Lens hood for CZJ Triotar 135mm f/4

[Sjak]

Anyone here using the Triotar 135mm?

I just received my copy, it is in very nice mechanical condition, but the flaring is challenging. Even overcast daylight will cause strong flare/ghosting, even af f/11. Obviously, I expected it to be sensitive to flaring, but not this much

Anyone else here with this lens can recommend a specific type of hood, or dimensions?

I know I can fabricate something with paper or plastic, but it's such a nice looking lens, so it would be a shame to ruin the looks with my poor manufacturing skills

[Oldhand]

I did have this lens once and I used a rubber neoprene beer cooler as a hood.
Carried it in my bag and fitted as needed.
Folds up small and also keeps beer cool
Can sit around the lens for protection while being carried too.
Tom

[Pancolart]

If i remember correctly usual Φ49 rubber hood will do. Hoods should be used with all non recessed front element vintage lenses.

[tb_a]

My 13.5cm Triotar from 1939 takes a 40.5mm lens hood. I recommend a black metal tube shape one.
Something like this: Click here to see on Ebay maybe even a bit longer.

Edit: Just measured mine. 35mm in length should be OK without vignetting. Like this one: https://goo.gl/hTW9t4

[Sjak]

[newst]

It will depend on your lens. If your lens is for a Contax Rangefinder mount it will have a 40.5mm thread. If it is an M42 SLR lens it will have a 49mm thread. I just checked on Ebay and found an authentic Zeiss Rangefinder hood, the seller was asking over $100 US. I would just buy an appropriate Chinese vented hood myself.

[tb_a]

[D1N0]

I got a 40.5 to 49mm adapter ring for my Jupiter 11, so I can use it with my takumar hoods.

[fiftyonepointsix]

I've seen the 135/4 Triotar in Exakta and M42 mount. Was it made in Contax RF mount?

For my 1937 Uncoated 13.5cm F4 Sonnar, I use a 40.5mm vented hood commonly available on Ebay. The hood for a 135 should be deeper- but the short one works well enough. I have the proper hood for my 13.5cm F4 Nikkor, also 40.5mm screw-in. It would work on the Sonnar quite nicely.

This lens is converted to Leica mount using a J-11 focus mount.

https://cameraderie.org/threads/carl-zeiss-jena-13-5cm-f4-sonnar-uncoated.39361/

My Nikkor 13.5cm F4 and the F3.5 are very flare resistant. I tend to open up most of my lenses and give them a cleaning. But that was not necessary on this one:

https://cameraderie.org/threads/nikkor-13-5cm-f4-leica-mount-on-the-m9.38513/

https://cameraderie.org/threads/nikkor-qc-13-5cm-f3-5-in-leica-thread-mount-mioj.39088/

I cleaned all of the surfaces. I would suggest shining a bright light through the lens to inspect for light haze. Getting rid of it on my Sonnar made a world of difference.

[Sjak]

[fiftyonepointsix]

My 8.5cm F2 uncoated Sonnar used to flare like that: the Black Paint of the edges of the middle triplet had flaked off. I refinished the surface with a black marker, flare vanished.

Looking at your pictures: something is causing that flare, either haze or reflections. Reflections may be off the lens tube, or edge of the glass: I've seen both. I modified one lens with an extra baffle to eliminate it.

[tb_a]

[luisalegria]

I have a vintage aluminum Series VII hood, with a 49mm-S7 adapter.
Works great.
I use the ancient hood to match the aged alu finish.

Old hoods are usually made for "normal" lenses for the format, not specifically for tele. These are quite good enough though.

The Triotar like other triplets is not too prone to flare, unless there is haze on the elements.

[Seele]

On my M42-mount example with 49mm diameter filter thread (in fact one of the last built) I use a cylindrical plastics hood made by Tamron for the 90mm SP lens, it is far from optimum even for its native format (24mm X 36mm) but it does the first aim of the lens hood - keeping oblique light from falling on the front surface - reasonably well.

Obviously the hood should be as big as can be, and lops off as much image-forming rays as possible, so it depends on the image format the lens is used on.

However, the second aim of the lens hood is now considered to be a shortcoming. We have all seen pictures of professional directors and cinematographers at work, with the movie cameras fitted with compendium hoods and front rectangular mask. The mask is for trimming the image at the film plane so the format area just fits inside, without extraneous image bouncing around inside the camera box. We have all seen movies from, say, before the early 2000s where specular highlights are rendered as rectangular.

But for us who care about bokeh characteristics, this is more likely considered as undesirable, so off goes the mask to keep everything round. If you are open to make your own hoods out of, say, cardboard or laminated paper, a bit of trial and error with a simple thin black cartridge paper should give you an idea of how big a hood should be for best results.

[tb_a]

[Sjak]

Thanks so much Thomas!

@ fiftyonepointsix: It's the LTM RF-coupled version.

A more thorough test with a flashlight revealed haze and cleaning marks on all elements. The coating on the front element does look partly worn off.

Somewhere else, someone suggested it could also be sensor reflection. If that's the case, no hood will solve the issue.

In any case, I can return and/or exchange the lens within the next 10 days, and I think I will. Mechanically the lens is in superb condition, and RF-calibration seems spot-on. But for the price paid, optically it should be in a usable condition, which it seems it is not.

[tb_a]

[fiftyonepointsix]

Could you post a picture of the lens, especially the pictures of the mount and RF coupling.

A quick search through Thiele and the Internet shows that this lens was not made in LTM Mount. In that case, either it is very rare or it has been custom converted. Depending on how much you paid for the lens, it might be worthwhile to keep it and find a more common Triotar in a different mount and exchange the glass elements. If this was a conversion: the rear element of the Triotar is quite a distance into the Tube, and this maybe a case where additional baffling is required. The flare looks like that of the Pentax 50/1.4 that I converted to RF coupled M-Mount. After putting some anti-reflective baffling into the mount, all was well.

I looked at converting a Triotar to LTM for a friend of mine, it was "non-trivial" to do with a J-11 mount. Maybe a Schacht or Acall mount would be easier, as the focus mounts have larger diameter.

[fiftyonepointsix]

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Carl-Zeiss-Jena-135mmF4-coated-Triotar-Leica-SM-coupled-Extremely-rare/232916009653?hash=item363ae042b5:g:KZoAAOSwMmlbWJdT:rk:6:pf:0

The above looks like a custom conversion- someone has added a tube with secondary translation helical and cam to the rear of the lens. $1299- crazy for a Triotar. Total cost on my converted Sonnar was ~$50 for the J-11 and $120 for the Contax mount Sonnar. The J-11 included a Voigtlander M-Mount adapter, and the Sonnar is near mint condition with perfect glass. Took a few hours to clean the interior surfaces and correctly shim in the LTM Mount.

[Sjak]

My lens looks exactly the same, but obviously was in a totally different price-range. I also saw another one on ebay for about 1000$ less. It does look and feel like a very well, and old. It is also spot-on accurate.

The material of the "extension barrel" is different than the rest of the lens barrel, so it is likely a conversion, be it at the CZJ factory itself, or at some other professional plant or workshop. It does not look like a homemade hack. The RF-cam actually looks similar to the one found on some Leitz 135mm lenses.

Meanwhile, I also made a few pics from inside the lens; 2 showing the RF-coupling, and 1 showing the haze. I used my LX7, which had trouble focusing in this setup, so sorry for the crappy quality

Meanwhile, I've also made up my mind: I will return it. There's no guarantee that the elements will clear up, and the price was above my "experiment" price-bracket.

#1


#2


#3

[fiftyonepointsix]

Thankyou for taking the time to post these pictures. Gives me a good idea of how the conversion was done. It looks like someone grafted the RF mechanism from another focus mount onto the Triotar. Clever way of doing it, this took time and effort.


If I were to ever sell it- would price my converted Sonnar 13.5cm F4 at $300, figuring materials and time. Maybe I'll do another one of I come into the required parts at a good price. I've converted ~50 5cm Sonnars, between the F1.5 and F2 lenses.

[Sjak]

[fiftyonepointsix]

Made me check Ebay for J-11's. I ended up buying a mint 1957 KMZ J-11 with case and caps, will shim it for my M Monochrom. I'm also from 1957...

The same seller had this 1955 KMZ J-11 at a good price, but I am biased towards lenses made in my birth year.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/KMZ-1955-Early-JUPITER-11-135-4-135MM-F4-RED-P-LENS-M39-LEICA-SCREW-MOUNT/192682811525?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649

KMZ optics and mechanical workmanship are the best of the FSU lenses. Those from the mid 1950s are the best that I've seen. I'll check the J-11 against the Sonnar when it comes in. I also have a black-nickel pre-war Sonnar that I might shim for the same mount. The beauty about these conversions: just keep the shims in place on the lens barrel, and it is all reversible. Usually the Sonnar need to be shimmed for the J-11 barrel, and the aperture ring needs to be re-indxed. I got lucky: once properly shimmed for the J-11 lens, my Sonnar aperture ring lined up exactly with the index mark.

[tb_a]

[fiftyonepointsix]

The wartime Leica Mount Sonnars are rare- Thiele does not list a Triotar made in Leica mount. I can believe that some were converted.

People pay more for rare lenses. You are lucky to find them at good prices.

I paid $20 each for a 9cm F4 coated Elmar, Sun Optical 9cm F4, and 13.5cm F3.5 Tanar recently. All required work, but cleaned up and repaired well. I also found a Leica IIIa with Summar and Black Leica III with 5cm F3.5 Elmar for $15 each, and a Nikon M with first-batch 5cm F1.4 Nikkor for $30 at an antique store. Sometimes you get lucky.