Carl Zeiss Jena Lenses
- Thread starter Janet S
- Start date
- Messages
- 8,400
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- No
What a good attitude to have, well done you!
If your friend decides to sell it may be worth saying that you sell the lens and split the proffit seeing as you have done all the hard work and he was going to sell the lot for a tenner!!
I love old lenses as they give different results and the images feel different from digital lenses.
Beware though that manual lens purchasing is an addiction!!!!
Have fun!
Janet, It would be worth you contacting the Zeiss Historical Society link send them detailed/sharp photographs of the lens mount so they can see if it looks like it was a later modification.
If it was originally an RF lens it would have been approx. 10.6mm too long and there's a clip on the side, which would have to come off. I still think it's a factory job, partly because the Contax production had been moved to Russia and the SLR was Jena's new baby. They hadn't any proper lens designers so had to modify pre-war designs which I'm sure would have involved 85mm lenses because these are considered ideal portrait lenses.
This is a fascinating read about the TRUE History of CZ immediately after the war and how thorough the Russians were in moving the Contax manufacture/assembly to Russia. Most of the other stories about CZ aren't quite true.
Also interesting link
shimbo
Edit: Sorry Janet, I'd written this post when a friend rang to say he's run out of petrol and when I came back I just hit send. I didn't see you earlier post....... still relevant though because the position is still the same i.e. you haven't had the lens confirmed as made in the factory.
If it was originally an RF lens it would have been approx. 10.6mm too long and there's a clip on the side, which would have to come off. I still think it's a factory job, partly because the Contax production had been moved to Russia and the SLR was Jena's new baby. They hadn't any proper lens designers so had to modify pre-war designs which I'm sure would have involved 85mm lenses because these are considered ideal portrait lenses.
This is a fascinating read about the TRUE History of CZ immediately after the war and how thorough the Russians were in moving the Contax manufacture/assembly to Russia. Most of the other stories about CZ aren't quite true.
Also interesting link
shimbo
Edit: Sorry Janet, I'd written this post when a friend rang to say he's run out of petrol and when I came back I just hit send. I didn't see you earlier post....... still relevant though because the position is still the same i.e. you haven't had the lens confirmed as made in the factory.
It's a pity that they couldn't confirm that it was made with the M42 mount.:shake: I wonder how reliable their information was and how truthful Jena were about what they were doing? considering all their manufacturing was supposed to be moved to Russia? It's still worth contacting the Historical Society they may have info on modified lenses. It's still a valuable lens and if someone want's it to USE, they won't be bothered about how it came to have a 42mm mount.
This shop have some books, but the Historical Society will have all them and have even wrote some of them. This one looks interesting even though it was published the year before your lens.
I've just received the Jupiter 85mm very nice lens and the build quality looks good a few quick shots show that it handles colours well, most older lenses seem to produce a blue cast on auto white balance. I like the idea of the pre-set diaphragm especially on a tripod, it seems more consistent to correct exposures rather than the camera closing the shutter down and hoping that it's closed when it actually takes the photo.
shimbo
I didn't notice before, but that's a very strange set of lenses to produce for 35mm (Russian influence maybe?) No portrait lens? 85? 90? 100? 105?
Yet several 85mm's were produced for the Contax RF and 90mm was popular on the Leica?
shimbo
OP
- Messages
- 632
- Name
- Janet
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Thanks for all your help and info Shimbo.
I'm currently putting together an email for the Zeiss Historical Society. Dr Wimmer at the Zeiss Archiv has been very helpful, but I think these guys are real enthusiasts and may be able to dig up a bit more information for me.
So far I've asked them if they can determine when and where the lens was produced, how many were manufactured, and what mount it was originally made with. Anything else I should be asking?
I'll finally get my hands on the lens on Friday, so I'll post some pictures as soon as I get home. Luckily my friend is in no hurry to sell, so I should get to play with it for a while...
Having been warned about possible fungus, I won't be rushing to use it with my Olly until I've checked it out.
Janet
I'm currently putting together an email for the Zeiss Historical Society. Dr Wimmer at the Zeiss Archiv has been very helpful, but I think these guys are real enthusiasts and may be able to dig up a bit more information for me.
So far I've asked them if they can determine when and where the lens was produced, how many were manufactured, and what mount it was originally made with. Anything else I should be asking?
I'll finally get my hands on the lens on Friday, so I'll post some pictures as soon as I get home. Luckily my friend is in no hurry to sell, so I should get to play with it for a while...
Having been warned about possible fungus, I won't be rushing to use it with my Olly until I've checked it out.
Janet
I'm just wondering if they started to make this lens with changeable mounts? If you look at yours and this one (3rd and 4th photo) you can see grub screws which look to be holding the mount on. There aren't any connections needed for the M42 mount. Something is probably needed for the RF to couple up with the rangefinder, that could be just disconnected when converting to M42. The barrel length would have to be made to suit the M42 register distance (45.5mm) off the film plane and extended for other mounts (34.85mm for RF and 44.7mm for the Exacta... not sure if they made that one?)
On this one which sold for £275 the grub screws aren't there (2nd photo... 3rd and 4th are of another lens
) and the barrel looks to have been turned from a piece of solid aluminium..... so it would be major surgery to change that one.
You could ask them if the mounts are changeable? also have they got any old cameras and lenses they don't want!
shimbo
On this one which sold for £275 the grub screws aren't there (2nd photo... 3rd and 4th are of another lens
) and the barrel looks to have been turned from a piece of solid aluminium..... so it would be major surgery to change that one.You could ask them if the mounts are changeable? also have they got any old cameras and lenses they don't want!
shimbo
OP
- Messages
- 632
- Name
- Janet
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Response from Zeiss Historica...to be honest, I'm left none the wiser, and I'm rapidly losing the will to live!
This lens was made from the mid-1930s until the early 1960s in Contax mount discounting slight design changes due to improvements in optical glass. This was an early postwar product of the East German location and about that time, the mount was undoubtedly for the Contax or for Russian cameras such as the FED based on the war reparations for the period. In the early 1950s, the East German declared that all new cameras should use the M42 screw mount but this would have been problematic for this lens as it was designed for rangefinder cameras and not the SLR cameras of this later period.
All Photo lenses with the trademark of Carl Zeiss Jena were made in the town of Jena in Germany/East Germany. There were a substantial number of these lenses made and while it was expensive, it sold well. Pre-war it belonged to the firm of Zeiss Ikon but the post war period saw trademark wars and most East German lenses with the Sonnar design were eventually marked only with just an S to avoid trademark issues with the money supplying Western countries but with the full name in Warsaw Pact countries.
So, this is clearly an after market adaption to the M42 mounting.
Larry Gubas
Zeiss Historica
So, it was originally Contax and then adapted to M42? I'm still not clear on this, but I think I've done just about as much research as I can. I am now officially throwing in the towel and leaving it up to my friend to decide what to do.
Many thanks to alll who have helped me in my research, pointing me in the right direction and providing valuable information. Your help is much appreciated, unlike on another site where I was told, when I queried why I'd been banned and my account deleted....
You....
+ Are female [optional, but it helps]
+ Have discovered <insert a relative's> equipment in <insert some place>
+ Want suddenly to use it
+ Eventually ask how much it might be worth
+ Dump them on eBay the following morning.
+ Disappear
In the long run it pollutes the forum, and is disservice to the real community of members who might have snatched a bargain otherwise.
So nothing personal obviously, but it did mach the pattern almost perfectly. This is the "new member and free valuation" non-written rule..
I was really p*ssed off with this...how on earth are you supposed to comply with a non-written rule? From the start I made it clear that it was not my lens to dispose of and that I was purely looking for information, just as I have done on here. At no point did I ask for any indication of how much it might be worth. My original intention was simply to find out if I could use these lenses with my Olympus e520...it was purely by chance and serendipity that I found this lens may be slightly collectible. For that reason I decided to research a little bit more on his behalf...I wish I hadn't bothered now!
Oh well....I'm glad that the folks on TP aren't quite so rigid and unforgiving with their rules! Just for the record, I will NOT be posting this lens on here for sale. My friend may indeed decide to sell (unless I can talk him out of it!) but I will not be involved at any stage, and I will not be touting it on here.
Sorry for the rant, but I am really seriously ****ed off tonight! I've never been banned from a forum before!
Janet
This lens was made from the mid-1930s until the early 1960s in Contax mount discounting slight design changes due to improvements in optical glass. This was an early postwar product of the East German location and about that time, the mount was undoubtedly for the Contax or for Russian cameras such as the FED based on the war reparations for the period. In the early 1950s, the East German declared that all new cameras should use the M42 screw mount but this would have been problematic for this lens as it was designed for rangefinder cameras and not the SLR cameras of this later period.
All Photo lenses with the trademark of Carl Zeiss Jena were made in the town of Jena in Germany/East Germany. There were a substantial number of these lenses made and while it was expensive, it sold well. Pre-war it belonged to the firm of Zeiss Ikon but the post war period saw trademark wars and most East German lenses with the Sonnar design were eventually marked only with just an S to avoid trademark issues with the money supplying Western countries but with the full name in Warsaw Pact countries.
So, this is clearly an after market adaption to the M42 mounting.
Larry Gubas
Zeiss Historica
So, it was originally Contax and then adapted to M42? I'm still not clear on this, but I think I've done just about as much research as I can. I am now officially throwing in the towel and leaving it up to my friend to decide what to do.
Many thanks to alll who have helped me in my research, pointing me in the right direction and providing valuable information. Your help is much appreciated, unlike on another site where I was told, when I queried why I'd been banned and my account deleted....
You....
+ Are female [optional, but it helps]
+ Have discovered <insert a relative's> equipment in <insert some place>
+ Want suddenly to use it
+ Eventually ask how much it might be worth
+ Dump them on eBay the following morning.
+ Disappear
In the long run it pollutes the forum, and is disservice to the real community of members who might have snatched a bargain otherwise.
So nothing personal obviously, but it did mach the pattern almost perfectly. This is the "new member and free valuation" non-written rule..
I was really p*ssed off with this...how on earth are you supposed to comply with a non-written rule? From the start I made it clear that it was not my lens to dispose of and that I was purely looking for information, just as I have done on here. At no point did I ask for any indication of how much it might be worth. My original intention was simply to find out if I could use these lenses with my Olympus e520...it was purely by chance and serendipity that I found this lens may be slightly collectible. For that reason I decided to research a little bit more on his behalf...I wish I hadn't bothered now!
Oh well....I'm glad that the folks on TP aren't quite so rigid and unforgiving with their rules! Just for the record, I will NOT be posting this lens on here for sale. My friend may indeed decide to sell (unless I can talk him out of it!) but I will not be involved at any stage, and I will not be touting it on here.
Sorry for the rant, but I am really seriously ****ed off tonight! I've never been banned from a forum before!
