Jena 180mm f2.8 on Hasselblad 1000f

I just finished repairing this Jena 180mm 2.8 in a Hasselblad thread mount. What a challenge! The lens retaining rings each were frozen as was the secondary helicoid. When I got the lens it would not budge. The aperture would work fine but the focus was locked. The culprit was the secondary helicoid (very fine threads) but getting to it and freeing it prior to cleaning proved to be a bear.

 

The old lubricants had turned into the equivalent of “thread locking compound”. I thought the threads would be damaged from constantly moving the rings clockwise and counter clockwise over and over and over again. But interestingly there was no damage to the threads each time I removed a ring other than some scratches to one ring, not the threads, when the lens wrench gave way. It took hours and hours to get this right and the only thing that worked was heat. Orsetto knows from a previous conversation that this has worked for me in the past. Don't underestimate the power of a hair dryer, welding gloves (the metal gets too hot to hold) and some naptha. I didn't have to resort to using the barbeque grill this time as I had to with a Contarex 135mm. This was a labor of love because it would be cost prohibitive for a tech to spend as much time as I had to. The end result is a dust free optics package and smooth focusing once again.

 

I’m looking forward to a dry day so I can start using this “Bokeh Bomber” (18 aperture blades!). Here is a shot of it on my 1000f.

That ought to be the cat's meow! I had a 1600F but the short tele was a Kodak, another great lens by the way. I have a 180 Sonnar in a P6 mount and it is superb and works great with extension tubes.

I have this lens in P6 mount, which easily adapts to M42, Canon....

It's astounding how good it is even on an APS-C format.

 

Here's mine with a not-so-similar-as-I-had-expected Nikkor-P 180mm f/2.8

 

You're at it again?

 

The barbecue incident didn't cool your ardor for Zeiss' atrocious helicoid designs? ;)

 

Bravo! Your perseverance with these balky beauties continues to amaze and inspire me. Tho its sort of depressing to be reminded how often Zeiss would encase such impeccable glass in such awful mechanics. They improved as time went on, but even the fairly recent Hasselblad CF lenses are brought down by insultingly flimsy, irreplaceable plastic bits.

You're at it again?

 

The barbecue incident didn't cool your ardor for Zeiss' atrocious helicoid designs? ;)

 

Bravo! Your perseverance with these balky beauties continues to amaze and inspire me. Tho its sort of depressing to be reminded how often Zeiss would encase such impeccable glass in such awful mechanics. They improved as time went on, but even the fairly recent Hasselblad CF lenses are brought down by insultingly flimsy, irreplaceable plastic bits.

 

Isn't it so true Orsetto! Honestly though, if we could have interviewed the original engineers I don't think one of them would have envisioned their products being used 60 years later. Had the quality of lubricants been up to the level of engineering the Zeiss boys routinely performed at, we wouldn't be talking about it today. These devices were simply amazing then, and clearly impressive today. I feel blessed to be able to bring something like this lens back to its original splendor. I hadn't posted anything about the 1000f but that too was in the same useless condition when I got it; and right now, with nothing more than a cleaning, it is performing at the same level it was when new. I shudder to imagine what the world would be like if Victor Hasselblad had decided to build automobiles.

Tho its sort of depressing to be reminded how often Zeiss would encase such impeccable glass in such awful mechanics.

I've dismantled enough of these, and personally I think the mechanics are fine, as impeccable as the glass. The issue is the grease.

 

Grease is a mix of a solid and a liquid, a soap and an oil. When the oil evaporates, as all liquids will eventually, you are left with the solid, and very few solids are good lubricants - soaps are not one of them. Like all liquids in machinery, they are meant to be replaced periodically. Current greases can last a long time, certainly longer than the current crop of disposable equipment. You would not complain that a car from the 50's that failed had poor mechanics because the liquids (oil & grease) were never replaced in it's lifetime (I'm sure there are other reasons to complain about poor mechanics in a 50's automobile !).

You would not complain that a car from the 50's that failed had poor mechanics because the liquids (oil & grease) were never replaced in it's lifetime

 

With some vintage camera issues (i.e. leaf shutters) this analogy applies, with others (i.e. most shutterless lenses) it varies greatly. While it is certainly true that its unrealistic to expect 50-70 year old camera gear to work perfectly, and the makers themselves never envisioned such a lifespan, in practical terms the gear has in fact lasted for 50-70 years and a surprisingly large percentage of it retains primary functionality without requiring (or ever having) deep service.

