Carl Zeiss Jena Lenses

Looks like the real thing Janet :clap::clap:

You can't see any sign of a clip and I held a M42 lens with the cap attached in front of my screen and the proportions seem right, so what you've got is very, very rare :clap:

If I were you I'd sell it and buy the Jupiter version :D It's worth as much as someone want's to pay for it. To a Contax collecter who didn't even know it existed the sky's the limit.

There's a rare Pentax M42 4,5/85mm Ultra-Achromat-Takumar on ebay for £2,500 and it isn't really much use to anyone other than a collector at least your's can be used (y) In fact it might be worth sending a few pics to that dealer, because he's in Germany and see if he's interested and can give you an idea of the value.

Edit: Although on 2nd thoughts he will probably try to rip you off!

Good Luck with it whatever you do.
shimbo
 
wow..the rare moment of discovery of a real rare lens.....fantastic.

Please post som egood quality photo...
 
Many thanks for all your help again!

However, the lens isn't mine to sell...if I'd kept my big mouth shut, I'd probably have had it, but I'm not going to rip a friend off if there's a chance that it's worth serious money.

I hope it turns out to be valuable...I've already told him that he's not allowed to sell it until I've had a chance to try it out!

I will post as soon as I get some more details...

Janet
 
Is anyone here also a member of that Manual Focus forum?

I was getting some interesting and informative replies yesterday, but when I went to have a look today, the thread has gone and it seems my account has been deleted with no explanation. I've never had that happen on any forum before.

What did I do?

I've passed on all the information you guys have given, and my friend is really impressed with all the research you've all done, so thanks!

Janet
 
Janet S said:
Is anyone here also a member of that Manual Focus forum?

I was getting some interesting and informative replies yesterday, but when I went to have a look today, the thread has gone and it seems my account has been deleted with no explanation. I've never had that happen on any forum before.

What did I do?

Janet
Click to expand...

Probably just jealous, Janet....
 
Probably just jealous, Janet....
Click to expand...

Nothing to be jealous of Jerry...I haven't even seen it yet, and I don't think I'll be keeping it! Although he said that I could have the lenses, I couldn't in all honesty accept something like that if it does indeed turn out to be valuable.

I'm quite excited now it seems it may be a bit of a rarity, and I can't wait to try it out. As soon as I've checked it out, I'm going to buy an adapter and try it on my Olympus.

I didn't mention money anywhere in the thread, as I haven't here, apart from a bit of delight that it may actually be worth more than we thought. I can research prices myself once I have the information I need.

I'm just a bit annoyed, as I was getting some good information. It's not as if I was asking for the value, just some background knowledge to see if it is worth using with my new camera.

This is not one of those "how much is my stuff worth?" threads, trying to sneak past forum rules! If it does turn out to be worth more than bobbins, then he'll probably take it to a dealer or put it on e-Bay himself. All I'm doing is some research for him.

If it's rare and valuable, then it will make his day! However, does anyone know what the quality is like? It may well be worth some money, but it's not much use to anyone other than a collector if it takes lousy photo's!

Janet
 
Hi Janet, the quality is probably a bit better than the Jupiter-9 85mm f/2 and you can find plenty samples of that on Google, quite lot for sale mostly from Russia on ebay. Mint ones are about £115.

A lot of collectors aren't interested in using the equipment, so I wouldn't be to concerned about the IQ. The IQ of these Sonnar lenses is well known anyway. I doubt if many of the Contax S cameras, which this lens was made for actually work anyway, they weren't all that well built, but I wouldn't mind a display case with the camera and all it's lenses. This is the camera

shimbo
 
Cheers Shimbo!

I'm interested in the qualilty because I'd like to try it on my camera, just for fun, but I don't want to pay for an adaptor if I'm wasting my time...

Can't understand people who collect stuff like this without actually using it. What's the point?

I'll go and have a Google....

Janet
 
I completely disagree with the comment on the quality of the lens. Sonnar 85 is a fantastic lens; just one of the best quality image. The problem with Jupiter is the quality control on those lens; the good ones are outstanding, but there are quite a few lemons. Zeiss, on the other hand, is consistently wonderful.

Contax S was a very unreliable camera; but it does not matter, because this lens can be used on any M42 mount camera; including the AshaiPentax ones

As to how it'll perform on a digital camera, i dont know. To anyone actually seeking this lens, I guess, it wont matter anyways.

If you do use it with an adapter Janet, just be careful not to damage the thread.

You are right, Janet, collectors are strange animals. However , some collectors also use their cameras. ...I certainly do.
 
