Räuber
Established
About this internal serial of 1407/9. I have seen this before.
At the bottom of this page there is one picture of the slope of another lens showing the exact same serial number.
And then there is this one lens with the serial 1407/7
I think the serial of 1407xxx is no coinsidence. The 1407/9 reminds me of prototype numbering.
At the bottom of this page there is one picture of the slope of another lens showing the exact same serial number.
And then there is this one lens with the serial 1407/7
Leitz Photographica Auction - Carl Zeiss Jena (So
Carl Zeiss Jena (Sonnar) 1.5/6cm
wlpa.auction2000.online
Leitz Photographica Auction - (ZEISS) f. M39 6 cm
(ZEISS) f. M39 6 cm/1,5 (Sonnar)
wlpa.auction2000.online
I think the serial of 1407xxx is no coinsidence. The 1407/9 reminds me of prototype numbering.
Räuber
Established
A small follow up on the topic of lens quality of the Sonnar 5,8cm f/1,5.
I did my strange flashlight test with all of my Sonnar 5cm f/1,5 and my Nickel Sonnar 5cm f/2. I will spare you the results of all of them. But some best of ones for you.
My Sonnar 5,8cm f/1,5
My v1 Sonnar 5cm f/2. I talked about the erosion of the front lens of the first f2 lenses that can be seen even in the bokeh balls.
My v4 wartime Sonnar. This one produces a very vintage effect too.
Again one of the Nickel Sonnar 5cm f/2 that looks very bad and I noticed a poor sharpness and contrast before doing this test.
In Comparison my Nickel Sonnar 5cm f/1,5. A little bit soft but not a bad lens.
And here one of the sharper wartime Sonnar 5cm f/1,5 T coated lenses.
I did my strange flashlight test with all of my Sonnar 5cm f/1,5 and my Nickel Sonnar 5cm f/2. I will spare you the results of all of them. But some best of ones for you.
My Sonnar 5,8cm f/1,5
My v1 Sonnar 5cm f/2. I talked about the erosion of the front lens of the first f2 lenses that can be seen even in the bokeh balls.
My v4 wartime Sonnar. This one produces a very vintage effect too.
Again one of the Nickel Sonnar 5cm f/2 that looks very bad and I noticed a poor sharpness and contrast before doing this test.
In Comparison my Nickel Sonnar 5cm f/1,5. A little bit soft but not a bad lens.
And here one of the sharper wartime Sonnar 5cm f/1,5 T coated lenses.
TenEleven
Well-known
Really nice work @dexdog and yeah that looks certainly a lot like a Zeiss stamped number. Especially considering that the would be fakers certainly would not go through the effort to put it there - especially so when one considers the crudeness of some of the machining on display here.
That RF cam... goodness gracious. I think that's the worst I have seen so far. I wonder if you could get the RF to track by moving the RF cam sleeve forward or back or whether the rangefinder offset comes from the slope itself (also likely)
That RF cam... goodness gracious. I think that's the worst I have seen so far. I wonder if you could get the RF to track by moving the RF cam sleeve forward or back or whether the rangefinder offset comes from the slope itself (also likely)
dexdog
Mentor
TenEleven, I also had the thought that I could experiment with the RF cam. Currently, the way it is set is slightly too short to move the rangefinder arm as far as it needs to go. I also think that the shape of the slope is not near as nicely done as my other one that focuses well. Given how hacked up it is, makes me wonder if someone took a file to it. There were sharp burrs on the edges of it when I got the lens, and I got a small cut on one of my fingers handling it..
Last edited:
dexdog
Mentor
Starting to put the lens back together. I could not figure how to get the barrel with the front element off, so have decided to leave it in place given that it works OK. I discovered that someone had tried to shim the rangefinder cam using the shiny aluminum tape (about 3/1000 inch thick) that is used to seal heating ducts. I kept wondering why the cam edge was sticky and had aluminum chunks coming off in tiny peices. I removed about 2 thicknesses of tape, or about 6/1000 total. I cleaned the crud off the cam and it looked better already. I touched it up with a needle file to adjust the slope until it looked more like my other 5.8cm lens with the sloped cam. Original machining still pretty crude, though. Lastly, I moved the rangefinder cam closer to the back of the lens until it looked about right at infinity and close focus.
Discovered some assembly marks on interior of lens mount and back of rangefinder cam. Aligning these marks gets the RF cam sleeve back in the original position.
Discovered some assembly marks on interior of lens mount and back of rangefinder cam. Aligning these marks gets the RF cam sleeve back in the original position.
Last edited:
dexdog
Mentor
The lens mount has 4 starts on the helical threads, only one of which is correct. I can't figure out how to put the original screw and follower back inside the lens mount, so will just tap the existing hole in the mount and use a bigger screw. The black marks on the focus ring indicate minimum focus point where the big screw will hit the edge of the helical. Need a break, will take my dog for a long walk.
Last edited:
dexdog
Mentor
Got the lens back together. I found a screw that I had a tap for, and while it fits the head is a bit too large. Rangefinder cam is still off a little bit; I would have to file the cam down a bit to make the scale agree with the measured distance. In any case, close enough for mirrorless, and close focus and infinity still work. The backward aperture and focus are very strange, though
Last edited:
dexdog
Mentor
Last post, I promise! This old uncoated lens actually performs pretty well. As crude as the barrel construction and machining is, whoever collimated the lens either knew what they were doing or got lucky. First pic is f4, point of focus is the stop sign in the center of the frame at 225 yards/205 meters, Sony a7iii.
Second pic is a center crop of the first pic. Surprisingly sharp IMO. Gray and rainy at my house today, so flare is not an issue.
Second pic is a center crop of the first pic. Surprisingly sharp IMO. Gray and rainy at my house today, so flare is not an issue.
S.H.
Picture taker
Nice work!