Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Carl Zeiss Jena 135 f3.5 infinity focus on Nikon
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 8:15 am    Post subject: Carl Zeiss Jena 135 f3.5 infinity focus on Nikon Reply with quote
I have had this lens a few weeks now and quite like it. I have used it on my Nikon DSLR with glass adapter, and without using a crude home made adapter no problems with sharpness but I'd like to use it at full aperture once in a while and focus on infinity. I came across this link about servicing the lens:

http://www.andrew.brown.dsl.pipex.com/articles/czj135svc/

He mentions there is an infinity adjustment screw on the lens which limits the helical. I thought that by adjusting this screw I could get infinity focus on my Nikons and just use a plain, non-glass adapter.

What I cant get my head round is how. Do I loosen the screw and turn the lens past infinity? One turn two turns? Do i need to do something to the focus rods?

Anyone here got an idea?
Thanks!


PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 10:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have an idea. Stop using Nikon cameras. Wink


PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 10:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
martinsmith99 wrote:
I have an idea. Stop using Nikon cameras. Wink


Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked


PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 10:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
martinsmith99 wrote:
I have an idea. Stop using Nikon cameras. Wink

+1 if you wish to shoot with many lenses, buy a more compatible camera, I did also start with Nikon and quickly quit when I did realized one of the most incompatible digital camera.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 11:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
So what is the most compatible digital camera?


PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 11:22 am    Post subject: Re: Carl Zeiss Jena 135 f3.5 infinity focus on Nikon Reply with quote
philslizzy wrote:
I have had this lens a few weeks now and quite like it. I have used it on my Nikon DSLR with glass adapter, and without using a crude home made adapter no problems with sharpness but I'd like to use it at full aperture once in a while and focus on infinity. I came across this link about servicing the lens:

http://www.andrew.brown.dsl.pipex.com/articles/czj135svc/

He mentions there is an infinity adjustment screw on the lens which limits the helical. I thought that by adjusting this screw I could get infinity focus on my Nikons and just use a plain, non-glass adapter.

What I cant get my head round is how. Do I loosen the screw and turn the lens past infinity? One turn two turns? Do i need to do something to the focus rods?

Anyone here got an idea?
Thanks!


You remove that screw and get past infinity. I am quite sure not enough to reach it but you'll get closer then now. But with that screw removed you must be careful when shooting close objects. Lens will unwind since infinity stopper also acts as MFD stopper.

You can reach even further by slightly unscrewing rear lens system. But i think this procedure also effects lens design calculations.

Last edited by Pancolart on Sun Nov 25, 2012 11:25 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 11:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nikonshooter wrote:
So what is the most compatible digital camera?


Pentax Q!!! But you know the obvious reason why no here use it!! Wink

Seriously, for mirrorless camera the best is Sony NEX.

For dSLR, the best is Canon EOS series.

Nikon is is the worst for using with manual lenses, unless you just want to confine yourself to using Nikkor lenses or manual lenses with Nikon mount.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 11:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nikonshooter wrote:
So what is the most compatible digital camera?


Any Canon DSLR, if you wish to shoot it on a 24x36mm sensor.

Otherwise, you could also buy any mirrorless camera such as Sony NEX oder Olympus/Panasonic MFT.

I use the CZJ 135/3.5 on my E-M5, here I posted some first examples....
http://forum.mflenses.com/carl-zeiss-jena-135-3-5-on-the-e-m5-t54746.html

The CZJ 135/3.5 is good on MFT, but generally, if it were mainly for old lenses, I would prefer a Sony NEX. It's 1.5x crop factor is just more "friendly" to the old lenses than MFT, and also retains a little bit more of their original field of view. A 35 becomes a 50, a 50 becomes a 75, an 85 becomes a 135, a 135 becomes a 200.... it all makes some sense on APS-C. Plus the cheapest used NEX bodies are really not expensive.... and they all have excellent sensors and focus peaking.