If you do use it with an adapter Janet, just be careful not to damage the thread.
Click to expand...

Oh I'll be careful alright! More worried about my camera than the lens...

I've found out that there is a bit of damage to the lens...just a small dent at the front on the metal which goes round the glass, but the lens itself appears to be totally fine, if a bit dusty. Still, it's been stored for many years, so I suppose that's to be expected.

I'm still trying to get better pics, but I think I might have to wait until I visit in a couple of weeks and take some myself!

Janet
 
Thank's for the info on the Jupiters Ujjwal I've only ever used the 50mm with the Leica thread. Assumed they would be the same, because they used the same machines.

My first camera when I was still at school was a SH Practica and I chose that instead of the SH Pentacon (Contax) that was in the shop because it was more modern. It had a Domiplan lens which must be the worst lens ever made. Later bought the Pancolor and then a Black Spotmatic with a Takumar 50mm f/1.4
I still have a 50mm Pancolor and a Zeiss Jena 135 and a hell of a lot of Pentax stuff.

Some cameras you just couldn't use you could only collect such as the Pentax C.I.A. single-shot gun-camera (1966) link or a demo camera that's been cut in two :nuts:

shimbo
 
shimbo said:
Some cameras you just couldn't use you could only collect such as........
shimbo
Click to expand...

........ a 5 year old digital camera...:LOL:

Now, thats hitting below the belt. :LOL::LOL:

There is a huge difference in quality between the 50mm Jupiter ( isn't that a Tessar copy?) and the 85 mm Sonnar copy. I gota LTM mount 85 mm; looking for a cheap contax mount Jups.

BTW, have you ever used a Rollei 35 with a Tessar or Sonnar lens. Amazing camera; amazing lens. And the way the lens collapses in; just an amazing bit of mechanical engineering.
 
I bought a New Rollei 35 Tessar in the 70's...... worst camera I ever had:bonk:..... what a viewfinder :shake: No parallax marks...... didn't really need em because you always got a lot more on the negative than you thought you had, viewfinder probably showed about 70% I traded it in part-ex for a Pentax MEF with the 35-70mm f/2.8 AF probably the one lens I'll never part with. I did some resolution tests on it and it was razor sharp from f/2.8 and didn't change much stopping down. Possibly because it was about the first AF they designed it to be very sharp wide open to assist the focus or maybe they just went OTT having to design the lens before the body. Possibly why that was the only lens for the MEF too expensive to make.

shimbo
 
Are you sure Shimbo that your memory is serving you right. My R35 certainly has parallax marks, and a very bright viewfinder. The specification of the camera confirms that as well.
I didn't notice that VF shows only 70% - the magnification is 0.6, but the VF covers the full frame. ( Couldn't get a confirmation of this on the spec though, but my experience certainly is not 70%). Are you sure you didn't have one of the cheaper Rollei ( C I think it was called)

Offcourse if you needed a SLR, ME is the one for you. But for easy of carry, quick use, lovely lens and fantastic engineering, its hard to beat a Rollei 35
 
I might be confused about the parallax marks, but not about the negative having a lot more on it than you framed through the viewfinder. I first noticed it when I took some photos of a building for a cousin who is an artist, he had been commissioned to do a very detailed illustration of intricate parts of the building. Amongst other photos he wanted a shot of just the building quite tightly cropped. I framed it very tight and it (the building) was almost 35mm aspect ratio and filled the frame well, but the negative had a lot extra all round. I later did two shots of a surveyors 4m staff vertical and horizontal and actually worked out the percentage from readings taken through the viewfinder and off the negative. Can't remember the exact figure 70-80% ?? Maybe they improved it on later models when they brought the Sonnar version out? I would have bought the Sonnar version initially but it wasn't out when I bought mine. I think I got £60 part ex.

It was definitely the 35mm Tessar I paid about £110 for it in 1970 (probably about a months wages at the time Ouch!! :bonk:) The cheaper versions were the 35B and the 35C, both the same except the B had a selenium meter and the C had none.

shimbo
 
you certainly were a rich man in the 70s. 110£ - wow; that's expensive. How much were the JApanese little RFs back then?
 
ujjwaldey8165 said:
you certainly were a rich man in the 70s. 110£ - wow; that's expensive. How much were the JApanese little RFs back then?
Click to expand...

That was a heck of a lot of money back then :eek: Photo equipment was horribly expensive, at least partly due to a horrendous rate of luxury goods tax and retail price maintenance. I paid £174 for a Minolta SRT101 with 50 1.7 in 1970 which I worked out as a bit over £4k today when you take into account both inflation and increased earning power. I was an evening waiter at Cambridge colleges at the time - that's a lot of plates.

I also had a Rollei 35 a few years later - bought for a good price and quickly sold for an even better one. The debate would seem to me to be not so much about how good a picture taking tool it was, but whether or not it was either a little bit useless or completely useless.
 
HoppyUK said:
I also had a Rollei 35 a few years later - bought for a good price and quickly sold for an even better one. The debate would seem to me to be not so much about how good a picture taking tool it was, but whether or not it was either a little bit useless or completely useless.
Click to expand...

That offcourse is your debate, or rather, your point of view.

I regularly use Rollei 35 ( and other film cameras from 60s and 70s) and find them the finest photographic equipments.

You are clearly enamoured by the digital technology; whlie I am not excited it's by the image-making and manipulating capabilites.

We all have our own preferences; and ought not to thrust our own debate on others......:)
 
Prior to VAT which came in at 25% on Luxury Items around 1973-74 Cameras were subject to Purchase Tax and Import Duty... No idea what the rate was, but I can't remember any fall in prices when the changeover to VAT happened so it may well have been only slightly higher.

At around the same time I bought a Pentax 85-200mm? zoom for over £200 Yikes!!!!

It's well worth buying a couple of copies of "The Wallace Heaton Photographic Blue Book" off ebay for 99p to £3 a copy to see specs and prices of cameras from the past. It was produced every year, they were a big London dealer. Jessops were about 5-10% cheaper than the Blue Book.

shimbo
 
ujjwaldey8165 said:
you certainly were a rich man in the 70s. 110£ - wow; that's expensive. How much were the JApanese little RFs back then?
Click to expand...

According to the Blue Book for 1971 the Olympus 35RC was £57

Janet's lens isn't even listed amongst this lot

There's a CZ Biotar 75mm f/1.5 with a lot of fungus on ebay for £723


shimbo
 
shimbo said:
It's well worth buying a couple of copies of "The Wallace Heaton Photographic Blue Book" off ebay for 99p to £3 a copy to see specs and prices of cameras from the past.

shimbo
Click to expand...

Seems the dealers have got wise to this one :shake: on straight auctions they were luck to get a bid, now they are quoting BIN's of £5 to £21 :cautious: I was looking if they had one going back to 1949 couldn't see any.

shimbo
 
ujjwaldey8165 said:
That offcourse is your debate, or rather, your point of view.

I regularly use Rollei 35 ( and other film cameras from 60s and 70s) and find them the finest photographic equipments.

You are clearly enamoured by the digital technology; whlie I am not excited it's by the image-making and manipulating capabilites.

We all have our own preferences; and ought not to thrust our own debate on others......:)
Click to expand...

I'm not thrusting anything on anyone - I've learnt the hard way not to argue with Leica users ;) I do have great affection for older cameras and even own a few, but not for taking pictures even though my dear father's 50 year old Rollei TLR still works fine. It is a great sadness that the great European brands have died after completely failing to match the Japanese either in terms of technical performance or price.

shimbo said:
Prior to VAT which came in at 25% on Luxury Items around 1973-74 Cameras were subject to Purchase Tax and Import Duty... No idea what the rate was, but I can't remember any fall in prices when the changeover to VAT happened so it may well have been only slightly higher.

At around the same time I bought a Pentax 85-200mm? zoom for over £200 Yikes!!!!

It's well worth buying a couple of copies of "The Wallace Heaton Photographic Blue Book" off ebay for 99p to £3 a copy to see specs and prices of cameras from the past. It was produced every year, they were a big London dealer. Jessops were about 5-10% cheaper than the Blue Book.

shimbo
Click to expand...

I can't remember what the highest rate of purchase tax was on luxury goods either, except that it was very high, and prices did fall a lot when VAT replaced it.

A lot of other things also happened in the 1970s. In addition to VAT, retail price maintenance was abolished, introducing new competition for the first time and mail-order selling became huge. Remember when Amateur Photographer was well over 200 pages thick, full of dealer ads?

Jessops boomed, Wallace Heaton died (the gentleman's photo dealer, bought by Dixons, the chav's shop :D ) and my favourite retailer, RG Lewis went to the wall too. And look what's happened to Jessops now - the internet has done to them exactly what they did to the established dealers 30 years ago.

Perhaps more important than any of that that, at around the same time electronic components came into cameras along with automated manufacturing techniques and computerised lens design. Performance shot up, prices went down and SLR sales absolutely boomed through the 80s.
 
