1950 Jupiter 12 Zeiss optics?

analoged

analoged

Well-known
Local time
3:49 AM
Joined
Jul 11, 2010
Messages
547
I have a nice example of this lens and comparing coatings with a 1956 Jupiter 8 and my Zeiss Sonnar, this lens appears to have Zeiss optics. There are no numbers on the rear optical block. Please have a look at the pics compared to the Sonnar.


IMG_1734 by theAnalogue, on Flickr

IMG_1736 by theAnalogue, on Flickr

Definitely more purple than blue!
 
The whole issue about Zeiss optics in early Soviet clones is something of a red herring (pardon the pun). There are Zeiss style assembly numbers on some early optical blocks but nobody knows - if indeed that indicates Zeiss factory origin - whether that indicates a German mount and glass or just the mount. The Soviets stripped the Zeiss factory and took lenses and parts in varies stages of manufacture and assembly so it is assumed that some German glass was incorporated into Soviet lenses buy most of such claims are pure seller's hype. Coating color is not definitive proof of the origin of the optics.
 
If it does not have Zeiss s/n (neatly engraved, not scratched), there is no reason to believe it is Zeiss glass.

I have a 1950 J3 with such numbers, they are from a batch produced in 1945 without mount.
 
And a pic comparing coatings to a 1956 Jupiter 8. My 12 coating look just like the Sonnar compared to the Jupiter 8. Also it has some nice little "Zeiss" bubbles. No Seller claimed this lens to have Zeiss glass, this has been my thought since I purchased it.


IMG_1738 by theAnalogue, on Flickr
 
I'm curious as to a) why you think that the coating colour is especially relevant and b) do you think there's some superiority to Zeiss parts? For a) I doubt very much if there's a direct connection and for b) it's dubious at best. By the way, many lenses have bubbles in the glass, they are not "Zeiss" bubbles. Instructions for FSU lenses include the comments that bubbles are common and not a defect.
 
a) Zeiss coatings and early FSU coatings look externally the same (I do not know if they are). Later FSU coatings, as early as mid fifties, can be very different with a purple/magenta color, but it depends on the manufacturer.
 
Hi,

I wonder if I dare point out that when the Zeiss stuff was transferred to the USSR it may not have had exactly the same number of each component of each lens?

Secondly, I suspect that a lot were made up when they could out of individual Zeiss parts and then enough were saved to do the necessary technical drawings (assuming not all survived) and as samples for when production started. So you'd get USSR made parts moving on to the production line beside various ex-Zeiss stuff. And neither rhyme nor reason to it, just practicality.

BTW, I do like it when a USSR vs Zeiss thread doesn't contain attacks on the USSR for getting compensation for the destruction of their optical works. Are people beginning to accept that it was legit and not looting?

Regards, David

PS Said it before but might as well repeat it, years ago Malcolm Taylor checked the output from both factories (USSR and German) and said that there was no difference optically and that he wasn't surprised. I expect QC may have dropped of from time to time but the quality of the owners' care has a lot to do with what's about these days. Almost all of it being second-hand.

PPS And coating were being changed at a fast rate as people began to understand them and had time for research.
 
David Hughes said:
BTW, I do like it when a USSR vs Zeiss thread doesn't contain attacks on the USSR for getting compensation for the destruction of their optical works. Are people beginning to accept that it was legit and not looting?
Click to expand...

Well, legit vs looting is almost a philosophical debate, but the SMAD first stripped all the ICA factory, it got lost/damaged/looted on the way, so they contractually asked Zeiss Jena to make 3 contax production lines, one being left to the Germans and two shipped and deployed in Kiev. All three did go into USSR, with some technical personnel, the Germans at Jena being left in the dust (I read all this in Kuc's book, if I'm not mistaken). So, in my book, this is "legit looting" :p.

It also explains why early Kiev products are as good (or as bad) as original Contax products, with perhaps the exception of early pre-1950 prototypes, (you cannot easily compare a pre serie with a standard product). The Kiev is just a Contax adapted for production in the USSR, not a copy.
 
S.H. said:
Well, legit vs looting is almost a philosophical debate, but the SMAD first stripped all the ICA factory, it got lost/damaged/looted on the way, so they contractually asked Zeiss Jena to make 3 contax production lines, one being left to the Germans and two shipped and deployed in Kiev. All three did go into USSR, with some technical personnel, the Germans at Jena being left in the dust (I read all this in Kuc's book, if I'm not mistaken). So, in my book, this is "legit looting" :p.

It also explains why early Kiev products are as good (or as bad) as original Contax products, with perhaps the exception of early pre-1950 prototypes, (you cannot easily compare a pre serie with a standard product). The Kiev is just a Contax adapted for production in the USSR, not a copy.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, well, in my little world it's legit to demand compensation when an entire optical works and nearby cities, x million citizens etc are destroyed. Looting doesn't really come into it does it?

FDR and Churchill agreed it at the Yalta Conference didn't they?

Regards, David
 
Your Ju 12 was specifically made for the Zorki and will also work with the early FED's, but please note that Zeiss did not make cameras that did look nor work like Zorki's and FED's, they only made the contax rangefinder. So if there would be zeiss glass used in the very early days by the Sovjets, then it is probably only found in lenses that would fit the contax / kiev.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom