135mm sonnar vs jupiter

nikarlo

nikarlo

Member
Local time
2:37 PM
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
42
I would buy a 135mm lens for my kiev4. But I'm not be able to choose between zeiss sonnar (about 60-90$) and Jupiter 11 (about 20-40$). The price isn't a problem. I would have the quality and the best coating. Quality at the best price!
Someone want help me?
Thanking in advance, Carlo.
Sorry for my bad english!!
 
Weren't pre-war Sonnars uncoated?

For this price though I'd definitely shell out for the original Sonnar.
 
I only own the Jupiter-11, and mine is the coated version also. :) It too is an exceptionally nice lens. Helpful aren't I? :D

 
nikarlo said:
I would buy a 135mm lens for my kiev4. But I'm not be able to choose between zeiss sonnar (about 60-90$) and Jupiter 11 (about 20-40$). The price isn't a problem. I would have the quality and the best coating. Quality at the best price!
Someone want help me?
Thanking in advance, Carlo.
Sorry for my bad english!!
Click to expand...

Ok, I had both and had to get rid of the jupiter. Both lenses were very sharp but the paint inside the jupiter wasn't very effective and resulted in a wonderful warm gold lens flare, ideal for photographing distant bread but little else. A pity because it was well built, focussed smoothly and was reassuringly solid.

The zeiss is stiff, clunky to focus and has poor to non-existant coating on the front element (I've never been too bothered about front element coatings anyway) and doesn't mate properly with the camera but still produces beautiful images; here's one using the zeiss:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=12082&cat=500&page=1

I too have noticed that zeiss 135mm lenses go for a song on ebay. Perhaps I was unlucky with my jupiter but the zeiss really works well. I'd go for the zeiss.
 
I have the Jupiter which is an excellent lens. I also have a pre-war uncoated Sonnar that has a bent aperture leaf which results in a minimum of only about f:5. Other than that, it's a nice lens that has that so very Zeiss look to it.

William
 
I would also put my chips on the Zeiss than the Jupiter; not that the Jupiter is a slouch, but the QC is kind of a misnomer when it comes to many Kiev lenses. My twopence.
 
Duncan Ross said:
The zeiss doesn't mate properly with the camera
Click to expand...
Why it doesn't mate properly with the camera?
For the internal painting on the jupiter lens isn't a problem. I'll paint it flat black!
Regards and "ciao",
Carlo.
 
nikarlo said:
Why it doesn't mate properly with the camera?
For the internal painting on the jupiter lens isn't a problem. I'll paint it flat black!
Regards and "ciao",
Carlo.
Click to expand...


It keeps on turning past the 'click' and so has a habit of rotating as you focus. Takes lovely pictures though!
 
I had both.

I kept the Jupiter, as my Zeiss was pretty rough. I've a Jupiter from Oleg, with the nickle plating still on it, it's a very handsome lens that smoothly focuses and takes nice pictures. If you get a good one from a reliable FSU-type repair person, I have a feeling that the J is better than the uncoated Z. At least, that's how my pictures turned out.
 
Sounds like you may be leaning toward the J-11. There are several for sale on eBay at the moment, most sellers don't supply the serial nr. I've linked to one of the more promising looking ones below, from alex-photo who is a pretty reputable seller. I and others here have bought from him and have been happy. The serial nr. on the lens he's offering is 6105xxx, very close to mine which is 6106xxx (lens is made in 1961). I've attached a pic from mine that was taken very nearly wide open close to f4 across a rather large room. It is a crop and shows something of the resolution. Sorry about the noisy scan - I never mastered the scanning of HP5+, I like Neopan 400 a lot better. ;)

JUPITER-11 Russian Lens for Leica Zorki FED

 
I have the 39mmthread Jupiter 11 and a Canon 135 f3.5 (the black one) the Jupiter knocks the socks off the Canon, its sharper and more resistant to flare, I would think that in Kiev/Contax mount the J11 would be better than an uncoated Zeiss. The Zeiss might also be one of the ones made at Jena post war which I believe were mechanically inferior.hence its cheapness.
 
What are difference between prewar and postwar sonnar? I saw a postwar sonnar 135 coated "t". Isn't it a good lens, better than prewar?
Regards, Carlo.
 
Trouble is that Contax mount lenses were made in both east and west Germany, optically not much to choose between them, but mechanically some of the East German lenses were more like their Russian cousins in finish.
 
135 sonnar bought

135 sonnar bought

Yesterday I've bought a postwar 135 sonnar for 79€ including s&h. Than I'll buy a J-11 bargain, so I will compare them.
Thank you!
Carlo.
 
nikarlo said:
Yesterday I've bought a postwar 135 sonnar for 79€ including s&h. Than I'll buy a J-11 bargain, so I will compare them.
Thank you!
Carlo.
Click to expand...
Looking forward to the results of that! :)

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom