Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
1930's Pre-war Zeiss Bayonet Rangefinder lens on digital?
2/50 is probably quite similar to a Jupiter 8. If that's the case, it has quite an unattractive rendering in my eyes, on digital at least. On film it's quite alright.

Thanks for the additional comments (clues!).  It turns out that I was wrong.  The 50mm Sonnar is the only lens that uses the inner bayonet.  I think it is the only one of the four lenses that is collapsible.  Considering how short and small the lens is, really, I don't think you are gaining much by making it collapse into the lens, cutting its length in half while you are walking around.  But I think that having the more recessed inner mount allows for the collapsing of the 50mm lens. 


As to the timing of the shutter, there are ten timings to choose from, including "B" which holds the shutter open until you release it.  Then 2, 5, 10, 25, 50, 125, 250, 500, 1250.  Naturally when I had the lens and back off I tried all the speeds to see if the seemed about right.  No, not real scientific measurement, but still the open shutter times seemed in the right ball park.


In general, there is probably not a lot more to learn without finding someone who can mount the lenses on a mirrorless.  I have read some comments on a couple of the lenses and they like the lenses.  It's fun seeing how the the camera works.  Will read a little more about the lenses.  It might be a long time before I get to handle this type of lenses again!


@ Dave:  I think I'd have more fun using an SLR with film.  I've never even done that!  I'd love to see what these could do on a digital. 


@ Brightcolors...about the camera focusing.  That is also kind of tricky.  The mounting plate does rotate and has about 10mm or so of variation in height.  But it also locks in it's low position.  It's conceivable that some or all of the lenses that mount on the outer bayonet mount high enough so the rotating inner part of the ring does not effect the focus.  I have a feeling you can focus them all by turning the lens housing, even though there is a thumbwheel that raises and lowers the inner part of the mount.

I've read the CZJ Sonnar 50/2 has 6 elements in three groups.  I've not seen the diagram but that is something I have never used.  I've seen examples of film photos that were impressive.  But I'll have to look around more, and see what they can do with an image sensor!
Quote:CA will not be a major issue, will it? The issue with no coatings is refections, not CA. And the lenses from the 60's from Pentax and Nikkor to name a few, were not much more advanced concerning CA, and people happily use them for digital colour photography today too.


So, just don't shoot with them into the light, and you will get pretty good results, no doubt.


5cm f2:

4cm f2:

3.5cm f2.8:

13.5cm f4:
I wasn't referring to CA for the lack of coatings!  Because photography was predominantly B+W corrections for CA was less of a criteria, obviously it will depend on each lens's particular design.

   Do you "really" think I don't know the purpose of lens coatings? ??

   There's a massive difference in lenses between the sixties which may seem like the distant past to you, (I was nearly/almost an adult then) and the thirties, which even to me seems like the distant past, coatings opened the door to more complex lens design enabling the use of more elements without the reduction of contrast and internal reflections.

 I consider the lenses of the sixties, though I think you are referring rather to the seventies as modern lens design.

Dave's clichés
I don't know much about lens design but I read that by cementing more elements together, reducing the number of air gaps, by using a large curvature, and asymmetric design, Sonnar was able to achieve unusually high contrast.  I've even heard some people having both coated, and uncoated versions of the lenses saying there is no contrast difference.  Apparently some coated versions were made for a time with this design at some time, bearing a red T on the name ring. 

It's such a cool little set.  Thanks for the info, and the links to photos.  I will check them out!


Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread:
2 Guest(s)