Janet
- Messages
- 1,842
- Name
- Ujjwal
- Edit My Images
- No
Janet...I disagree with Jena's conclusion; let me explain my thinking on asking you to ask Jena about the original mount.
It is known that after the war, the russkies were cannibalising all contax equipments to come out with cameras that could be sold in the west -ready source of dollar for them.
The serial number of the lens points to 1949 as year of manufacture, the year the first M42 mount camera was released by Zeiss East Germany (the ruskies were telling them what to do, really). Given the shortage of of material, capable designer ( many of the contax engineers came over to W.Germany); and the speed of introduction of a new mount, I thought it might be possible that Jena simply retrofitted an existing lens ( Contax RF design, pre-war design, not to be confused with the post war 85mm which was designed from the scratch in W.Germany.) to a new mount.
My suspicions got deeper when this lens had no reference to any of the M42 listing.
My theory is that they retrofitted some Contax RF lens, possible left over from the war time with the new fangled M42 mount, since they would have wanted to avoid complete retololing before they knew how the new mount will be received. ( There were very few SLRs at that time, and the Japanese were yet to arrive). When the mount was accepted by the market, they designed a new lens tailormade for the system, and withdrew the Sonnar at 85 mm. .
I doubt if anyone would convert a Sonnar RF lens to M42 mount in the early 50s ( your friends father got it from an Army photogrpaher in the early 50s, especially when the RF lens design and SLR lens design are different. I further believe that to convert a Rf lens to a SLR lens, not only the mount but also the rear element(s) of the lens have to be changed ( retrofocussed) so that the mirror is not fouled ( may be the focusing helical needs changing as well). This cant be done on a DIY basis.
It is possible that this lens does not perform as well as its RF cousin due to the retro-fit design.
So in conclusion:
1. This lens must have been made by Jena on M42 mount
2. This lens would have existed for a very short period; and
3. This lens will therefore be a collectors delight
Ujjwal
P.S : BTW, it has nothing to do with Pentax. pentax adopted m42 much later; though they made it an industry standard.
It is known that after the war, the russkies were cannibalising all contax equipments to come out with cameras that could be sold in the west -ready source of dollar for them.
The serial number of the lens points to 1949 as year of manufacture, the year the first M42 mount camera was released by Zeiss East Germany (the ruskies were telling them what to do, really). Given the shortage of of material, capable designer ( many of the contax engineers came over to W.Germany); and the speed of introduction of a new mount, I thought it might be possible that Jena simply retrofitted an existing lens ( Contax RF design, pre-war design, not to be confused with the post war 85mm which was designed from the scratch in W.Germany.) to a new mount.
My suspicions got deeper when this lens had no reference to any of the M42 listing.
My theory is that they retrofitted some Contax RF lens, possible left over from the war time with the new fangled M42 mount, since they would have wanted to avoid complete retololing before they knew how the new mount will be received. ( There were very few SLRs at that time, and the Japanese were yet to arrive). When the mount was accepted by the market, they designed a new lens tailormade for the system, and withdrew the Sonnar at 85 mm. .
I doubt if anyone would convert a Sonnar RF lens to M42 mount in the early 50s ( your friends father got it from an Army photogrpaher in the early 50s
, especially when the RF lens design and SLR lens design are different. I further believe that to convert a Rf lens to a SLR lens, not only the mount but also the rear element(s) of the lens have to be changed ( retrofocussed) so that the mirror is not fouled ( may be the focusing helical needs changing as well). This cant be done on a DIY basis. It is possible that this lens does not perform as well as its RF cousin due to the retro-fit design.
So in conclusion:
1. This lens must have been made by Jena on M42 mount
2. This lens would have existed for a very short period; and
3. This lens will therefore be a collectors delight
Ujjwal
P.S : BTW, it has nothing to do with Pentax. pentax adopted m42 much later; though they made it an industry standard.
OP
- Messages
- 632
- Name
- Janet
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Thanks once again Ujjwal.
Well, I finally get my hands on it tomorrow night, so I'll report back with my findings. It's going to be strange using manual focus and a manual camera!
However, I've been taking an on-line photography course for the last three weeks, using only manual settings on my Olympus e520, so I hope I've learned enough in that short time to get some good results. Well, at least good enough to show if the lens is OK or not!
I hope you're right! It would make his day...although I'll be a bit disappointed that it probably won't end up in my camera bag! :thumbsdown:
Still, I'll have the other two lenses to play around with, so all's not lost...
Well, I finally get my hands on it tomorrow night, so I'll report back with my findings. It's going to be strange using manual focus and a manual camera!
However, I've been taking an on-line photography course for the last three weeks, using only manual settings on my Olympus e520, so I hope I've learned enough in that short time to get some good results. Well, at least good enough to show if the lens is OK or not!
I hope you're right! It would make his day...although I'll be a bit disappointed that it probably won't end up in my camera bag! :thumbsdown:
Still, I'll have the other two lenses to play around with, so all's not lost...
Hi Janet, It's a pity they couldn't confirm that it's genuine, but I don't think it matters, there were that many variations made. We really need to see the M42 thread? If it's like this there's a good chance its genuine and that pic shows the screws at the side. That came from this page of a Biotar on ebay. Go down to the red flashing "Photo Here" and click.
This one doesn't look right to me..... can't see any DOF or focus mark and it's all turned out of one piece of alloy, but who's to say they didn't make it like that:bonk:
If you look through the site above (gokevincameras) he's got all sorts of bodged up lenses at very high prices and doesn't go into very much detail or history on them (even dates) so I don't think the history will be required to sell it.
If you search for Biotar M42 you find lots of photos.
Don't take any notice of how that other forum reacted, it's just their standard way of dealing with people who are just looking for a valuation, which they don't do. It wasn't personal. :rules:
shimbo
This one doesn't look right to me..... can't see any DOF or focus mark and it's all turned out of one piece of alloy, but who's to say they didn't make it like that:bonk:
If you look through the site above (gokevincameras) he's got all sorts of bodged up lenses at very high prices and doesn't go into very much detail or history on them (even dates) so I don't think the history will be required to sell it.
If you search for Biotar M42 you find lots of photos.
Don't take any notice of how that other forum reacted, it's just their standard way of dealing with people who are just looking for a valuation, which they don't do. It wasn't personal. :rules:
shimbo
OP
- Messages
- 632
- Name
- Janet
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Hi Shimbo,
The lens is lovely, to my untrained eye!
Apart from slight dent at the front (which hasn't affected the glass at all) there doesn't seem to be much wrong with it that a bit of TLC wouldn't put right.
There's the remains of a sticky label where the original owner had written some figures, and it's a bit dusty, but apart from blowing the dust off the front of the lens, we haven't touched it.
It appears that some oil may have migrated onto the blades, but it can't be seen with the naked eye - it only showed up in the picture I took using flash. I think this may be a problem?
The rest of the photo's are here, for anyone who's interested.
http://s159.photobucket.com/albums/t143/Janet_S_photos/Carl%20Zeiss%20Jena%20Sonnar%20lens/
Janet
The lens is lovely, to my untrained eye!
Apart from slight dent at the front (which hasn't affected the glass at all) there doesn't seem to be much wrong with it that a bit of TLC wouldn't put right.
There's the remains of a sticky label where the original owner had written some figures, and it's a bit dusty, but apart from blowing the dust off the front of the lens, we haven't touched it.
It appears that some oil may have migrated onto the blades, but it can't be seen with the naked eye - it only showed up in the picture I took using flash. I think this may be a problem?
The rest of the photo's are here, for anyone who's interested.
http://s159.photobucket.com/albums/t143/Janet_S_photos/Carl%20Zeiss%20Jena%20Sonnar%20lens/
Janet
Gorgeous Lens particularly the glass....... Gizzit!!!
The bit of oil on the blades isn't enough to cause any problems, there doesn't look enough to get onto the lens elements. It's only on auto lenses that oil slows the lens closing down and causing a problem, on manual lenses the speed the lens iris closes isn't that important. It would only be a small job to strip the lens down and the oil would probably evaporate or it would just wipe off. It's caused because the grease which is composed of oil and soap has separated due to age, common problem with CZ stuff, never known it to happen with old Pentax lenses. My 135mm CZ is stiff focusing, the grease has probably gone to soap.
The damaged filter thread is repairable, but no one is ever going to use a filter on a lens like this. Specialist lens shops have clamps for straightening filter threads. I would leave it to the next owner and let them decide.
I've no idea what the sticky tape is for seems to be on the aperture ring. What I immediately thought was that they couldn't see the aperture ring no's and had duplicated them on the other side? or maybe it's notes about what aperture's to use.
The black bit of the lens sticking out at the rear when focussed at infinity is still the same on the Jupters, the Russian's might have have removed about 1mm of metal, the lens elements are probably in the same place.
The conversion looks very well done, whenever it was? If it had been brass I would have thought it to be original..... not sure about aluminium, although it is an aluminium lens? It would be worth looking at other CZ lenses for the SLR to see if any of them used alloy mounts. I don't think it matters too much because it's not a bodged up job.
I've looked at the slide show on photobucket, some nice interesting shots. The condition of the lens is excellent compared to other CZ stuff I've seen on ebay. It should be worth a lot of money
Now you'll have to get an adapter and try some photographs to see how sharp it is and how good the bokeh is These lenses are normally used between wide open and f/5.6 for good bokeh. You should be able to focus at that without having to open and close the lens for every shot.
shimbo
The bit of oil on the blades isn't enough to cause any problems, there doesn't look enough to get onto the lens elements. It's only on auto lenses that oil slows the lens closing down and causing a problem, on manual lenses the speed the lens iris closes isn't that important. It would only be a small job to strip the lens down and the oil would probably evaporate or it would just wipe off. It's caused because the grease which is composed of oil and soap has separated due to age, common problem with CZ stuff, never known it to happen with old Pentax lenses. My 135mm CZ is stiff focusing, the grease has probably gone to soap.
The damaged filter thread is repairable, but no one is ever going to use a filter on a lens like this. Specialist lens shops have clamps for straightening filter threads. I would leave it to the next owner and let them decide.
I've no idea what the sticky tape is for seems to be on the aperture ring. What I immediately thought was that they couldn't see the aperture ring no's and had duplicated them on the other side? or maybe it's notes about what aperture's to use.
The black bit of the lens sticking out at the rear when focussed at infinity is still the same on the Jupters, the Russian's might have have removed about 1mm of metal, the lens elements are probably in the same place.
The conversion looks very well done, whenever it was? If it had been brass I would have thought it to be original..... not sure about aluminium, although it is an aluminium lens? It would be worth looking at other CZ lenses for the SLR to see if any of them used alloy mounts. I don't think it matters too much because it's not a bodged up job.
I've looked at the slide show on photobucket, some nice interesting shots. The condition of the lens is excellent compared to other CZ stuff I've seen on ebay. It should be worth a lot of money
Now you'll have to get an adapter and try some photographs to see how sharp it is and how good the bokeh is
These lenses are normally used between wide open and f/5.6 for good bokeh. You should be able to focus at that without having to open and close the lens for every shot.shimbo
Janet, it looks to me as though a 3rd party have done that modification?
I'm quite sure CZ would have at least painted the bottom of the mount matt black to avoid reflections. They would have had gallons of the stuff in the factory.
It's still a very valuable lens and ultra rare in an M42 mount. If you intend using it a lot you would be better to try and get some matt black camera paint and just blacken the bottom 4/5mm wide bit that shows through the mount. It may be that your adapter will hide that in which case you can leave it alone. Some M42 adapters do have a flange that pushes the pin in on an auto lens and would therefore hide all the shiny bits.
Reflections are a bigger problem with digital cameras because the covering over the sensor is shiny and reflective.
Edit: At a push you could blacken it with a felt tip. It should be easy enough to remove later.
shimbo
I'm quite sure CZ would have at least painted the bottom of the mount matt black to avoid reflections. They would have had gallons of the stuff in the factory.
It's still a very valuable lens and ultra rare in an M42 mount. If you intend using it a lot you would be better to try and get some matt black camera paint and just blacken the bottom 4/5mm wide bit that shows through the mount. It may be that your adapter will hide that in which case you can leave it alone. Some M42 adapters do have a flange that pushes the pin in on an auto lens and would therefore hide all the shiny bits.
Reflections are a bigger problem with digital cameras because the covering over the sensor is shiny and reflective.
Edit: At a push you could blacken it with a felt tip. It should be easy enough to remove later.
shimbo
On second thoughts, it might not need blackening as long as your adapter hides most of it. The Oly sensor is quite small so the shiny bit should be well clear of causing problems.
shimbo
OP
- Messages
- 632
- Name
- Janet
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Cheers Shimbo.
Very reluctantly, I've decided not to buy the adapter for Olly as I have an awful feeling that if I try it I'll want to keep it! The other two lenses are mine to use, but they don't appear to be anything special, so it's not worth the expense.
Instead, I'm going over next weekend and I'll try the lens out on the Zenit that it was found with. There wasn't time last weekend. I've recently been doing an online photography course, learning how to use fully manual controls, so hopefully I can get some decent results with it? Anyway, I'll have fun trying!
I'm currently sorting the pics out, and I'm going to send them to Zeiss Historica to try and get a bit more information. I've been told that there's a possibility that the camera came out of the factory in the M42 mount...however, you said it looks as though a 3rd party have modified it?
How can you tell? Not that I'm doubting you for a minute, but I know nothing about lenses (although I've learned a lot in the past few weeks!) and I don't want to make an idiot of myself by emailing them about something that I should have known!
I'm now trying to find somewhere to get the lens valued properly and find where's the best place for them to try and sell it to get the best price. I'd hate them to put it on e-Bay only to find out that they could have done better elsewhere. Luckily they're not in any rush!
Whatever, it's been a lot of fun discovering something collectible, and I'll keep you updated with what happens.
Janet
Very reluctantly, I've decided not to buy the adapter for Olly as I have an awful feeling that if I try it I'll want to keep it! The other two lenses are mine to use, but they don't appear to be anything special, so it's not worth the expense.
Instead, I'm going over next weekend and I'll try the lens out on the Zenit that it was found with. There wasn't time last weekend. I've recently been doing an online photography course, learning how to use fully manual controls, so hopefully I can get some decent results with it? Anyway, I'll have fun trying!
I'm currently sorting the pics out, and I'm going to send them to Zeiss Historica to try and get a bit more information. I've been told that there's a possibility that the camera came out of the factory in the M42 mount...however, you said it looks as though a 3rd party have modified it?
How can you tell? Not that I'm doubting you for a minute, but I know nothing about lenses (although I've learned a lot in the past few weeks!) and I don't want to make an idiot of myself by emailing them about something that I should have known!
I'm now trying to find somewhere to get the lens valued properly and find where's the best place for them to try and sell it to get the best price. I'd hate them to put it on e-Bay only to find out that they could have done better elsewhere. Luckily they're not in any rush!
Whatever, it's been a lot of fun discovering something collectible, and I'll keep you updated with what happens.
Janet
Hi Janet, apart from the alloy thread at the bottom not being black and brass. One big giveaway that this is not a standard retail M42 lens is that the focusing ring turns the wrong way. It turns the same way as the lenses for the RF. If you look at the lens from behind the camera infinity is on the left of the focus mark it should really be on the right. The Exacta lenses were also on the right as are the Russian lenses. There were that many strange things going on around 1949 that it could still be a factory job (special order?). There does seem to be a lot of metal underneath the DOF marking for f/22 If they had just modified an RF mount I don't think they would have had that much. I don't think it matters anyway, to a photographer it would be the performance that matters and a collector would be interested purely because of the rarety.
These lenses in any mount from that period are very, very rare and according to this reputable site, they were the sharpest 85mm Sonnars ever produced link even to this day.
It's a pity you didn't get the adapter? You'll have to tell the lady that owns it that she will need to see some digital photos before she can sell this lens, which is best sold on ebay and let her buy the adapter. I don't think film will show up much.
I don't think anyone could value this lens, it's worth what someone wants to pay. A collector will always pay more than a photographer.
You might find this site interesting.
shimbo
These lenses in any mount from that period are very, very rare and according to this reputable site, they were the sharpest 85mm Sonnars ever produced link even to this day.
It's a pity you didn't get the adapter? You'll have to tell the lady that owns it that she will need to see some digital photos before she can sell this lens, which is best sold on ebay and let her buy the adapter. I don't think film will show up much.
I don't think anyone could value this lens, it's worth what someone wants to pay. A collector will always pay more than a photographer.
You might find this site interesting.
shimbo
OP
- Messages
- 632
- Name
- Janet
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Hi guys!
Hope you don't mind me resurrecting an old thread?
Well, we still have the lens, and my (or rather your!) research seems to show that it is a particularly good one. My friend is in no rush to sell, so it's mine to play with!
Due to one thing and another I never got round to ordering the adaptor - to be honest I was totally flummoxed with all the different ones available, and also very wary of buying cheap ones on E-Bay from Japan and China.
Anyway, I'm shortly going away for a month's holiday and would really like the chance to play around with it and see what it can do...
Is anyone here using one of these adaptors with M42 fit lenses, and if so, can you recommend a supplier? I'd prefer something reasonably cheap, but I don't mind paying a premium for something that I know will work with my Oly and not do any damage.
Thanks!
Janet
PS. This is not an attempt to circumvent any selling rules....the lens is currently not for sale, and won't be for some time! :nono:
Hope you don't mind me resurrecting an old thread?
Well, we still have the lens, and my (or rather your!) research seems to show that it is a particularly good one. My friend is in no rush to sell, so it's mine to play with!
Due to one thing and another I never got round to ordering the adaptor - to be honest I was totally flummoxed with all the different ones available, and also very wary of buying cheap ones on E-Bay from Japan and China.
Anyway, I'm shortly going away for a month's holiday and would really like the chance to play around with it and see what it can do...
Is anyone here using one of these adaptors with M42 fit lenses, and if so, can you recommend a supplier? I'd prefer something reasonably cheap, but I don't mind paying a premium for something that I know will work with my Oly and not do any damage.
Thanks!
Janet
PS. This is not an attempt to circumvent any selling rules....the lens is currently not for sale, and won't be for some time! :nono:
- Messages
- 178
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
I've never used any M42 adapters, but those by seller Big-Is on Ebay seem to be highly thought of. My Olympus OM --> Canon EOS certainly does the job. I'm led to believe that SRB may simply buy Ebay adapters in bulk, filter out the duff ones (slightly too narrow, slightly too thick etc) and sell the better ones on at a profit. However, that's uncorroborated conjecture. There's not much to go wrong with them anyway - if it's obviously being difficult to fit, then don't force it!
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
SRB-Giturn link here http://www.srb-griturn.com/other-lenses-on-43-system-quality-assured-1235-p.asp
Looks like £23 for M42 to Oly 4/3rds which should be fine, or £105 for a Novoflex one. Give them a call to discuss - very helpful peeps
Looks like £23 for M42 to Oly 4/3rds which should be fine, or £105 for a Novoflex one. Give them a call to discuss - very helpful peeps
OP
- Messages
- 632
- Name
- Janet
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Hi Shimbo,
I will post test pics as soon as I get an adapter for my Oly. We've just been away for a month on holiday and I didn't get round to getting one before we went. I've had so much else going on that I totally overlooked it.
Luckily my friend isn't going to do anything with it until I've had a play, so there's no immediate rush!
We'd forgotten all about it until your reminder!
Janet
I will post test pics as soon as I get an adapter for my Oly. We've just been away for a month on holiday and I didn't get round to getting one before we went. I've had so much else going on that I totally overlooked it.
Luckily my friend isn't going to do anything with it until I've had a play, so there's no immediate rush!
We'd forgotten all about it until your reminder!
Janet
Hi Janet, only just seen your post. If you haven't yet got an adapter I would expect for M42 thread a cheap one would do.
I've just been messing with a Kodak Ektar 203mm f/7.7 lens off a 5"x7" camera using Blu-Tak to hold it onto an extension tube. It worked OK and for a 1950's lens it's incredibly sharp
I'll keep my eye on this thread
shimbo
I've just been messing with a Kodak Ektar 203mm f/7.7 lens off a 5"x7" camera using Blu-Tak to hold it onto an extension tube. It worked OK and for a 1950's lens it's incredibly sharp
I'll keep my eye on this thread
shimbo
OP
- Messages
- 632
- Name
- Janet
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Hi Shimbo!
To be honest, I'd totally forgotten about this! The lens is just tucked away in my friend's office, and will probably be there for a while longer...so far as he'd concerned it can stay there. He didn't know he had anything special until I planted the idea in his head, so he's not in any rush to do anything. We did a car boot sale at the weekend, and he was SOOOOO close to putting all his Dad's camera gear on there until I managed to persuade him otherwise! I'm sure this lens is a bit of a rarity, and I'd like it to get a realistic price if and when he decides to sell it.
We've been away recently for a long holiday, and this was the last thing on our minds! I really need to get my arse in gear and contact the guy at Zeiss again to get some more information so that we can find out a bit more and try and get a realistic value for this.
Thank you for the reminder...!
Janet
To be honest, I'd totally forgotten about this! The lens is just tucked away in my friend's office, and will probably be there for a while longer...so far as he'd concerned it can stay there. He didn't know he had anything special until I planted the idea in his head, so he's not in any rush to do anything. We did a car boot sale at the weekend, and he was SOOOOO close to putting all his Dad's camera gear on there until I managed to persuade him otherwise! I'm sure this lens is a bit of a rarity, and I'd like it to get a realistic price if and when he decides to sell it.
We've been away recently for a long holiday, and this was the last thing on our minds! I really need to get my arse in gear and contact the guy at Zeiss again to get some more information so that we can find out a bit more and try and get a realistic value for this.
Thank you for the reminder...!
Janet
Hi Janet, I don't think Zeiss will be able to help, because it seems to be a one off with no proof of who did the modification. I think it will only be of interest to someone who wants to use it and that will depend on performance
It's only bokeh performance that has pushed the price of the similar Helios 40-2 85mm f/1.5 over £200 link
Collectors wouldn't be interested. The same can be said about nearly all the eastern block lenses. Although you never know with collectors
Some Helios 40-2 examples link
I don't expect the Sonnar to be like that the Helios. The Helios was a special one off design. This Russian forum has 648 pages on it link
You would probably be best putting it on ebay with a high BIN and high reserve for 30 days and gradually reduce it (after the 30 days) until you find a buyer.
shimbo
It's only bokeh performance that has pushed the price of the similar Helios 40-2 85mm f/1.5 over £200 link
Collectors wouldn't be interested. The same can be said about nearly all the eastern block lenses. Although you never know with collectors
Some Helios 40-2 examples link
I don't expect the Sonnar to be like that the Helios. The Helios was a special one off design. This Russian forum has 648 pages on it link
You would probably be best putting it on ebay with a high BIN and high reserve for 30 days and gradually reduce it (after the 30 days) until you find a buyer.
shimbo
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Hi Janet, I don't think Zeiss will be able to help, because it seems to be a one off with no proof of who did the modification. I think it will only be of interest to someone who wants to use it and that will depend on performance
It's only bokeh performance that has pushed the price of the similar Helios 40-2 85mm f/1.5 over £200 link
Collectors wouldn't be interested. The same can be said about nearly all the eastern block lenses. Although you never know with collectors
Some Helios 40-2 examples link
I don't expect the Sonnar to be like that the Helios. The Helios was a special one off design. This Russian forum has 648 pages on it link
You would probably be best putting it on ebay with a high BIN and high reserve for 30 days and gradually reduce it (after the 30 days) until you find a buyer.
shimbo
Do you really think it's worth anything?
It's been an interesting thread over the last few months, but I still can't see it.
Bound to be worth £200+ other Sonnars go for that. I was surprised that the Kodak Ektar 203mm that I nearly threw in the bin 30 years ago is worth over £200
If I was putting it on ebay (Janet's Sonnar) I'd start with a BIN of £900 wordwide
Someone here has got a Pentax 30mm f/2.8 for £600 and the reason for that price has nothing to do with collectors, just all to do with someone saying on a forum that it was the sharpest lens Pentax ever produced Highly unlikely that it is :razz:
I could have bought one from a local camera shop for £30 a few years ago, but didn't see any need because I had a 28mm. It was in the shop window for about 10 years before it sold.
shimbo
If I was putting it on ebay (Janet's Sonnar) I'd start with a BIN of £900 wordwide
Someone here has got a Pentax 30mm f/2.8 for £600 and the reason for that price has nothing to do with collectors, just all to do with someone saying on a forum that it was the sharpest lens Pentax ever produced
Highly unlikely that it is :razz:I could have bought one from a local camera shop for £30 a few years ago, but didn't see any need because I had a 28mm. It was in the shop window for about 10 years before it sold.
shimbo
OP
- Messages
- 632
- Name
- Janet
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm really hoping it's worth something - it actually belongs to his mum and it would be a real treat for her if it was!
I've written a note on the back of my hand to remind me to get onto E-Bay tonight and get hold of an adaptor so I can test it out.
If it produces images as well as I've been led to believe, then I think I may well buy it myself! I'm sorry it's taken so long to do anything with it, particularly after you've all been so helpful, but I promise, I'll get onto it soon!
Janet
I've written a note on the back of my hand to remind me to get onto E-Bay tonight and get hold of an adaptor so I can test it out.
If it produces images as well as I've been led to believe, then I think I may well buy it myself! I'm sorry it's taken so long to do anything with it, particularly after you've all been so helpful, but I promise, I'll get onto it soon!
Janet
OP
- Messages
- 632
- Name
- Janet
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Hope you don't mind me resurrecting an old thread, but I didn't want to start a new one...
Finally, after months of dithering and forgetting, I finally got round to ordering the adaptor so I could use the Zeiss lens on my Oly...
I had an interesting weekend trying out the Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar lens. This was a first for me using manual focus, so it was a bit of a learning curve, but I was quite impressed with the results.
Just a few random test shots - all straight from the camera with no tweaks.
This one is rather poignant - the grave of the guy who owned the lens...
The rest of the test shots are here...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/janetstansfield/sets/72157625415223205/with/5234932572/
I'd really appreciate if some of you more knowledgeable guys could take a quick look and tell me what you think? I don't expect any detailed C&C, as these were just quick test shots to try and see how good (or bad!) the lens performs after all this time. I thought it was pretty damned good for a 61 year old lens!
I certainly didn't do it justice - all shots were hand held on a dreech and dismal day and I know I could get better if I took more time and used a tripod. However, this was a family weekend out and my friends only have limited patience for my camera obsession!
I've also posted this on my Oly forum, where I tend to lurk most of the time these days, but I had such good feedback from TP that I thought I should also post it here.
I have the lens now and hope to take more considered shots at the weekend to try and see what it can do. So far I'm rather impressed that a lens that's older than me can perform like this...
I found it an absolute pleasure to use (although a bit slow and heavy) and I'm looking forward to playing around with it a bit more before it ends up on e-Bay! I'd love to keep it, but my research leads me to believe that it's a bit out of my price range!
However, if someone can tell me that it's useless and worth nowt, then I'd be very grateful!
Janet
Finally, after months of dithering and forgetting, I finally got round to ordering the adaptor so I could use the Zeiss lens on my Oly...
I had an interesting weekend trying out the Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar lens. This was a first for me using manual focus, so it was a bit of a learning curve, but I was quite impressed with the results.
Just a few random test shots - all straight from the camera with no tweaks.
This one is rather poignant - the grave of the guy who owned the lens...
The rest of the test shots are here...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/janetstansfield/sets/72157625415223205/with/5234932572/
I'd really appreciate if some of you more knowledgeable guys could take a quick look and tell me what you think? I don't expect any detailed C&C, as these were just quick test shots to try and see how good (or bad!) the lens performs after all this time. I thought it was pretty damned good for a 61 year old lens!
I certainly didn't do it justice - all shots were hand held on a dreech and dismal day and I know I could get better if I took more time and used a tripod. However, this was a family weekend out and my friends only have limited patience for my camera obsession!
I've also posted this on my Oly forum, where I tend to lurk most of the time these days, but I had such good feedback from TP that I thought I should also post it here.
I have the lens now and hope to take more considered shots at the weekend to try and see what it can do. So far I'm rather impressed that a lens that's older than me can perform like this...
I found it an absolute pleasure to use (although a bit slow and heavy) and I'm looking forward to playing around with it a bit more before it ends up on e-Bay! I'd love to keep it, but my research leads me to believe that it's a bit out of my price range!
However, if someone can tell me that it's useless and worth nowt, then I'd be very grateful!
Janet
- Messages
- 178
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
definately nice shots, especially since they havent been tweeked.
Whats the going rate for these type of lenses?
Whats the going rate for these type of lenses?
OP
- Messages
- 632
- Name
- Janet
- Edit My Images
- Yes
We're still trying to find out how much it's worth, but having difficulty finding similar lenses to compare it with. However, I've been given the name of a couple of people who may be able to help, so I'll be contacting them this week.
I really hope it's not worth much as I'm going to be very reluctant to part with it now!
Janet
I really hope it's not worth much as I'm going to be very reluctant to part with it now!
Janet
- Messages
- 5,881
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Regardless of value, if you like it and it hasn't cost you anything then keep it anyway.
Looks like you are getting on very well - the pixel peeper in me wants to know how sharp it is
Here's a couple of web sites with price info re lens:
I don't know how current but gives some prices.
http://www.antiquecameras.net/zeisscontaxrflens.html
Christies sold a job lot including this lens in 1995 £248
http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?intObjectID=556634
And someone at MFlenses paid $400 in 2008 for contax version.
http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=12096&view=next
I don't know how current but gives some prices.
http://www.antiquecameras.net/zeisscontaxrflens.html
Christies sold a job lot including this lens in 1995 £248
http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?intObjectID=556634
And someone at MFlenses paid $400 in 2008 for contax version.
http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=12096&view=next
OP
- Messages
- 632
- Name
- Janet
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Unfortunately Richard, it isn't mine to keep - I just have it on loan from my friends whilst I find out what it can do and help them to find out what it may be worth. The ultimate decision on whether we keep it or not is down to him and his mum
Janet
There are flickr groups which might be of help>
http://www.flickr.com/groups/eos-manual-lenses/
and
http://www.flickr.com/groups/m42/
Quin
http://www.flickr.com/groups/eos-manual-lenses/
and
http://www.flickr.com/groups/m42/
Quin
OP
- Messages
- 632
- Name
- Janet
- Edit My Images
- Yes
One dealer hasn't bothered to reply, and the other one has declined to make an offer as he says it isn't in a good enough condition, despite the quality of the photos taken....still, he's suggested I offer my friend between £75 and £100 and we should both be happy.
Then it gets interesting - my friend has managed to track down the guy who owned the lens originally, and visited him yesterday. He remembered it! Apparently it was sourced in Berlin and put on the Zenit camera as the thread is longer than standard. The damage to the filter thread was caused when it was hit by other cameras in the course of use. (I've only got this info in a text message...will find out more when we chat).
The guy now runs a camera shop dealing in legacy lenses, and valued the lens at between £150 - £200, which is not such good news for me, so I think we'll have to enter into some lengthy negotiations over a few beers...*chr
I just find it amazing that after fifty years, the original owner has been traced and we now know the full history. It makes the lens just a bit more special for me, and I'll do my utmost to "keep it in the family".
Janet
Then it gets interesting - my friend has managed to track down the guy who owned the lens originally, and visited him yesterday. He remembered it! Apparently it was sourced in Berlin and put on the Zenit camera as the thread is longer than standard. The damage to the filter thread was caused when it was hit by other cameras in the course of use. (I've only got this info in a text message...will find out more when we chat).
The guy now runs a camera shop dealing in legacy lenses, and valued the lens at between £150 - £200, which is not such good news for me, so I think we'll have to enter into some lengthy negotiations over a few beers...*chr
I just find it amazing that after fifty years, the original owner has been traced and we now know the full history. It makes the lens just a bit more special for me, and I'll do my utmost to "keep it in the family".
Janet