jupiter-3 or zeiss sonnar opton??

[j_h]

i'd like any info about the jupiter-3 1,5/50mm or zeiss sonnar opton

1,5/50mm lens good or bad from anyone with knowledge or preferably

experience with using one,

 

i have a kiev camera and i can buy one of these lenses

[mskovacs]

The postwar 50/1.5 Sonnars are excellent lenses. If you have the money why gamble on Russian gear? The J3 is based on the prewar Sonnar design so it is very capable, its just that they are often not properly assembled. Also, the J3 tends to be on the expensive side for a Russian optic.

 

<p>The postwar Opton Sonnar is much better built. Nice chrome finish rather than aluminum and double 12-blade aperture.

 

<p>My postwar Sonnar will be reassembled shortly after a repair. It was subject of <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00AGdt">THIS POST</a> and if you scroll to the end, you can see some photos that I made with it before the repair. I am simply floored by the photos in produced, even with the separation problem. My Jupiter 8M is nice but the Sonnar is over the top.

[william_barnett_lewis]

Well, I can't speak directly to your question, but since no one else has replied...

 

I have a Kiev 4a that I got with a Jupiter-8m lens. Very nice lens that is well built, sharp and very nice. I also stumbled upon a nice pre-war uncoated collapsible Sonnar 50/2 recently and haven't even mounted my Jupiter since. It's everything the Jupiter was and then some. Being uncoated it is probably :) more susceptable to flare, but in the real world that hasn't been an issue for me. Then again, I am a sucker for Zeiss glass...

 

The other thing to consider is quality control. Zeiss had it; the Soviets tended to not have it. Not always and a good FSU lens is a true joy and a bargan to boot, but often enough to make a person to desire to spend the least amount possible for a given lens unless it is a known quantity. Can you run a test roll through your camera using both lenses?

 

The ideal solution is, of course, to buy both and see which one suits you eyes better. The next best is to buy the Sonnar, I'd have to say and pick up the Jupiter at your leisure.

 

IMHO and all that.

 

William

[mike_elek]

Specifically speaking about the Zeiss-Opton Sonnar: Great lens, excellent construction.

 

Optically, it's also an excellent performer. It's only single coated, so it's not as flare resistant as modern day lenses.

 

I've used prewar and postwar, coated and uncoated Zeiss Sonnars on the Contax and also on my little Tenax II. And they've all produced some really excellent photos.

[j_h]

dear people, many thanks for your response, i believe your experts...........mike i also read your article about the kiev overhaul, i am new with kiev, zeiss and jupiter lenses,

 

i recently purchased a kiev 4-am camera (produced in 1984) and later i heard that all soviet cameras of 40th and 50th years had much better quality because of careful manual assembly and strict quality control,

 

is the 2/50mm sonnar as good as the 1,5/50mm sonnar?? i will choose between these two lenses, and won't spend my money on russian lenses

[mskovacs]

The only reason I personally want a 50/2 Sonnar is to buy one of the collapsible versions. If you had to have one, the 50/1.5 is the one to own. Do get a coated one, whatever your choice. I have a prewar, uncoated 50/1.5 and I enjoy it, but I view it as a specialist lens that I pull out when I'm after the old look.

 

Buy a lens hood for any of these. I have a rectangular Soviet hood but it needs to be repositioned on these rotating lenses and vignettes the viewfinder. Rubber shades are common but all vignette the viewfinder. I bought a Hoya vented hood of metal construction recently and I hope its the final solution.

 

Have you seen Russ Pinchbeck's Kiev Survival site? Don't assume that your Kiev 4AM has a properly shimmed lens mount or accurate rangefinder, defects that will give you a negative opinion of the optics you have or will get in the future. Russ' site can help you check these things and correct them if you're brave enough to try. Also, Henry Scherer makes note of a supposedly common assembly flaw in the Opton Sonnars that will leave one of the triplets rattling in its mount.

[mskovacs]

<a href="http://www3.telus.net/public/kaylalyn/cleaning%20and%20repairs.html">Kiev Survival Site</a> - also come and visit the <a href="http://www.beststuff.com/forum/index.php?f=25">Beststuff Russian Camera Forums</a> if you haven't found it already. Our own Mike Elek also has a Contax II overhaul on his site which is got me started in this madness.

<p>If I recall, you will need to fashion or buy a spanner wrench to get the speed selector dial off the "M" models.

[mike_elek]

In theory, the f/2.0 Sonnar should offer slightly better performance wide open than the f/1.5 Sonnar. In use, results from either are quite satisfying.

[mike_elek]

And much credit should also be given to Rick Oleson his great wealth of knowledge in camera repair, in addition to his drawings that go a long way to simply things.

[peter_4711]

Hello Jelke,

 

the different between Jupiter-3 and Zeiss-Opton Sonnar in 1,5/50mm are not separeted in bed or good lens.

 

The lenses specification formular is the same 7 lenses in 3 groups.

 

The different are:

 

The russian Jupiter-3 for kiev rangefinder are rare.The lens body is made in alumin.

 

 

The Zeiss-Opton Sonnare is made in brass, and have double aperture. A phantastic mechanical condition included.This lens is Made in West-Germany.

 

A Jupiter-3 in good condition is hard to find, most of J-3 front lenses are scratched.The Jupiter-3 lens have one aperture only like the uncoated Carl Zeiss Jena pre-war 1,5 Sonnar.

 

The optical resolution between this lenses are minimal, but the Zeiss-Opton have a better BOKEH. The centric of lenses in alumin body is more difficult like a body of brass.However the Jupiter-3 is a good performer and the Zeiss-Opton have a better mechanical condition and high class chromed.

 

The flare of this lenses is in regular not a problem. the Sonnar Type

included air/glass reflection like the Tessar type. Is a inventing of

Bertele a Zeiss worker in time coating not usual.

 

The problem is a lens shade on 40,5mm screw mount that rotated and

is visible in Viewer.

 

For this problem have Zeiss a 3 parts lens shade for 3,5/2,0, and 1,5/50mm lenses. This lens shade don't rotaded the are fixed on the out bajonett from CONTAX and KIEV too.

 

By the way my best Sonnar/Jupiter lenses is a uncoated and collabsible Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 1:2/5cm.

 

Good luck

peter

[paul t]

Like others here, i have both a late Zeiss Sonnar 50/1.5 (the Carl Zeiss

version, overhauled by Henry Scherer) and several Jupiter 8s. The Sonnar is

fantastic - in particular the colour rendition. The Jupiter 8, however, has given

excellent results in b/w - lovely rendition of out of focus areas, and a beautiful

'vintage' look. I also owned, and have since sold, a Zorki Sonar -= the

predecessor of the J3. But the Opton Sonnars are excellent value compared

to most lenses of similar quality, so have to be the one to go for if you can

afford it. A lot depends on pricing. A $100-150 Sonnar (and I have seen them

go for that occasionally) has to be better value than a $50 Jupiter 3, purely

because it's better built.