 

"Not requiring deep service" is a very important quality these days when choosing among specific vintage lenses or systems: we no longer have the luxury of plentiful local repair experts in most countries, and DIY on some of this stuff (esp European origin) is more than most enthusiasts can handle. Existing professional repair specialists with dedicated knowledge of the arcane assembly practices employed by vintage Zeiss etc are retiring or passing away, and not being replaced by younger aspirants. The market for repairs is simply too small: one or two remaining specialists corner the repair market for each brand (i.e. Sherry Krauter and DAG for Leica), everyone flocks to them despite spiraling fees and endless waiting lists, any newcomers are effectively shut out. So service options are dwindling rapidly.

 

Fortunately most lenses (that don't contain leaf shutters) are still perfectly operable despite not being lubed in decades. The focus feel may be a bit looser or firmer than optimal, but they can still be turned normally, because most lens designers used helicoid metals that would function with or without lube, and lube that didn't decay into glue three years after the lens left the factory. Ideally they should be cleaned and re-lubed, but for the amount of actual use an average film enthusiast would give them today, they can be safely used as-is with no fear of helicoid damage. The vast majority of Japanese-made lenses, dating back to the 1950s, fall into this group.

 

OTOH, whether we like to admit it or not, our precious Zeiss made some ultimately-awful engineering choices thru the early 1970s. Sometimes their helicoid design and lube formula eventually proved an epic fail: the helicoids completely seized when the lube dried out, because the metals/thread pitch they chose weld in the absence of lube, yet Zeiss lube formula often disintegrated into superglue. Compounding this, you have Zeiss' occasional arrogance in assuming they had made perfect design choices that would never require service, which led them to permanently seal some cameras and lenses against routine servicing (or they thoughtlessly made things much harder to service than necessary). Insert pretty much anything Contarex or Exakta mount here, along with a good number of other products from both Oberkochen and Jena.

 

Zeiss isn't alone, of course: other mfrs have made similar long-term errors in lens mechanical design. The difference is the Zeiss name and certain optic formula legends keep desirability, collectibility, and prices high, while "lesser" brands are viewed with utter contempt when the same issues arise. Mamiya released some incredible high-performance medium format glass over the years with the same hopeless helicoid/lube choices, but no one is going to extreme efforts to repair them because the "Mamiya" brand name (sadly) means nothing today. Even with the glorious Zeiss, there are virtually no professional service techs who would spend as much time and effort on unique repair attempts as andyfalsetta (or presumably tom_chow). If they did agree, the repair fee would be far beyond what the lens is worth.

 

My point being, if you're gonna shop vintage Zeiss, you might wanna pass on any lens with focus ring issues. The fabled Olympia Sonnars, Biotars, Flektogons, etc, may be hard to find in good operating condition at any given moment, but its better to wait another month for better examples to become available than jump on one with issues. During the era these were made, construction could change batch to batch, and Zeiss is notorious for meaningless serial numbers that tell you nothing about provenance. A particular barrel might be fairly easy to service, or it might be a nightmare. If you have a choice, choose one with a well-functioning focus ring.

Edited January 6, 2020 by orsetto

^ Orsetto , where's the fun in that ?

ps; Just don't screw up the helicoid's lead thread :( . That'll put a screw into the works ( sorry about the pun ) .

Brilliant job on the lens, well done. I sold my 1930's Olympia Sonnar to a gentleman in Slovenia, who more or less begged it off me after seeing my photo.net posts about it some years earlier. Focusing was on the stiff side but still reasonably usable, and the aperture was fine. Here's the link:

 

The Olympia Sonnar in Action

 

Hi @andyfalsetta I have the same lens but without the silver mount as you do and I’m looking for a mount so I can mount it on a mirrorless body but I’m unable to find any information as to what mount it is and what adapter I may need. Any help would be greatly appreciated

Post a photo of the rear of your lens, thepaulbrown, so someone here can kelp you identify it and suggest an adapter. There is no way to tell what mount the lens has from the serial number or barrel design: Olympia Sonnar was most commonly available in M42 (Pentax Screw Thread), Exakta/Topcon bayonet, and Pentacon/Praktisix (6x6 medium format) breech lock. But these were often modified to fit many other cameras instead, so you could have almost any mount on yours. Once identified, you'd just need an adapter going from that mount to your mirrorless body mount.

