a nice business on the side. Those lenses must have made some money on the black market while regular production was scooped up by the military!?
This lens definitely was fitted into an LTM mount outside the factory. The 1,5 on the aperture ring looks flawed, maybe the optical block was thrown out of production after engraving went wrong? My guess is some employee took the specimens that were thrown out home with him and had a nice business on the side. Those lenses must have made some money on the black market while regular production was scooped up by the military!?
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Normal, have not opened the lens ever so cannot tell whether the optical block numbers match.
The pair of screws is a smaller one towards the aperture ring, a larger one towards the focusing ring, just a bit right of the m.
One smaller screw towards the aperture ring at approx 2,35 on the distance scale, the fourth small screw also towards the aperture ring, exactly between the single one and the pair on the long stretch. So, when looking from the top, you could see a Mercedes star over the lens when you draw lines from screws to middle.
Hope this helps Stephan?
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Stephan! Hang on to the carpet!
My lens is the one before yours! 2724792!
How heavy is your lens on the kitchen scale? Mine is a 139 grammes without caps.
My lens is the one before yours! 2724792!
How heavy is your lens on the kitchen scale? Mine is a 139 grammes without caps.
photovdz
Well-known
are you talking about 27247xx ?
is it an alloy (light) or a brass and chrome (heavy mount) ?
for the 2726863 knurled one it's an high end artisanal production ;-) and the fonts of both the DOF and the distance scale are not traditionnal Zeiss but similar to mine
my knurled one is 2789989... far away in numbers
is it an alloy (light) or a brass and chrome (heavy mount) ?
for the 2726863 knurled one it's an high end artisanal production ;-) and the fonts of both the DOF and the distance scale are not traditionnal Zeiss but similar to mine
my knurled one is 2789989... far away in numbers
photovdz
Well-known
I'm not home... but that's an interesting find... sister lenses... you can see it on the french site quoted above (by you), even with the bad picture you can feel the difference...
easy to check... it's chrome on brass or nickel... it real zeiss metal bright but heavy looking... very far from the grey or aluminium feel of the later zamac production...
it's the last lenses before the shortening of metal...
easy to check... it's chrome on brass or nickel... it real zeiss metal bright but heavy looking... very far from the grey or aluminium feel of the later zamac production...
it's the last lenses before the shortening of metal...