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

Jupiter 6-2 M42 (black) / Carl Zeiss Jena 200mm 2.8 M42
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 11:57 am    Post subject: Jupiter 6-2 M42 (black) / Carl Zeiss Jena 200mm 2.8 M42 Reply with quote
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.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 12:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 12:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 2:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Does these unmanipulated photos counts as proof of MC (being nearly the same purple tone as on Sonnar):






PostPosted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 3:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It reminds me the coated of the chrome jupiter-9. Is it MC? It might be not.

Rino.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 4:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
estudleon wrote:
It reminds me the coated of the chrome jupiter-9. Is it MC? It might be not.

Rino.


Difficult to say when you don't have the lens in your hands and you can not rotate it to look from different light angles. My copy of the black J6-2 was surely NOT multicoated. Of course I can not exclude that other copies of the J6-2 were multicoated. Colour, however, is not a sure indicator of multicoating. The Helios-40-2 has a different coating colour than the silver Helios-40, and yet, it is not multicoated either (I handled three copies of it, still own two, and they are all not multicoated).

Another thing to keep into consideration: the number of the coated elements.
Some lenses that are reported as multicoated, only have the external elements with such protection. This is easier to tell: lenses that have all elements multicoated, look somehow "denser" when seen through, than lenses that have multicoating only on external elements.
Of course, when you don't have coating on the internal elements, the internal reflections can bounce more freely, and this weakens the lens performance.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 6:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
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.


+1

Coating is one thing.. i did have 5 copys of the Sonnar 180 (Olympia, Zebra, MC) and 2 copys of the 2.8/200. Only one copy of the J6-2... me, i would prefer the 2.8/200. Especially the last copy i did own, mint condition was so great, that i was thinking about selling my Leica 2.8/180mm II for that. But the heavyweight of the 2.8/200mm was the reason to keep my Elmarit.

Right, the aperture is a little Problem, because the mechanical realisation was not as good as expected. But on the other hand, especially the 2.8/200mm is a very good lens for servicing this by yourself. After 2 weeks of intensive use.. the aperture stucks.. but why, the lens was mint and no Oil on the blades..

The solution was to unscrew one little lock-screw on the front part of the tubus, so the complete Front element lenses can removed by unscrewing this. Now you are on the blade mechanic.

And this was the problem..





After pressing down the moving ring with the cut for the aperture moving pin, the whole mechanic works perfect.. that was all. The little plastic pin did hide hisself under the moving ring instead of moving in the cut-leading..

So the mechanical problem is easy to solve and no reason not to buy this lens, if all other components are in good condition.

I would buy the 2.8/200mm again and again.

Cheers
Henry


PostPosted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 11:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
But come-on Henry you cannot encourage butchery. The lens was made only in small quantities Smile .


PostPosted: Wed Sep 15, 2010 1:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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


PostPosted: Wed Sep 15, 2010 6:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
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.


I have both J6-2 and MC CZJ Sonnar 180/2.8. Both used with correctly sized (this is important) hoods. I don't see a huge difference in contrast or flare, even when shot against the light. Sure, the hoods help, and yes, the MC Sonnar has somewhat higher contrast, but the difference is not that big. Sharpness is exactly the same on my two samples, while bokeh is different due to differently shaped diaphragm (6 rounded blades with the Sonnar and many blades forming a ninja-star pattern in Jupiter-6).

If you shoot without a hood, the Jupiter will flare and exhibit low contrast.

Orio wrote:
None of the J6 (black or silver) appear to have multicoating, just like the Helios-40 black and silver.


That's right. J6-2 has the same coatings as Helios-40-2 (orange). They are rather good and quite hard (not easy to scratch while cleaning).

Orio wrote:
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.


Agreed. The difference is not that big compared to later single-coated lenses though. Jupiter-6 (silver), Helios-40 (silver), Jupiter-37 (non-MC) have old coatings that aren't as effective or robust as newer ones used in Jupiter-6-2 or Helios-40-2.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 12:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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!


PostPosted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
aoleg wrote:
That's right. J6-2 has the same coatings as Helios-40-2 (orange).


That just can't be. I have: Jupiter-6-2 serial: 780939 and N004613 both having the same violet coating like on the photos i posted above. You "cannot" get violet reflection out of Helios-40-2. It's yellow/orange.

dude163 wrote:
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!


Thank's dude. Well i wouldn't separate from any of mine for 200 EUR anymore Smile. Poland used to be a cool source few years ago, but now local prospectors don't allow anything to pass near them. When on market second time prices are "corrected".


PostPosted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 11:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'd expect less CA and better sharpness for the Jupiter and better contrast and lower weight for the Sonnar.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 11:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:

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.


Actually 200/2.8 is rather different design from the 180/2.8, and it indeed gives a better image quality than the 180/2.8. Both are very sharp, but the 200 has quite a bit less all kinds of colour aberrations. If the Soviet lens is a copy of the Jena 180, pick the Jena 200.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 11:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Pancolart wrote:
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.


This of course only applies if one stops down.

Quote:

Here not exactly test shots but... All wide-open.


Looking at these shots, it is hard to say much about anything but something about the bokeh. It'd be nice to have much larger and coloured images instead. Anyhow, the bokeh of the German lens is easily better in my opinion, at least when shot wide open, judging from your samples.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 11:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
no-X wrote:
I'd expect less CA and better sharpness for the Jupiter and better contrast and lower weight for the Sonnar.


Anu wrote:
Looking at these shots, it is hard to say much about anything but something about the bokeh. It'd be nice to have much larger and coloured images instead. Anyhow, the bokeh of the German lens is easily better in my opinion, at least when shot wide open, judging from your samples.


Please check:

http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic,p,1068386.html#1068386

I have to give the edge to Sonnar in such murky conditions.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 5:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Pancolart wrote:
no-X wrote:
I'd expect less CA and better sharpness for the Jupiter and better contrast and lower weight for the Sonnar.


Anu wrote:
Looking at these shots, it is hard to say much about anything but something about the bokeh. It'd be nice to have much larger and coloured images instead. Anyhow, the bokeh of the German lens is easily better in my opinion, at least when shot wide open, judging from your samples.


Please check:

http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic,p,1068386.html#1068386

I have to give the edge to Sonnar in such murky conditions.


Nice foggy shots. I very rarely use the CZJ 200 or the CZJ 180 to shoot anything but animals or other close/medium distance subjects.

Anyhow, I do think that the CZJ 200 is a superior lens to the CZJ 180 (and almost certainly it's clones). Both are easily sharp enough for the cameras of tomorrow (and today too Smile ), but when it comes to different aberrations, the newer lens is better. Also contrast is much better due to better coatings as your samples did show well.

Still, I like to shoot with the 180 as well - it has shorter MFD, and it creates different look. But I'll avoid it if the light is harsh and it is liklely I'll be shooting sharp light-dark-edges - the 200 handles them much better.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 3:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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!


PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 12:24 pm    Post subject: Re: Jupiter 6-2 M42 (black) / Carl Zeiss Jena 200mm 2.8 M42 Reply with quote
steph_erick wrote:
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.


I am going to get this len for video shooting

anythings should attent to this lens? thanks
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1