Request info on 135mm / F3.5 Carl Zeiss Jena Lenses Sonnar M42

condyk wrote in post #2066581
Ah, but it wasn't an unconscious outburst...

Who's gonna beleive you now?

condyk wrote in post #2066581
I must say tho' I had an instant familiarity with the much larger 300mm IS L first time I handled it

Waaaay too much information and somewhat off-topic... I was hoping for an anoracky discussion of the trials and tribulations of the CZJ company divided by politics, re united by Ost Politik and the fall of the berlin wall, along witha comforting list of the various monikers the lenses were given depending on which factory they came from. AP magazine in the UK is good for that sort of stuff.
Alas, all we get are innuendoes about the size of Dave's accessories and a rather unfortunate mental image of what a 'rich swishing noise' does to the poor guy.

ErXoN wrote in post #2059217
could you tell me, what a difference is between 1st and 2nd lenses?
what a different between
1. Carl Zeiss Jena DDR [MC S 1:3.5 f = 135]
and
2. Carl Zeiss Jena DDR [MC Sonnar 3.5 / 135]
what a different between just S and Sonnar?

The first lens was made to be exported to certain western countries while the second was made for home consumption or export to certain other countries.

When eastern German found itself in the Soviet sector, many Zeiss employees evacuated into western Germany, and set up their own factory at Oberkochen. They could not at first use the name "Zeiss" because it was still owned by the now-state-owned Carl Zeiss factory at Jena. They marketed their lenses as "Opton", and then "Zeiss Opton". There was a lawsuit, and the conclusion was that there would be two companies "Zeiss Oberkochen" and "Carl Zeiss Jena". The former was the sole owner of many of the lens design brands, such as Planar, Tessar, and Sonnar, in many countries, including most of western Europe and North America. The latter used those designs, but could only use the lens names in the east and in certain other countries.

So, when Carl Zeiss Jena exported a Sonnar to some parts of the west, they didn't even put Carl Zeiss Jena on the lens. It was called "aus Jena" and "S". In some markets, they could call it "Carl Zeiss Jena" and "S".

Thus, "aus Jena" = "Carl Zeiss Jena", and "S" = "Sonnar". "MC" just means "multicoated", which the Jena factory started doing in the late 70's.

All of the 135/3.5 lenses were designed in 1965 and were produced from 1967 until 1989, and several million were produced.

If you provide the serial numbers, I'll look them up and tell you when they were made.

I have one and they are outstanding lenses, particularly in their rendition of out-of-focus areas. See http://www.rickdenney.​com/bokeh_test.htm.

I have written about this topic in the past on POTN:
http://www.photography​-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=70506

Rick "a fan of Zeiss Jena lenses, particularly Sonnars" Denney

Thanks Rick!
I was sure someone here would know the tale of two companies, split by the iron curtain, but united in the desire to create the perfect M42 lens!

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #2066544
BTT: I don't think you'll be able to find a good wide angle in screwmount or as a manual focus lens. They're just too hard to design for SLRs.

Not true. The Contax Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 Distagon and the current revision of the 19mm f/2.8 Leica may both be fitted to our Canon cameras and they are, without a shadow of a doubt the finest wide angles ever designed for the 35mm format.

foxbat wrote in post #2067199
Not true. The Contax Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 Distagon and the current revision of the 19mm f/2.8 Leica may both be fitted to our Canon cameras and they are, without a shadow of a doubt the finest wide angles ever designed for the 35mm format.

Yes, the best MF lenses ever. but the cost is ferocious, and they are rarer than hens teeth ( hearsay - I've never seriously looked) according to the few people I've read posts from that are actively interested in these 2

foxbat wrote in post #2067199
Not true. The Contax Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 Distagon and the current revision of the 19mm f/2.8 Leica may both be fitted to our Canon cameras and they are, without a shadow of a doubt the finest wide angles ever designed for the 35mm format.

I could cast some shadows, but I don't really want to. Here's one hint: the finest wide angle lenses for 35mm format are not restricted by the mirror.

The distagons go for about 3 grand and up, which makes their existence relevant for select few photographers.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #2067250
I could cast some shadows, but I don't really want to. Here's one hint: the finest wide angle lenses for 35mm format are not restricted by the mirror.

Ironically designing a decent digital rangefinder has been hindered by the closeness of the lens to the back as the light hits the sensor at too shallow an angle. I wouldn't say no to an M8 though...

foxbat wrote in post #2067338
Ironically designing a decent digital rangefinder has been hindered by the closeness of the lens to the back as the light hits the sensor at too shallow an angle. I wouldn't say no to an M8 though...

But we're talking about the 135 format here.