Thomas


PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 11:29 am    Post subject: Re: Carl Zeiss Jena 135 f3.5 infinity focus on Nikon Reply with quote
philslizzy wrote:

I came across this link about servicing the lens:

http://www.andrew.brown.dsl.pipex.com/articles/czj135svc/

He mentions there is an infinity adjustment screw on the lens which limits the helical. I thought that by adjusting this screw I could get infinity focus on my Nikons and just use a plain, non-glass adapter.

What I cant get my head round is how. Do I loosen the screw and turn the lens past infinity? One turn two turns?


In order to achieve infinity focus you need to move the optical cell closer to the sensor by an amount equal to the register difference between Nikon F and M42 ( = 1 mm) and the thickness of your (non glass) adapter ( ? 0.5 mm upwards). So that's 1.5 mm or maybe as much as 3 mm - depending on the thickness of your adapter. I'm almost certain that you can't achieve that using the "infinity adjust" on the lens. I've serviced a few examples of this lens. In most cases the optical cell was as far back as it would go - or nearly so - with only the possibility of moving it forward by a small amount (0.5 mm or maybe a bit more - but not much).

I think that you have to live within the limitations of using a simple mechanical adapter - loss of infinity - or a "glass adapter" - which are various.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 7:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
martinsmith99 wrote:
I have an idea. Stop using Nikon cameras. Wink

+1 if you wish to shoot with many lenses, buy a more compatible camera, I did also start with Nikon and quickly quit when I did realized one of the most incompatible digital camera.


I have no intention of stopping using Nikon cameras. I bought my DSLR's long before getting interested in manual focus lenses. I was not aware of the register distance years ago or how important it was to be in 2012. I have managed to convert other M42 and Olympus lenses by myself with no problems and would be interested in doing the same with this one. I have considered buying a Pentax of some sort however. Perhaps Canon, but for ultimate compatibility with M42, a Pentax will be good.

sichko wrote:

In order to achieve infinity focus you need to move the optical cell closer to the sensor by an amount equal to the register difference between Nikon F and M42 ( = 1 mm) and the thickness of your (non glass) adapter ( ? 0.5 mm upwards). So that's 1.5 mm or maybe as much as 3 mm - depending on the thickness of your adapter. I'm almost certain that you can't achieve that using the "infinity adjust" on the lens. I've serviced a few examples of this lens. In most cases the optical cell was as far back as it would go - or nearly so - with only the possibility of moving it forward by a small amount (0.5 mm or maybe a bit more - but not much)..


My adapter has no thickness to it, the bayonet mount goes over the screw thread only with no flange. Perhaps my question wasn't worded properly. I was asking if I turn the lens past infinity one whole rotation...

A. is that enough to go back 1mm or...
B. is there enough helical to actually do it?
C. Do the focus rods limit what I can do?

Thanks


PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 10:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I had a Pentax DSLR and found the M42 adapters rather a bit fiddly. And Pentax DSLR always have APS-C sensors, so you could just buy a Sony NEX instead and even use other lenses, that won't work on any DSLR, with that. For example Zeiss Contarex lenses, or Canon FD, or other more exotic stuff.....

On the other hand, of course, Pentax cameras have true SLR viewfinders, and the K5 and K30 share their superb sensor with the Sony NEX-5N and Nikon D7000 .... so put a split screen in the K5 and you're off for a really nice photographic experience!

And the last thing is: Why get a CZJ 135/3.5 when you can have a nice Nikkor 135/3.5? I have / had both and would not prefer any one over the other. But especially the old 135 Nikkors are really cheap these days.

Thomas


PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 10:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
memento wrote:
I had a Pentax DSLR and found the M42 adapters rather a bit fiddly. And Pentax DSLR always have APS-C sensors, so you could just buy a Sony NEX instead and even use other lenses, that won't work on any DSLR, with that. For example Zeiss Contarex lenses, or Canon FD, or other more exotic stuff.....

On the other hand, of course, Pentax cameras have true SLR viewfinders, and the K5 and K30 share their superb sensor with the Sony NEX-5N and Nikon D7000 .... so put a split screen in the K5 and you're off for a really nice photographic experience!

And the last thing is: Why get a CZJ 135/3.5 when you can have a nice Nikkor 135/3.5? I have / had both and would not prefer any one over the other. But especially the old 135 Nikkors are really cheap these days.

Thomas


+1


PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 10:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
memento wrote:
I had a Pentax DSLR and found the M42 adapters rather a bit fiddly. And Pentax DSLR always have APS-C sensors, so you could just buy a Sony NEX instead and even use other lenses, that won't work on any DSLR, with that. For example Zeiss Contarex lenses, or Canon FD, or other more exotic stuff.....

On the other hand, of course, Pentax cameras have true SLR viewfinders, and the K5 and K30 share their superb sensor with the Sony NEX-5N and Nikon D7000 .... so put a split screen in the K5 and you're off for a really nice photographic experience!

And the last thing is: Why get a CZJ 135/3.5 when you can have a nice Nikkor 135/3.5? I have / had both and would not prefer any one over the other. But especially the old 135 Nikkors are really cheap these days.

Thomas


I already have the lens, it was part of a bag of stuff left to my friend by his dad. I gave it a go a little while ago and liked it. Yes the nikkor is great and I would like one but seeing one for sale and winning a bid on ebay can be difficult when you work til 10 at night, most auctions (in UK) are over then and I've often been pipped at the post by 50p. I actually have a Jupiter adapted to Nikon which I like very much. It's not so important I convert this lens but it would be nice.

I'd rather have a true SLR - but the Panasonic G3 beckons.

Finances always dictate what i do ultimately.

Thanks for your reply!


PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 11:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
philslizzy wrote:

sichko wrote:

In order to achieve infinity focus you need to move the optical cell closer to the sensor by an amount equal to the register difference between Nikon F and M42 ( = 1 mm) and the thickness of your (non glass) adapter ( ? 0.5 mm upwards). So that's 1.5 mm or maybe as much as 3 mm - depending on the thickness of your adapter. I'm almost certain that you can't achieve that using the "infinity adjust" on the lens. I've serviced a few examples of this lens. In most cases the optical cell was as far back as it would go - or nearly so - with only the possibility of moving it forward by a small amount (0.5 mm or maybe a bit more - but not much)..


My adapter has no thickness to it, the bayonet mount goes over the screw thread only with no flange. Perhaps my question wasn't worded properly. I was asking if I turn the lens past infinity one whole rotation...

A. is that enough to go back 1mm or...
B. is there enough helical to actually do it?
C. Do the focus rods limit what I can do?


Perhaps I misunderstood, or maybe my answer wasn't clear. I was thinking about the scenario whereby you ...
(i) remove the guide rods and optical unit
(ii) remove the infinity screw
(iii) rotate the focusing barrel by one turn so that it screws further into the base unit
(iv) replace the infinity screw
(v) replace the optical unit and guide rods

If you can do this the lens will now function as before focusing between "infinity" and the "close focus distance" as marked on the focusing scale. But at all positions the optical unit will be closer to the sensor by a distance equal to the pitch thread of the helices which hold together the focusing ring and the base unit. This pitch is certainly less than 1 mm - the amount you need. If the pitch is 0.5 mm, then 2 turns in part (iii) and you're set. However I don't think that you will be able to manage two turns and quite possibly not even one. So ... second scenario ...

... remove the infinity screw and focus past infinity (on the focusing scale) It's possible that the optical unit will move sufficiently close to the sensor to achieve focus at "real infinity" with only a small part of a turn. See : http://forum.manualfocus.org/viewtopic.php?id=15919

If you do reach infinity then, as suggested earlier, you have no hard stop at infinity and when you focus close it will be possible for the optical cell to fall out of the lens - if you turn the focusing ring too far. One way round this might be to drill and tap a new hole for the infinity screw.

I too am Nikon user. I've had several copies of this lens and I've enjoyed using them both with a simple mechanical adapter and with a "glass adapter". I've often thought about what you are trying to achieve - but I've never tried it myself. So good luck.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 12:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks John, for taking the time to give me a useful and informative answer. the part about the pitch on the helicoid was very interesting, I was afraid of the lens unit falling out.

I'll give it a go anyway and report back. The link you gave me shows a photo nicked from the website my original post links to! Edit: ah he links but its a different URL to mine

Thanks again I appreciate it.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 12:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Photography is already a complex activity. I don't think there is any need of making it more complicated than necessary.
There aren't significant differences in everyday lenses (such as a slow 135mm lens) between one brand and another.
Differences may start to become significant with some top of the line lenses (but even in that case, a trained eye is often necessary to tell lenses apart).
This is to say that it absolutely makes no sense to lose time and get headaches over converting a slow 135mm lens
(or any 50 mm lens, or an average speed 28mm, 35mm, 200mm lens) from one mount to another.
Just buy the equivalent(s) already present in your lens mount, 90% chances are it will perform exactly the same,
the other 10% chances being for a performance shift too close to call it better or worse.
If for any reason, you find yourself wishing to convert a lot of lenses, then it means it's time for you to change camera instead,
or buy a second one with a different mount. Simple as that.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 12:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
sichko wrote:
But at all positions the optical unit will be closer to the sensor by a distance equal to the pitch thread of the helices which hold together the focusing ring and the base unit. This pitch is certainly less than 1 mm - the amount you need. If the pitch is 0.5 mm, then 2 turns in part (iii) and you're set. However I don't think that you will be able to manage two turns and quite possibly not even one.

John, the pitch of the helix on this lens is actually very coarse (multi-start). From the infinity stop to MFD the focussing dial turns approx. 315°, over which the lens block travels 25mm. The thread pitch is therefore around 28mm for a complete rotation, and for just 1mm adjustment the rotation would only need to be about 13°.

I seem to remember a long time ago someone reporting they had managed to achieve infinity focus on Nikon with an M42 135, I'm not sure if it was the CZJ S though.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 1:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
peterqd wrote:
sichko wrote:
But at all positions the optical unit will be closer to the sensor by a distance equal to the pitch thread of the helices which hold together the focusing ring and the base unit. This pitch is certainly less than 1 mm - the amount you need. If the pitch is 0.5 mm, then 2 turns in part (iii) and you're set. However I don't think that you will be able to manage two turns and quite possibly not even one.

John, the pitch of the helix on this lens is actually very coarse (multi-start). From the infinity stop to MFD the focussing dial turns approx. 315°, over which the lens block travels 25mm. The thread pitch is therefore around 28mm for a complete rotation, and for just 1mm adjustment the rotation would only need to be about 13°.

I seem to remember a long time ago someone reporting they had managed to achieve infinity focus on Nikon with an M42 135, I'm not sure if it was the CZJ S though.


Peter, you are talking about the helices which mate to join the optical cell and the focusing barrel. There is another set (single entry) which hold together the focusing barrel and what I called (following a description in the link I gave) the "base unit". Perhaps it's a poor description but it's the part you get to when you remove the mount.

Forum member Soullivan converted his lens (possibly the one I sold him !) and yes it was an M42 CJZ 3.5/135. But I don't think he told us exactly how he did it.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 2:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
philslizzy wrote:
Thanks John, for taking the time to give me a useful and informative answer. the part about the pitch on the helicoid was very interesting, I was afraid of the lens unit falling out.

I'll give it a go anyway and report back. The link you gave me shows a photo nicked from the website my original post links to! Edit: ah he links but its a different URL to mine

Thanks again I appreciate it.


Try and see if Google Translate can help you with this page.

http://www.bigeye.url.tw/big5/d_czj135_35.htm


PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 3:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Photography is already a complex activity. I don't think there is any need of making it more complicated than necessary.
There aren't significant differences in everyday lenses (such as a slow 135mm lens) between one brand and another.
Differences may start to become significant with some top of the line lenses (but even in that case, a trained eye is often necessary to tell lenses apart).
This is to say that it absolutely makes no sense to lose time and get headaches over converting a slow 135mm lens
(or any 50 mm lens, or an average speed 28mm, 35mm, 200mm lens) from one mount to another.
Just buy the equivalent(s) already present in your lens mount, 90% chances are it will perform exactly the same,
the other 10% chances being for a performance shift too close to call it better or worse.
If for any reason, you find yourself wishing to convert a lot of lenses, then it means it's time for you to change camera instead,
or buy a second one with a different mount. Simple as that.


