Carl Zeiss Jena 4/300 (Pentacon Six, P6), Schwarze Fassung, KEIN MC.

[hofsethpaul]

In my experience metal is preferable for lensmounts and othr critical ingredients, BUT the lenses I have from Angenieux have very solid plastic for some parts and work well after decades of use, while a plastic Canon lens split in two and was impossible to repair. Certainly cheaper to make.

The lightweight and shorter 300/4 marked praktica and Carl Zeiss Jena dos not have anything plasticky about it.

p.

[Optikus64]

Hello,

the lenses 4.0 300mm have no plastic parts, neither the Pentacon nor the Carl Zeiss Jena.

In this case the problem is, that my Sonnar 4.0/300 has lost it's tripod mount before I bought it relatively cheap.

Solution?

1. Akquiring a second one for parts or
2. Printing a spare part.

Because printing in metal is expensive and the surface of the printed objects are not the best my idea ist printing in polymer with an improved shape of the mount, with a metal inlay for the screw, and using a second support under the focusing front tube using an arca-rail under the complete lens. So the mechanical stress is reduced and I think polymer is sufficient. Actually I think about such a solution for all my "long lenses" because fixing them exactly e.g. for astro-use needs other solutions than present under the lenses I have.

Kind regards
Jörg

[pandreas]

Hi,

zum 4/300 Sonnar gibt es neue Informationen:

https://zeissikonveb.de/start/objekt...nar-4-300.html

Jetzt kann man nachvollziehen, inwieweit das MC Sonnar und inwieweit das Zebra Sonnar besser ist.

Kurze Zusammenfassung: Auf Kleinbild und Crop ist das Zebra Sonnar besser, auch nach orginal Zeiss Jena Tests.

Viele Grüße

Andreas