Jupiter 6-2 M42 (black) / Carl Zeiss Jena 200mm 2.8 M42

[steph_erick]

Hello.

I want to know between these two lens, which will be the best in optical quality.

I can have the Jupiter for 175€ and the zeiss for 200€.
Wath do you think of this price ?

Or if I owe more to turn to the new Zeiss 135mm 1.8 for Sony mount.

Thank you for your help and excuse my English.

[Orio]

Choose the CZJ 200, it's better.
The J6 looks and feel very cool but image wise it does not perform as good as the CZJ 200, mainly because of the weaker coating.

[Pancolart]

I don't agree with Orio here. If you are a strong man choose Jupiter, especially if the unit is black. I own 2 samples of each lens, all my samples are as new so i think i can get representative results. I found Jupiter slightly sharper wide open. Jupiter is built like tank whereas Sonnars are prone to aperture jamming not only due to grease but also due to light mechanics and Auto possibility. Jupiter is pure preset - aperture setting is force analog connected so it is nearly "impossible" to defect. The MC recipe must be near identical by outer look and results comparison.

[estudleon]

I will not used neither lenses specifically. But almost all the CZJ that I had, found out problems with the aperture mechanism. Only with two old zebras CZJ (sonnar 3,5 and flektogon 4/20) I had no problems.

The plastic parts in the mechanism don't resist long wear. The blades rub over that parts and scrape the plastic. Result? The scraped plastic restrains the blades, which turns to mechanism erratic. Sometimes close and open very well, sometimes no.

Rino.

[rbelyell]

i like the color and sharpness of the jupiter; but it is HUGE!!!!

also, i got my copy, a very nice one, a few months ago for less than $100usd--i think it was actually about $65usd; so while its a good lens i think your copy is way overpriced. check ebay and be a little patient and i think you will get it for less than 1/2.

[Orio]

My personal experience with both the J6-1 and J6-2 is that they give a very low contrast compared to CZJ 180 and 200. The J6-2 (black) performance can be bettered with a hood, whereas the J6-1 with it's all-silver surface produces internal reflections that weaken the contrast no matter what shooting condition.
None of the J6 (black or silver) appear to have multicoating, just like the Helios-40 black and silver.
The MC coating of the Jena lenses, albeit not as perfect as the Oberkochen lenses, is still vastly superior in performance compared to the single coating of soviet lenses.
Amongst the soviet teles, only the recent batches of Jupiter-9 and Tair-11A seem to have multicoating.
I concede that mechanically-wise the recent Jena lenses (those with multicoating) are prone to failure in the aperture mechanism, whereas most (but not all) of soviet lenses are built more sturdily. However, when aperture failure happens naturally (i.e. not due to shock), it can be repaired by any decent lens technician even without spare parts. On the contrary, nobody can improve the weak coating on the large front glasses of soviet tele lenses. A weakness that gets worse with size (meaning that it's worse in the J-6s than it is in the Helios-40s).
Optically speaking, the J-6 is a copy the 2.8/180 Sonnar and the performance is comparable to the single coated (zebra or previous) CZJ 180s. The Sonnar 200 is a later design, always multicoated, derived from the 180 but -reportedly- improved. My copy of the CZJ 200 was slightly sharper than the CZJ 180 multicoated, however such small differences are most likely due to copy variations than to a difference of performance in the designs.

[Pancolart]

Does these unmanipulated photos counts as proof of MC (being nearly the same purple tone as on Sonnar):

[estudleon]

It reminds me the coated of the chrome jupiter-9. Is it MC? It might be not.

Rino.

[Orio]

[hinnerker]

[Pancolart]

But come-on Henry you cannot encourage butchery. The lens was made only in small quantities .

[Pancolart]

I have two samples from each lens. I will post some comparison info.

First let me just say Jupiter has more aperture blades forming bokeh resembling circle which i prefer over Sonnar. Second it's mechanics is by far superior and nearly indestructible. Now let's equalize sides with third. Sonnar is lighter. It matters since the weight of Jupiter really gets troublesome after holding it for more then half hour (concerts usually last longer). And fourth: Sonnar gets more out of the foggy and rainy weather conditions. Tested and confirmed with all 4 lenses.

If i was ask which lens to be used for a project i would hesitate in decision. If i was ask which lens to buy i'd choose Jupiter for sure.
Here not exactly test shots but... All wide-open.

CZJ Sonnar 2.8/200mm


Jupiter-6-2 2.8/180mm


Jupiter-6-2 2.8/180mm


CZJ Sonnar 2.8/200mm

[aoleg]

[dude163]

Where are you guys finding these jupiter 6s for under 200 euros, Icant get any luck on ebay at all!

they look really cool, and the 200/2.8 CZJ is a nice looking item too,


Pancolar: those shots are awesome , I need to find a place in Canada that I can get some of those lenses too!

[Pancolart]

[no-X]

I'd expect less CA and better sharpness for the Jupiter and better contrast and lower weight for the Sonnar.

[Anu]

[Anu]

[Pancolart]

[Anu]

[dude163]

Hahahah

this is funny, I did a search on the Jupiter 6 and I found a thread that I had already posted in myself!

irony!

[Chris_T]