Perhaps you don't like to do it but I do.

Some people breed dogs to get a perfect pedigree, would you tell them it makes absolutely no sense to spend months and stud fees on something that may not work 100% and that they should buy a pedigree pup instead?

I have a good Nikon DSLR system with the right AF lenses for the job. I use my cameras professionally for social events, portraits and product photos. I like to tinker with old lenses and cameras as well as take photos with them, this is far enough removed from my normal photography to be different. With digital I can see the effects immediately. When the lenses are compatible I will use them on my Nikon SLR cameras, knowing they will work.

I don't get headaches with this I see it as a challenge.

If you have read the posts above you will know I have two perfectly good prime 135mm lenses and that I am considering buying a Pentax DSLR or Canon.

Other members of this forum like to use all sorts of exotic lenses on their cameras buying adapters galore. How many people on this forum have a Canon DSLR and use other brand lenses? Do you criticise them for doing it? Should msteen1314 get his wallet out and buy a grip for his Bessa T (http://forum.mflenses.com/bessa-t-grip-project-t52773.html)? its only £80 or thereabout. No if he wants to make a grip and inspire us then why not?

The members who've endeavoured to reply to my initial query have given good, unbiased advice and information which I will use.

Get off your high horse.

That is my opinion, and thanks for yours. Of course I'm not going to argue with you. You know why


PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 2:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It was a struggle but I did it. I had to re grease the helicoid but all is well and it focuses on infinity well. I am considering a generous offer for the lens. I'll have to see...


PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 2:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well done.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
philslizzy wrote:
It was a struggle but I did it. I had to re grease the helicoid but all is well and it focuses on infinity well. I am considering a generous offer for the lens. I'll have to see...


Congratulations! Now waiting for some Carl-Nikonish samples.

Orio wrote:
...This is to say that it absolutely makes no sense to lose time and get headaches over converting a slow 135mm lens (or any 50 mm lens, or an average speed 28mm, 35mm, 200mm lens) from one mount to another...

But Orio, tinkering can be an art (a passionate one) too!


PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 1:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Photography is already a complex activity. I don't think there is any need of making it more complicated than necessary.
There aren't significant differences in everyday lenses (such as a slow 135mm lens) between one brand and another.
Differences may start to become significant with some top of the line lenses (but even in that case, a trained eye is often necessary to tell lenses apart).
This is to say that it absolutely makes no sense to lose time and get headaches over converting a slow 135mm lens
(or any 50 mm lens, or an average speed 28mm, 35mm, 200mm lens) from one mount to another.
Just buy the equivalent(s) already present in your lens mount, 90% chances are it will perform exactly the same,
the other 10% chances being for a performance shift too close to call it better or worse.
If for any reason, you find yourself wishing to convert a lot of lenses, then it means it's time for you to change camera instead,
or buy a second one with a different mount. Simple as that.


+10


PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 1:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Pancolart wrote:
philslizzy wrote:
It was a struggle but I did it. I had to re grease the helicoid but all is well and it focuses on infinity well. I am considering a generous offer for the lens. I'll have to see...


Congratulations! Now waiting for some Carl-Nikonish samples.

Orio wrote:
...This is to say that it absolutely makes no sense to lose time and get headaches over converting a slow 135mm lens (or any 50 mm lens, or an average speed 28mm, 35mm, 200mm lens) from one mount to another...

But Orio, tinkering can be an art (a passionate one) too!


Tinkering is far from art ... and thanks for this, I saw many beautiful item in hopeless stage.. Professionally converted stuff is entirely different , not ruin lens like DIY one, but better to avoid also. With every conversion one genuine piece is dissapear.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2