Hi Orsetto, yes after some research I learned this but to my disappointment I realise that whatever fitting mine originally had had been removed or lost so I’m trying to find a replacement. Here are some images:

 

Sorry I can't help here. Keep searching for a donor lens to get your desired mount off of.

Hi Orsetto, yes after some research I learned this but to my disappointment I realise that whatever fitting mine originally had had been removed or lost so I’m trying to find a replacement. Here are some images:

 

Ahh, you meant your lens has NO mount on it at all! That's so very unusual it was easy to misunderstand: my apologies. I had no idea the rear mount on this version could simply screw right off and be replaced that easily: strangely, a significant point that has never come up in the discussions I've seen over the years.

 

I'm afraid you're kinda stuck with a useless lens, then: no path to getting a new mount would be economically practical. You'd either need a specialist like SK Grimes to recreate a mount for you ($$$$), or find a donor lens whose mount you could harvest (at least $250). I suppose you could look for a damaged, broken copy with scratched glass or seized frozen focus ring, but thats still gonna run at least $150 and you again get stuck with a useless leftover lens. In the end it comes down to the working condition of your present mount-less lens: if the glass, focus helix and aperture mechanism are all flawless, it may be worth the expense to find a mount to complete it. If your lens has any issues, its probably better to replace it altogether. If you do that, aim for one of the three most common mounts (M42, Exakta, Pentacon) easily adapted to mirrorless.

 

Every once in a great while, you may find a mount by itself, such as this one now on eBay. The difficulty is knowing which version of Olympia Sonnar the mount was made to fit: i.e. this listing looks like it might fit yours, but without a definitive photo of the entire lens you're flying blind.

Ahh, you meant your lens has NO mount on it at all! That's so very unusual it was easy to misunderstand: my apologies. I had no idea the rear mount on this version could simply screw right off and be replaced that easily: strangely, a significant point that has never come up in the discussions I've seen over the years.

 

I'm afraid you're kinda stuck with a useless lens, then: no path to getting a new mount would be economically practical. You'd either need a specialist like SK Grimes to recreate a mount for you ($$$$), or find a donor lens whose mount you could harvest (at least $250). I suppose you could look for a damaged, broken copy with scratched glass or seized frozen focus ring, but thats still gonna run at least $150 and you again get stuck with a useless leftover lens. In the end it comes down to the working condition of your present mount-less lens: if the glass, focus helix and aperture mechanism are all flawless, it may be worth the expense to find a mount to complete it. If your lens has any issues, its probably better to replace it altogether. If you do that, aim for one of the three most common mounts (M42, Exakta, Pentacon) easily adapted to mirrorless.

 

Every once in a great while, you may find a mount by itself, such as this one now on eBay. The difficulty is knowing which version of Olympia Sonnar the mount was made to fit: i.e. this listing looks like it might fit yours, but without a definitive photo of the entire lens you're flying blind.

 

Yes I did see this one on eBay but not sure it would be the right fit. As the lens is smooth and the glass pristine, I think I may just take a punt on that mount and if not I’ll hold on to the lens and keep searching the web. Thanks for your input Orsetto

That seller gives some indication of specializing in photo gear, so should be responsive to questions. Might be a good idea to see if they'll measure the diameter of the wider (lens barrel) side, and depth of the thread band. If it seems to match yours, it would probably work. Perhaps also send them the photos you posted here.

 

Upon further research at other sites dedicated to this lens series, it does appear Zeiss was in the habit of making detachable mounts for most versions of 180 and 300 tele (learned something new today). Yours is an early postwar, which apparently set the spec for most later barrel thread variants. So chances are decent that a mount sold by a reasonably competent photo dealer should match. If this one does, it would be ideal, as the Pentacon mount is desirable for its adaptability (fits directly on several popular Eastern Bloc medium format film cameras, and easily adapted from that mount to smaller format cameras).

 

A good source of tips on mounts for sale would be rangefinder-oriented forums: I found several posts from owners with spare mounts offering them to those in need (expired offers, unfortunately). At some point in the past these mounts were in greater circulation, so they do exist: back in the days of film before dealers stocked hundreds of mount adapters for Canon EOS and mirrorless, a subset of photographers occasionally needed them to switch between rangefinder/slr and medium format use. Good luck!

I'm interested in the 180mm Sonnar to convert for my Rollei SL66, which has a focal plane shutter. I have a blank lens mount. (I had one drilled and tapped for an Imagon by Grimes and it was very successful).

 

I see some of the Sonnars for sale, with various mounts. Could someone suggest which one would make the neatest conversion to a custom drilled and tapped spare mount? Would back focus dimensions have to be considered for infinity focus (although I'd be using it primarily for portraits).

I'm interested in the 180mm Sonnar to convert for my Rollei SL66...

The sl66.org page actually list the 180mm Sonnar f/2.8 (along with the 120mm and 300mm) as being available for the SL66.

 

http://www.sl66.com/images/lens_images/zeiss_180_oncam_s.jpg

 

http://www.sl66.com/images/lens_images/zeiss_180_side_s.jpg

Although these lenses were custom adapted, it does show that it is doable.

Thanks Tom. I was aware of the lens being listed but have never seen one offered for sale.

 

Does anyone know if the basic lens, before a specific mount is attached, is the same in all cases? If so, I could acquire any version, remove the mount (e.g.Pentacon) and proceed with having my blank Rollei lens mount drilled, maybe tapped etc.

Does anyone know if the basic lens, before a specific mount is attached, is the same in all cases? If so, I could acquire any version, remove the mount (e.g.Pentacon) and proceed with having my blank Rollei lens mount drilled, maybe tapped etc.

 

The wording and slick photos of the lens shown on that SL66 enthusiast page can be a bit misleading and confusing. Glanced at quickly, they seem to imply this was a standard "third-party" version of the 180mm offered by Carl Zeiss Jena independently of Rollei. That isn't the case: the lens shown is an ordinary late-model CZJ 180 Sonnar made in Pentacon 6x6 SLR mount that has been "hacked" to cooperate with the freakish 102mm flange focal distance of the SL66 (vs the standard 74mm of Pentacon and most other 6x6 SLRs).

 

I believe that hack consisted of unscrewing the Pentacon mount from the lens, leaving a "short barrel" lens head ala thepaulbrown's pics above, and replacing the native Pentacon mount with a custom Rolleflex SL66 mount made by the Zoerk specialty firm. The modern rubber-focus-ring multicoated version of 180mm f/2.8 Sonnar in Pentacon mount shown with this SL66 modification is fairly common and available (vs the collectible older all silver/all black or "zebra" metal focus ring versions). If Zoerk still offers the SL66 mount as a custom-order item, cost might be upwards of $400 (USD).

Edited February 3, 2021 by orsetto

I do not know if Zork did the conversions, but that would not surprise me. They offered several lenses in converted mounts for general sale back then. I bought a nice Zork converted Mamiya 55mm shift lens in Hasselblad-V mount, it's not that unusual for them to show up used.

 

P6 vs SL66 Sonnar

 

The CZJ Sonnar 180/2.8 appears to be made with the SL66 in mind, all the controls are forward of the tripod mount, so even for the factory, they just have to change the rear barrel behind the aperture ring. This is also true for the 300mm Sonnar and the 120mm Biometar. All 3 were listed as a catalogue item for the SL66 at one time, so they will show up on the used market every now and then.

 

You blank Rollei mount was made primarily for macro and LF lenses. Converting a 180 Sonnar would entail machining a new rear barrel, at which point you may as well machine the rest of the SL66 mount.

Poke around long enough in vintage lens threads, and eventually you confirm the 180 and 300 were indeed deliberately designed as a short mount barrel with removable rear barrel/mount section to allow CZJ/Pentacon to easily moderate their stock for whichever camera had most demand for the lenses.

 

While I'm sure tom_chow is correct that an "officially sanctioned" SL66 version was purveyed by Pentacon/CZJ at some point, it wasn't promoted directly by Rollei, doesn't appear in common brochures, price lists, dealer sheets or the list of lenses in the final SL66SE/SL66X manual. Most likely because the helical focus ring doesn't jive with the bellows-focus ethos of the SL66, and East German Zeiss Jena wasn't affiliated with Rollei in the same manner as West German Zeiss. Timing might also be a factor, as there were a few late-period "official" lenses Rollei added but did not publicize much (i.e. the scarce SL66 version of Hasselblad's 110mm f/2 Planar).

 

The only two mentions I could find of an SL66 version of the 180 Olympia Sonnar are at the SL66 fan site link posted above (which refers to the SL66 mount being "custom attached"), and a couple of posts on a couple threads here on p-net by evan_dong_1 (who described his 180 Sonnar as either "adapted" or "hacked" to fit his Rolleiflex SL66). I saw the vague Zoerk reference at a different forum, along with multiple mentions that Pentacon/CZJ primarily offered the lens in Pentacon, Exakta and M42 mount, briefly fielding Nikon F, Canon FD and Leica mounts (the last three being rather rare).

 

I'd agree with tom_chow that the blank mount would not be the optimum way to adapt this particular lens. Check with Zoerk, SK Grimes or other photographic adapter/machinist firms to see if they can supply an integrated barrel/mount adapter like the one pictured earlier. While this would be costly, it may not be as expensive as a complete 180 Sonnar factory-modded by CZJ for SL66 (assuming you could ever track down one of those collectible unicorns). Since the lens is easily found in native Pentacon mount, another affordable option is to simply buy a Pentacon 6x6 SLR just for shooting with this lens (supplemental to an SL66 kit).

Edited February 3, 2021 by orsetto

Speaking of mounts and adapters, it would be extremely useful to know whether all common versions of 180 Sonnar employ exactly the same barrel thread compatible with the same detachable camera mounts. The earliest silver version that John Seaman owned and posted in this thread was supplied in Contax rangefinder mount. Shortly after the Berlin Olympics proved the rangefinder too clumsy to focus/compose with, the Contax mount was removed and the main barrel was screwed into a new reflex housing for the Contax.

 

That barrel design was the genesis for later, far more common SLR-oriented iterations having exchangeable Pentacon, Exakta and M42 mounts. Or who knows how many other random, not well documented mounts were once available: andyfalsetta's Hasselblad 1000f mount looks OEM, so maybe CZJ made a few of those, too. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if one turned up here in Bronica S2 mount, given CZJ briefly supplied an 80mm during the EC/EC-TL era.

 

The key question being, do all these lenses use the same barrel thread as ye olde Contax reflex housing, and if so which housing thread? There were at least two: the black all-metal "mountlless" Sonnar pictured above by thepaulbrown appears very similar to the lens head attached to the later reflex housing, and might have been removed from one long ago. If it has the same barrel thread as the later "zebra" CZJ and final rubber focus ring CZJ, it could be "made whole" with the same Pentacon, Exakta or M42 mounts common to those versions.

Edited February 3, 2021 by orsetto

... Since the lens is easily found in native Pentacon mount, another affordable option is to simply buy a Pentacon 6x6 SLR just for shooting with this lens (supplemental to an SL66 kit).

This is what I did - I passed on a CZJ sonnar 180/2.8 in Hasselblad V mount (professionally modified), probably because I already had the 150/2.8. That was a mistake, as it was quite reasonably priced and in excellent shape. But I later got one in P6 mount and use it with a (excellent working) Kiev 88cm body. That's about as close as I can bring this thread back to the OP's.... ;)

 

 

Speaking of mounts and adapters, it would be extremely useful to know whether all common versions of 180 Sonnar employ exactly the same barrel thread compatible with the same detachable camera mounts. ....

I don' believe so, I have different versions of the 300/180/120 CZJ lenses, and none use the threaded barrel. I believe the threaded barrel was only used prior to aperture automation, once they made mechanism to auto actuate the aperture, the rear barrels were all bolted on. My 300 & 100 also have aperture compensation for focus, and the 300 has an extra pin that transfers aperture value to the camera.

Just a quick update. I sent images to the eBay seller and he assured me the adapter was a Zeiss original for this lens in pentacon six mount so I placed the order, should receive it next week. I’ll be pretty pleased as the pentacon six mount seems very versatile. I plan to use it for digital monochrom portraits as well as colour film. Fingers crossed!