OK, this is totally not fair

Also I think dexdog when he says this is a bit unfair (besides the low resolution) is that the order of lenses does a switcheroo.

My bet is:
1st set: Top one is J3+, Bottom Sonnar Krasnogorsk
2st set: Top Sonnar Krasnogorsk, Bottom J3+
3rd set: Top is J3+, Bottom SK
4th and final set: Top is J3+ again, Bottom SK

My approach was going, by the lens color temperature alone. The Jupiter3+ in my experience has a cooler color temperature than the Jena lenses which tend to render a bit warmer. I assume (hope) that white-balance was set to something fixed instead of just AWB because otherwise my argument is completely naught.

You can see the same thing in Brian's pictures by the way. Except of course the Nikkor comparison which is trickier because Nikkors also render quite cooly.
 
The first pic in all sets is the J3+. White balance was set to daylight, so did not change throughout the time I took the pictures.I think that Brian and TenEleven did very well given the low-res pics. I did not set my smugmug account to allow access to the hi-res pics, process related. In order to ensure I did not mix photos, I would upload a photo, post it here and then delete it from smugmug. Post the next photo, delete it, and so on.
 
Last edited:
Sonnar Brian said:
My Turn.

One is a Jupiter-3+, wide-open.
And the other is a 1943 LTM 5cm F1.5 Sonnar that I completely disassembled, repaired, cleaned, lubed, and adjusted on my Kitchen Table...





Click for full resolution, which also gives away the answer...
Click to expand...
I think that the first one is the J3+
 
Sonnar Brian said:
Another pair, both at F1.5. On the M9, tripod mounted. I bought a Nikkor-SC 5cm F1.5 and the ZK Sonnar 5cm F1.5, original LTM out the same day.





The 1943 Sonnar- the middle triplet was not properly seated when I received it. That took me a while to figure out- I would shim it, test it, then it would lose focus. Maybe why the optics were so clean. It's a 272xxxx series. In my opinion, some of the best ever made.
Click to expand...
I have no idea, but would guess sonnar first, nikkor second, mostly based off the rendering of the backgrounds
 
Last edited:
It's a lens reveal party...

On mine: Jupiter-3+ on top, the 1943 LTM Sonnar on the bottom.
This particular Sonnar is the sharpest of the vintage Sonnars I own. Sharp, less focus shift, and flatness of field - all improved.
 
Sonnar Brian said:
It's a lens reveal party...

On mine: Jupiter-3+ on top, the 1943 LTM Sonnar on the bottom.
This particular Sonnar is the sharpest of the vintage Sonnars I own. Sharp, less focus shift, and flatness of field - all improved.
Click to expand...
Playing around with lenses yesterday, I was surprised that my 1950 J3 with CZJ 272 series Sonnar optics out-performed the J3+ wide open. I thought it was a fluke so I took 5 pairs of pics to confirm. I think that I found the better flatness of field the most distinguishing characteristic of the Sonnar optics
 
Sonnar Brian said:
As Chris at Skyllaney wrote to me once, Schott must have sprinkled magic fairy dust into the glass during the War.
Click to expand...

The CZJ 1.5 272 that I have is remarkable in accuracy and color. It is closest to the SBS and that is saying something. They are both wonderful lenses. Sonnars are great lenses. Oh, I guess you knew that. ;o)
 
While you guys did your quiz I did a boring sharpness test with a bunch of my Sonnar 5cm 1,5 yesterday. 1 Canon, 1 Jupiter-3, 3 Nickel, 3 Chrome, 2 wartime, 2 post-war Jena, 2 post-war Opton lenses. Just a boring f1,5, f2, f2,8 shot of my bookshelf. So nothing to show here. I might have to redo it anyway because of missed focus on some. The results were interesting. Some of the lenses I recalled as sharp did not perform as I would have expected and some are way better than expected.

Only looking at the central sharpness I would ask the question was Bertele's 3rd design the best of the 5 Sonnar 1,5 designs? I have this one uncoated 1.661.030 (v3) that outperforms most of the competition. This lens from 1935 plays in a similar league like the v5 Optons from 1951 and later. I have a wartime 2.554.124 (v3 coated 1939) that is just as good. I put one of my best wartime v4 LTM lenses in the competition and it was not part of the top group. The 1963 Jupiter belongs in the top group and competes with the Optons. I suspected the Canon would compete with the Optons about the top place but was a bit of a mixed bag. Started strong on 1,5 and ended up in the middle.

In the end the differences were not as huge as one would expect. When I look at sample variation, age and condition of those lenses it is no scientific result. But I was surprised how close the v3 performed to the v5. The v4 was a little bit of a let down. Not bad but I expected an improvement over the v3 samples but there was no sharpness benefit in the center. The v2 was not as sharp as the v3 examples not bad either. I expected a clear v2 < v3 < v4 < v5 result but when it comes to sharpness (center) it is more a ( v2 = v4 ) < ( v3 = v5 ) result. I repeat the difference is not that huge (comparing at zoom 300%).

(I wish I had a v1 for testing too)
 
Räuber said:
While you guys did your quiz I did a boring sharpness test with a bunch of my Sonnar 5cm 1,5 yesterday. 1 Canon, 1 Jupiter-3, 3 Nickel, 3 Chrome, 2 wartime, 2 post-war Jena, 2 post-war Opton lenses. Just a boring f1,5, f2, f2,8 shot of my bookshelf. So nothing to show here. I might have to redo it anyway because of missed focus on some. The results were interesting. Some of the lenses I recalled as sharp did not perform as I would have expected and some are way better than expected.

Only looking at the central sharpness I would ask the question was Bertele's 3rd design the best of the 5 Sonnar 1,5 designs? I have this one uncoated 1.661.030 (v3) that outperforms most of the competition. This lens from 1935 plays in a similar league like the v5 Optons from 1951 and later. I have a wartime 2.554.124 (v3 coated 1939) that is just as good. I put one of my best wartime v4 LTM lenses in the competition and it was not part of the top group. The 1963 Jupiter belongs in the top group and competes with the Optons. I suspected the Canon would compete with the Optons about the top place but was a bit of a mixed bag. Started strong on 1,5 and ended up in the middle.

In the end the differences were not as huge as one would expect. When I look at sample variation, age and condition of those lenses it is no scientific result. But I was surprised how close the v3 performed to the v5. The v4 was a little bit of a let down. Not bad but I expected an improvement over the v3 samples but there was no sharpness benefit in the center. The v2 was not as sharp as the v3 examples not bad either. I expected a clear v2 < v3 < v4 < v5 result but when it comes to sharpness (center) it is more a ( v2 = v4 ) < ( v3 = v5 ) result. I repeat the difference is not that huge (comparing at zoom 300%).

(I wish I had a v1 for testing too)
Click to expand...
Interesting results, especially the v3 besting the v4
 
I believe the v4 Wartime Sonnars have a lot of sample-to-sample variation, due to the conditions at the time. My best Sonnar v4 needed the middle triplet properly seated. No idea how long it was out of place.

I need to do a large sample test for the Sonnars- V1 through C-Sonnar.
 
KoNickon said:
Dumb question here -- what is a J-3 "+"? Thanks.
Click to expand...
The J3+ is a Jupiter 3 produced in 2016 by Lomography x Zenit in Russia. It is a replica of the original Jupiter 3 produced by KMZ and other Soviet factories from the 1950-1980s. I think that the + refers to modern multi-coating on the lens elements and upgraded chromed brass fixtures and barrels
 
A 272 series v4 Sonnar in original LTM against a 218 series v3 Sonnar in Contax mount. Both are pretty good lenses I think, in clean condition. Subject is my bookcase because the breeze outside is shaking stuff around too much. One meter, ISO 200, white balance at daylight, no color boosting, straight outta camera jpeg. The rifle rounds are there as a form of dark humor given the number of books describing turbulent periods of history. High resolution is available by clicking the pic and typing in RFF as the password. Point of focus is lower edge of the Bloodlands book centering on the words Hitler and Stalin.
272 series at f1.5


218 series at f1.5


The lower left corner of each frame is a pack of playing cards I bought in Egypt. The 272 series wins corner sharpness easily
 
Last edited:
Not much difference at f4, don't think I could tell them apart. Maybe it is sample variation again, but there again I am pretty sure that all 8 of my 272 CZJ sonnars are good ones (three original LTM, four 1950 or 1951 J-3s and one ZK from 1949). Sonnar B has cleaned at least 5 of these over the years
 
Sonnar Brian said:
Another pair, both at F1.5. On the M9, tripod mounted. I bought a Nikkor-SC 5cm F1.5 and the ZK Sonnar 5cm F1.5, original LTM out the same day.





The 1943 Sonnar- the middle triplet was not properly seated when I received it. That took me a while to figure out- I would shim it, test it, then it would lose focus. Maybe why the optics were so clean. It's a 272xxxx series. In my opinion, some of the best ever made.
Click to expand...
So, which is which? I am still guessing the upper one is the Sonnar
 
dexdog said:
So, which is which? I am still guessing the upper one is the Sonnar
Click to expand...
The Bottom one is the Sonnar.
Clock on the images, brings you to the IMGBB site. Click full-resolution.
The imgbb site tells you which album the images are in.

The Sonnar has better edge-to-edge sharpness. Also note the "halo" around the edge of the gravestones in the J-3+ and out-of-focus highlights. Less spherical aberration with the Sonnar.
 
Sonnar Brian said:
The Bottom one is the Sonnar.
Clock on the images, brings you to the IMGBB site. Click full-resolution.
The imgbb site tells you which album the images are in.

The Sonnar has better edge-to-edge sharpness. Also note the "halo" around the edge of the gravestones in the J-3+ and out-of-focus highlights. Less spherical aberration with the Sonnar.
Click to expand...
I misread your description. I thought that you were pairing off the Sonnar vs the Nikkor 1.5!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom