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 Sonnar 50mm f2 vs Jupiter 8
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Sep 04, 2020 10:52 am    Post subject: Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 50mm f2 vs Jupiter 8 Reply with quote
Hi,
which of these two lenses would you choose and why?
Is one sharper than the other?

If you go for the Jupiter, then which version would you choose?

Thanks


PostPosted: Fri Sep 04, 2020 11:03 am    Post subject: Re: Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 50mm f2 vs Jupiter 8 Reply with quote
wolan wrote:
Hi,
which of these two lenses would you choose and why?
Is one sharper than the other?

If you go for the Jupiter, then which version would you choose?

Thanks


I don't have the sonnar, but I have several Jupiter 8 lenses.
This may not be universally correct, but in my experience, the Jupiter 8M performs better than the standard Jupiter 8, at least in the samples that I have used
Mine are all from Zavod Arsenal Ukraine
T


PostPosted: Fri Sep 04, 2020 12:08 pm    Post subject: Re: Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 50mm f2 vs Jupiter 8 Reply with quote
Oldhand wrote:

This may not be universally correct, but in my experience, the Jupiter 8M performs better than the standard Jupiter 8, at least in the samples that I have used

That's more fof a coincidence - they both vary broadly in terms of IQ.
And all 8Ms originally come in Contax/Kiev mount, so a little more work is required to adapt them to the more common mounts (unless somebody has already did it - Industar-26 seems to be quite a popular donor for the job)


PostPosted: Fri Sep 04, 2020 1:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't have Sonnar. therefore, I have no experience photographing with this lens. I like examples of flickr photos taken with this lens. I have several Jupiter-8 lenses. I most like the KMZ version (1954 year) for the Kiev camera.

DSC00506 by Mr TTT, on Flickr


PostPosted: Fri Sep 04, 2020 3:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The 8M is inferior to the 8, the 8M was a cost reduced version.

Get a 1950s 8, the earlier the better. Sonnars are hard to find, expensive and a good 8 is as good.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 05, 2020 12:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Samples shots with several J-8's, and my 1934 5cm F2 Sonnar converted to LTM.

https://cameraderie.org/threads/jupiter-8.39524/

I prefer the Sonnar. The weak spot of the Jupiter-8 is the method in which the front element and front triplet are mounted in the barrel. Both are held in place with the front retaining ring only, and a spacer in between the two. The front element and front triplet of the Sonnar are stamped into a brass ring for much better alignment. The quality control of the Sonnars are better than the J-8.

I have two 1952 J-8's that are very, very good. I CLA'd them. I currently have two 5cm F2 Sonnars converted to LTM, and just sold two others to a friend.

Here are the test shots from his pair of lenses:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/albums/72157715516191122

https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/albums/72157715420176578


Sonnar 5cm F2, 201x by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

This pair came out really good.



Family portrait of Seven 5cm F2 Sonnar formula lenses.

Magnificent Seven by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

"The Magnificent Seven"


PostPosted: Sat Sep 05, 2020 12:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Like 1 Like 1 small


PostPosted: Sat Sep 05, 2020 12:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
sergtum wrote:
I don't have Sonnar. therefore, I have no experience photographing with this lens. I like examples of flickr photos taken with this lens. I have several Jupiter-8 lenses. I most like the KMZ version (1954 year) for the Kiev camera.

DSC00506 by Mr TTT, on Flickr

Thank you Sergtum


PostPosted: Sat Sep 05, 2020 2:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Why not get a F1.5 version for a bit more? I have one Zeiss Opton , one black in LTM mount and one Canon chrome one now. Wink

BTW, I sold my 1955 J-8 for the same price as the black one. The buyer was very happy with his purchase. Laugh 1


PostPosted: Sat Sep 05, 2020 4:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Your black one is a real Sonnar? Have you verified it has the serial number stamped into the rear block and that serial matches the one of the crudely faked name ring? How do you account for the crude workmanship and the Russian barrel parts?

Please don't start lying about it, that is how people get confused as lies propagate across the internet like a wildfire and there is already enough confusion.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 05, 2020 7:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
What is the criteria for the Sonnar designation? There is the Sonnar formula lens, Zeiss (& Jena, etc.) uses Sonnar as part of lens name, some faked or built Frankenstein style. Here we have a lens with the obviously genuine Zeiss Sonnar optics in a barrel that doesn't seem to match any other known configuration. I.e. the Sonnar formula lens has genuine Zeiss Sonnar optics, but is not made by Zeiss. Do we not still call it a Sonnar?


