Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 50mm f2 vs Jupiter 8

[wolan]

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

[Oldhand]

[Alex TG]

[sergtum]

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

[iangreenhalgh1]

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.

[fiftyonepointsix]

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"

[wolan]

[wolan]

[calvin83]

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.

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

[iangreenhalgh1]

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.

[visualopsins]

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?

[iangreenhalgh1]

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.

[fiftyonepointsix]

[fiftyonepointsix]

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.

[calvin83]

[calvin83]

I consider all these are Sonnar 50/1.5, based on the design of pre-war CZJ Sonnar 50/1.5.

[memetph]

[memetph]

[fiftyonepointsix]

[memetph]

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 !

[fiftyonepointsix]

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.

[iangreenhalgh1]

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.

[memetph]

[iangreenhalgh1]

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.

[memetph]