Ha ha ha Richard. Its hard to argue with the performance of Leica, with or without all the electronics and photoshopping in the world. :)


It was the price which killed the Eurpean Camera manufacturers, they were still the leader in quality and technical performance. Your dear father's Rollei TLR ( is the taking lens Tessar?) is proof enough of that. If Contax was not pillaged by the Russians, WG Contax didn't try (and create) the ultimate 35 mm SLR ( the Japanese, unlike the Contarex, never managed to produce a SLR with interchangeable back) and Rollei stuck to medium format, they would certainly still have been around. Just like Leica and Hasselblad are.

And last I checked, both Leica and Hasselblad were European, and Zeiss was still making lens for Hasselblad. :D
 
Yes :)

But I take the view that being able to manufacture quality stuff at an affordable price, is actually a much greater achievement than producing a small volume of quality gear at any cost - you just throw money and resources at it until it's good enough, and a small number of people will still pay for it. Just look at Leica and Hasselblad prices :eek:

That's not such a great technological achievement to my way of thinking.
 
Ah, thats where we differ in our thinking. I think the Japanese stuff were right quality for the price; but not the ultimate quality. I really think Zeiss makes the best lens; far far better than anybody else ( other than Leica, I guess). And that comes at a premium; which I am willing to pay.

Not to say I can afford the very best; or that my photographic competence justifies buying them; but the very fact that someone is willing to produce such quality without compromising for the sake of mass production or appeal is fantastic
 
I hope this lens is as good as it sounds!

I've just confirmed with him that it does indeed fit the Zenit, so it's not just one that found its way into the bag from another camera. I've found several adaptors on e-Bay, so I'm going to order one tonight in order to test it out when I go over to see him in a couple of weeks. There's no way I can damage my camera doing this, is there? If so, I'll test it out on the Zenit instead.

His mother now thinks that it may possibly have come from a friend of his father (the regimental photographer) whilst he was in the Army, , but there's no way of being sure. Certainly he acquired it in the early 1950's whilst stationed in Germany, so I'd guess it's unlikely to be a fake. I also found out tonight that there was another camera with it, but he threw it away some while ago as the lens didn't fit....:bang:

Whatever, it's unlikely to find its way into my camera bag now, unless I talk to him very, very nicely! :dummy:

Thanks for all your help and info on this!

Janet
 
Ah, that makes it even more interesting.

I am guessing here; but since we could not fond any reference to a 85mm Sonnar lens on M42 mount; and since in the early 50s, a lot of canibalisation was taking place , is it possible that it started its life actually as a Contax RF lens; and then was recased to fit a M42 mount. The military in those days has over riding priority; and it might very well be possible. After all, the ruskies used the same sonnar lens elements and rehoused in the L39 mount for their Zorki cameras.
 
Janet, its worth buying the adapter for any other M42 lenses that you may come across there are plenty on ebay from about £5 Vivitars and Kirons are quite good and you can even use Tamron adaptall lenses with a M42 adapter, some really good ones go for less than £30 such as the 70-210mm f/3.5 19AH. Zeiss Jena M42's are getting quite expensive, but you can still get a 135mm for about £50

There aren't any moving parts on the 85mm so you can't really damage anything unless there's something sticking out from either the lens or camera. Just don't force screwing it on if there's any resistance. You will probably have to use it wide open at first anyway because it has to be stopped down after focusing, but the beauty of these lenses is how they perform wide open.

shimbo
 
Janet, its worth buying the adapter for any other M42 lenses that you may come across
Click to expand...

Shimbo, I'm going to buy an adaptor asap, as even if I don't get to keep the Sonnar, there are the other two lenses to play with and there's a wealth of available lenses on e-Bay. I'd really like to extend my collection with some longer lenses, and this seems a very affordable way to do it! Currently my longest lens is 40-150mm, which is a bit limiting.

Pah! I thought when I bought my camera with the two kit lenses and the extra macro lens that I would have covered everything I needed...how wrong could I be? There's always something to tempt me....

Janet
 
Just a quick update..

Following all your brilliant information, I emailed Zeiss, who passed my questions onto the director of the Zeiss archives.

At first it was bad news, as he told me that the serial number related to a lens made in 1909...which obviously isn't right. I assumed then that my friend had a fake.

However, I then received a second e-mail saying that a mistake had been made and it was indeed manufactured in 1949, and with the history we have, it appears that there is no reason to doubt that it's genuine.

Not quite sure where we go from here, but I'll pass all the info on to my friend, and then it's up to him. I've tried Googling, but despite days of going square-eyed, I have only come up with one lens matching the description. I'm guessing he's going to have to have it properly valued before he decides what to do with it.

I'm still going to order an adaptor and have a play with it first!

Thanks again for all your help.

Janet
 
Janet, thats good news. Could Zeiss tell you what mount this lens had been made when it left the factory? It could be important in tracing its history....

Either way it is a rare lens; and your friend should at least show it around with as many dealers as possible, especially photographic dealer. here is one of them; I usually follow their net auction

http://www2.lpfoto.se/library/tool.language.php?inLang=gb

Ujjwal
 
Cheers Ujjwal.

I didn't ask about the mount when I contacted Zeiss, although I have confirmed that it fits the Zenit EM camera he has, so I'm assuming M42 screw fitting? I won't actually see the lens for myself until I go over next weekend. I will report back once I've got my mitts on it!

From my research, it seems to be a rather nice lens....I won't let him part with it until I've tried it out...then it's up to him what he does with it.

It would be great if it turned out to be worth more than bobbins, but if not, I've had a lot of fun and learnt a lot about lenses with my research!

Janet
 
Janet, if you go ahead and do get an adaptor,rather than get a £5 one from China or Hong Kong get a well made one from gritburn as said , it will be well made and will not damage you're camera as a E-Bay one might. Link below to what you need.

http://www.srb-griturn.com/m42-lenses-on-canon-eos-224-p.asp
 
Janet S said:
Cheers Ujjwal.

I didn't ask about the mount when I contacted Zeiss, although I have confirmed that it fits the Zenit EM camera he has, so I'm assuming M42 screw fitting? I won't actually see the lens for myself until I go over next weekend. I will report back once I've got my mitts on it!

From my research, it seems to be a rather nice lens....I won't let him part with it until I've tried it out...then it's up to him what he does with it.

It would be great if it turned out to be worth more than bobbins, but if not, I've had a lot of fun and learnt a lot about lenses with my research!

Janet
Click to expand...

Janet

The reason I wanted to know what mount it left the factory with is because I wonder if it was originally a Contax RF mount lens; which was later retro-fitted on a M42 mount.

I dont know if that is even possible to do that( SLR and RF lens design s are very different); but funny things were happening under the Ruskies; and if Zeiss could tell us what mount they originally made the lens with; it might lead to an interesting story.

That said, its interesting as it is.


Ujjwal

Edit : Interesting that Zeiss could find records of Jena in their archives. Did the two zeiss merge their archives when the two germany merged. Thats another interesting information...( and just checked - thats what happened)
 
Thanks Ujjwal,

I will email to get that information, as it may be useful when he comes to sell it, as it seems likely he will. He'd be silly not to, as it seems to be quite a collectible lens.

Pah! From what I've found out about it, I should have kept my big mouth shut, as it sounds like a real beauty.

Still, I'll get to play with it for a while to put it through its paces. I'm really interested to see how a 60 year old lens compares with what I have now, although I'm not sure I'm the best person to judge.

Janet
 
Janet, there is a book published about Zeiss lenses (worth buying) and on one of the links I gave it listed a US Ebay seller called Kevin's camera's might be worth contacting him.... the stuff that goes through his site is mindbogling and expensive.

I'm thinking the M42 fitting was made in the factory, possibly special order from a main dealer. Pentax have always made one offs to special order (at a price).

Just to see what the 85mm Jupiter's like I've ordered one should have it by Wednesday. These were still being made up to about a year ago.

Ujjwal the 50mm Jupiters are replica's of the Contax Sonnars.

shimbo
 
Thanks for that Shimbo.

The book sound interesting...however, I'll see if I can order it from the library, as I'm not about to pay for a book just to price someone else's lens! Do you have any idea of the title/author?

I'm getting brain dead with all the information I've got so far, but from the research I've done (with help from all you guys!) I'm inclined to think it was made in the DDR, and intended for Praktica cameras. It got very confusing with all the information about the two factories, and I think I've lost the plot now....:thinking:

I haven't ordered the adaptor yet. I'm waiting until I visit next weekend and see the lens first....I'll try it out on the Zenit, see what it's like and if it's working OK. If all seems well, then I'll get one and try it on Olly. I'm sure his mum has some spare films stashed away, as we've yet to convert her to digital (although we do keep trying!)

Try as I might, I can't find anything similar for sale anywhere to give him an idea as to the possible value. I've found several Contax mount ones that are commanding good prices, but nothing for this one! :bang:

Technically it actually belongs to his mother, so if it's worth something, it would be a nice windfall for her - she could use a bit of luck.

Either way, I'll keep you all posted, and thanks once again for your help.

Janet
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top