PostPosted: Sat Sep 05, 2020 8:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
How do you know it has real Sonnar optics in it? If it was made by Zeiss, in Germany, it's a Sonnar, if it was made in Russia, from Russian parts, it's a Jupiter. If it was made in Russia from German parts, I suppose it's still a Sonnar.

If it was cobbled together from disparate parts, not made in a factory, then what do you call it? No factory produced lens would have a big ugly flathead screw sticking out the side.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 05, 2020 9:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:
What is the criteria for the Sonnar designation? There is the Sonnar formula lens, Zeiss (& Jena, etc.) uses Sonnar as part of lens name, some faked or built Frankenstein style. Here we have a lens with the obviously genuine Zeiss Sonnar optics in a barrel that doesn't seem to match any other known configuration. I.e. the Sonnar formula lens has genuine Zeiss Sonnar optics, but is not made by Zeiss. Do we not still call it a Sonnar?


https://www.35mmc.com/29/04/2020/zeiss-jena-5cm-sonnars-the-magic-of-the-prewar-uncoated-sonnar-by-brian-sweeney/

I took apart several Sonnar formula lenses from 5cm through to 13.5cm. The Sonnar formula is asymmetric, the front section is a telephoto with focal length "ABOUT" 2.5~3 times the focal length of the completed lens; the rear section has a focal length about the same as the completed lens. The lens maker's formula beings the two sections close to each other. SO- the Sonnar formula lens is very compact compared to a double-Gauss.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 05, 2020 9:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Eight is Enough by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

Five of these are my conversions, two are original wartime LTM lenses, and one is a post-war LTM lens.

The Jupiter mounts can be very good. Most of the J-3 mounts are good, the Tabbed J-8 focus mounts are the best. For the ones that "are not great", I use 3M polishing sheets designed for fiber optic connectors to get smooth surfaces on the inside of the focus ring on the J-3 and the rear ring on the tabbed J-8.

I have seen very nice conversions of the post war West German Sonnars to Leica mount, typically use a Canon LTM focus mount custom machined to hold the larger barrel of the post-war Sonnar. They do not fit in Jupiter mounts, the diameter is too big.


PostPosted: Sun Sep 06, 2020 3:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
fiftyonepointsix wrote:
Eight is Enough by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

Five of these are my conversions, two are original wartime LTM lenses, and one is a post-war LTM lens.

The Jupiter mounts can be very good. Most of the J-3 mounts are good, the Tabbed J-8 focus mounts are the best. For the ones that "are not great", I use 3M polishing sheets designed for fiber optic connectors to get smooth surfaces on the inside of the focus ring on the J-3 and the rear ring on the tabbed J-8.

I have seen very nice conversions of the post war West German Sonnars to Leica mount, typically use a Canon LTM focus mount custom machined to hold the larger barrel of the post-war Sonnar. They do not fit in Jupiter mounts, the diameter is too big.

Impressive collection! Like 1


PostPosted: Sun Sep 06, 2020 3:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I consider all these are Sonnar 50/1.5, based on the design of pre-war CZJ Sonnar 50/1.5.



PostPosted: Sun Sep 06, 2020 4:38 am    Post subject: Re: Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 50mm f2 vs Jupiter 8 Reply with quote
wolan wrote:
Hi,
which of these two lenses would you choose and why?
Is one sharper than the other?

If you go for the Jupiter, then which version would you choose?

Thanks

Regarding J8 , it is very simple : you have to try different samples as the quality is not consistant.


PostPosted: Sun Sep 06, 2020 4:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
The 8M is inferior to the 8, the 8M was a cost reduced version.
.


Where did you get this « information ».
8 M just comes from Arsenal factory in Ukraine with Contax mount.
Regarding quality there are just as unconsistent as the KMZ ones but not worse.
I have tested a bunch of both .
Actually the worse out of my test were L39 but I would not conclude anything from that.


PostPosted: Sun Sep 06, 2020 1:18 pm    Post subject: Re: Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 50mm f2 vs Jupiter 8 Reply with quote
memetph wrote:
wolan wrote:
Hi,
which of these two lenses would you choose and why?
Is one sharper than the other?

If you go for the Jupiter, then which version would you choose?

Thanks

Regarding J8 , it is very simple : you have to try different samples as the quality is not consistant.


The KMZ Jupiter-3, most uniform quality made between 1953 and 1956. 1956 is the last year. On lenses from 1950 to 1952 the optics are the best, but often the focal length was out of spec because the barrels were the wrong length. I have two 1950 KMZ J-3's and a 1952 J-3 that have perfect glass because they were unusable. I changed the spacing between the front and rear groups to correct the focal length, they are much better now.

All of the 1953~1956 KMZ lenses I've shot with are very good.


PostPosted: Sun Sep 06, 2020 1:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The best which I could ever test was a black late version belonging to a friend ......a lottery.
Many people write that the late are the worse !


PostPosted: Sun Sep 06, 2020 11:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The late Valdai Jupiter-3 lenses are the worst of all of them. I've shot with ten of them now. The best one was improved be replacing the front element with one from an earlier lens.

https://cameraderie.org/threads/valdai-1984-black-jupiter-3-adaptation-and-test.37816/

The workmanship on the Valdai lenses is miserable.

https://cameraderie.org/threads/tales-from-the-greasy-side-miscellaneous-notes-on-the-jupiter-3.39373/#post-268493

If it has mint glass, it's because no one could use it.

I bought several at a good price, only to part them out and use the focus mounts for Sonnar conversions and the front elements for olderJ-3's with scratched glass.

If you get one- be sure to have return privilige.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 07, 2020 12:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The 8M is different to the 8, the M stands for modernised and they recalculated the lens to make it cheaper to manufacture. Whether it's the cost cutting or poorer workmanship and QC, the 8M is in general, inferior.

The reason people say the later ones are worse is because it's true, especially after the mid-60s the quality drops off. Two reasons for that, firstly, the Kremlin dictated that production be increased so corners were cut, QC became less stringent, quantity was favoured over quality. Secondly, the tooling used started to wear out so tolerances got looser.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 07, 2020 5:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
The 8M is different to the 8, the M stands for modernised and they recalculated the lens to make it cheaper to manufacture. Whether it's the cost cutting or poorer workmanship and QC, the 8M is in general, inferior.

The reason people say the later ones are worse is because it's true, especially after the mid-60s the quality drops off. Two reasons for that, firstly, the Kremlin dictated that production be increased so corners were cut, QC became less stringent, quantity was favoured over quality. Secondly, the tooling used started to wear out so tolerances got looser.


The 8M is simply the version constructed by Arsenal for the Kiev. It was called M whatever the year of construction and the focal length ( 50mm or 53mm).
The quality of Jupiters 8 has always been unconsistent whenever they have been produced.
What you write about quality and generations is the common theory on internet.
I have tested J8s from different times from 56 to the end of seventies and I had bad ones from the 50s, 60s and 70s.
And I repeat that the best I ever tested was from the 70s.
My conclusion:
don’t read the stuff on internet and believe your eyes.
J8 quality is a lottery.

PS: I have currently a J8M on my Kiev which I selected from a group using an A7 and it is a good sample.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 07, 2020 6:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Here's a little tip for you: Don't confuse your own opinion with fact. Another tip: Don't think you know everything about a lens produced in the hundreds of thousands based on a small sample.

The 8M not only has a different barrel design and a different aperture - the shape is a more jagged one, less round than the 8, the optical design is different too.

The 8 is simply the 6e/4g Sonnar design recalculated to use Russian glass and coatings:



The 8M has been simplified for cheaper, easier mass production and only has 5 elements:



This is why I say the 8M is generally inferior and it is - a good copy of the J8 is optically better than a good copy of the 8M, the rounded aperture of the 8 is another reason to prefer it to the 8M.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 07, 2020 6:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Here's a little tip for you: Don't confuse your own opinion with fact. Another tip: Don't think you know everything about a lens produced in the hundreds of thousands based on a small sample.

The 8M not only has a different barrel design and a different aperture - the shape is a more jagged one, less round than the 8, the optical design is different too.

The 8 is simply the 6e/4g Sonnar design recalculated to use Russian glass and coatings:



The 8M has been simplified for cheaper, easier mass production and only has 5 elements:



This is why I say the 8M is generally inferior and it is - a good copy of the J8 is optically better than a good copy of the 8M, the rounded aperture of the 8 is another reason to prefer it to the 8M.

Have you dismantled J8Ms. ?
Some have 5cm , 50mm and 53mm engraved.
What is your source of information.?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3