85mm Zeiss Triotar vs. Jupiter 9

[naren]

Well, I know I may have raised some eyebrows in the Zeiss forum comparing the legendary lens maker to Juptiter 9 (Ukranian lens?) I am on a limited budget and I've found 2 possibilities for an 85mm for my Kiev 4A. One is an "ugly" grade Zeiss 8.5cm f/4 Triotar for $110, the other is "bargain" grade Jupiter9 8.5cm f/2. I would be leaning toward the Zeiss simply for its reputation (though I am curious about the reputation of this specific lens amongst the Zeiss users here) and it's the price and lesser risk of having to send the lens back that makes the Jupiter 9 more appealing. One more point for the Zeiss is that it takes 40.5mm filters, etc. and I already have a vented lens hood that would fit it. Not sure what I would do for a hood on the Jupiter 9. Any advice is appreciated... thanks.

 

[varjag]

Condition, condition.

Assuming both are in optically pristine condition and in adjustment, J9 would be a better lens. Zeiss were good at lens manufacturing but they're no magicians, you can do only so much with a triplet design.

 

[dexdog]

Well, I know I may have raised some eyebrows in the Zeiss forum comparing the legendary lens maker to Juptiter 9 (Ukranian lens?) I am on a limited budget and I've found 2 possibilities for an 85mm for my Kiev 4A. One is an "ugly" grade Zeiss 8.5cm f/4 Triotar for $110, the other is "bargain" grade Jupiter9 8.5cm f/2. I would be leaning toward the Zeiss simply for its reputation (though I am curious about the reputation of this specific lens amongst the Zeiss users here) and it's the price and lesser risk of having to send the lens back that makes the Jupiter 9 more appealing. One more point for the Zeiss is that it takes 40.5mm filters, etc. and I already have a vented lens hood that would fit it. Not sure what I would do for a hood on the Jupiter 9. Any advice is appreciated... thanks.

If I had to make the choice, I would opt for the J-9. The triotar is a decent lens, but the J-9 outperforms it in most respects (I own a couple of Triotars, one pre-war and one post-war, and rarely use them). The size and weight are considerations, of course- if you don't want to haul around a heavy lens, get the triotar. OTOH, you can't shoot portraits at f2 with a triotar.

I used to own a 1951 vintage J-9 that I used on my Contax cameras. I later acquired a Zeiss 85/2 sonnar, and in a head to head comparison of the two lenses, I couldn't discern any differences in images produced. A well-constructed J-9 is a great lens. I ended up selling the J-9 because the focus and aperture on the Zeiss worked a lot smoother. No complaints about the images, though

As an aside, a lot of people are of the opinion that the lenses made for the Kiev are of better quality, and typically exhibit fewer problems than similar lenses made in LTM.

Maybe some Kiev users will chime in on the question

 

[micromontenegro]

If the J9 is in good working order, I'd prefer it over the Triotar in a heartbeat. After all, the J9 is a made-in-Ukranie Sonnar.

That said, the Triotar is a VERY good lens, light, small, and amazingly sharp, and can be had for a song (probably less than you quoted, shopping patiently). It just won't let you play with bokeh the way a Sonnar will.

 

[Spyderman]

I'd choose the Jupiter anytime. Coated + f2 + sonnar. Focus down to 1,15m (compared to the original Zeiss Sonnar about 1,8 ?)

 

[wlewisiii]

Jupiter 9 all the way.

Don't even think of using the Triotar for a shot like this - http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=5768

William

 

[Spider67]

I have a J 9 for Kiev in silver and it's great. The black one in the same mount is so so

 

[naren]

Thanks for the info guys... here's a few more details. Apart from price, I would lean towards the triotar if the pictures are as sharp or close (well really I'm not sure I'd say close is good enough). I'm printing between 8x12 and 11x14. Sharpness is of great importance since I want to exhibit in high end galleries and I'm not doing the supersize thing. The lightweight of the triotar would be helpful, and if I have to buy a hood for the J9 I'm not sure I'll save any money... I'm shooting documentary style b&w with this lens, mainly indoors with manual flash. So, although I like to control OOF areas effectively I'll be mainly going by the f/stop my flash says to use... which will usually be between 5.6 and f/11 based on shooting distance and whether or not I want to stick a 3-stop gel over the flash. So for this purchase sharpness is much more important than versatility. Would anyone else with first hand experience say that the triotar is an "amazingly sharp" lens? Thanks again.

 

[wlewisiii]

For those needs, you want the Sonnar not a triplet. The Triotar is one of the best triplets ever made, but it still will never be as critically sharp as a Sonnar design. The Jupiter 9 will blow it out of the water at any size larger than 4x6. OOF areas will be much nicer on the Jupiter as well.

William

 

[furcafe]

My experience w/the post-WWII, "West" German, 85/4 Triotar is different from micromontenegro's. IMHO, the Triotar isn't bad, but I can't say that it's "amazingly sharp," particularly @ f/4. I believe Zeiss made it as a low-cost, lightweight, alternative to the 85/2 Sonnar, kind of like Leitz's "Mountain Elmar." However, w/vintage lenses there's always the issue of sample variation & the possibility that my example is a dog.

I don't recall either the pre-WWII or post-WWII versions as having a great optical reputation, though the post-WWII is generally regarded as better.

 

[Highway 61]

About the Triotar, there is a good page here :

http://elekm.net/zeiss-ikon/triotarfeb2006/

I used to have a postwar Zeiss Opton Triotar 85/4. The photos weren't sharp in a way that made me think that it had a lens centering issue. Sent it back to seller.

Obviously, Mike Elek's one is truly excellent.

 

[naren]

well that looks damn sharp. I'm not even seeing a difference from center to edge on the brick shots. I wonder if that hosting program is actually sharpening when you zoom in even though he says the images are unsharpened. they just don't look like unsharpened scans to me.

The thing I really need to do first is figure out what kind of hood I will have to get for the J9. Can someone tell me what diameter filters it takes? At 85mm I suppose I can get some generic hood. Thanks.

 

[Spyderman]

J-9 uses 49mm filters and hoods.

 

[ZeissFan]

well that looks damn sharp. I'm not even seeing a difference from center to edge on the brick shots. I wonder if that hosting program is actually sharpening when you zoom in even though he says the images are unsharpened. they just don't look like unsharpened scans to me.

The thing I really need to do first is figure out what kind of hood I will have to get for the J9. Can someone tell me what diameter filters it takes? At 85mm I suppose I can get some generic hood. Thanks.

Regarding the Zoomify image. How the program works is that it takes the large version, in this case a 2400 dpi scan, and it subdivides it into a number of smaller pieces.

Even if it sharpens the individual pieces, it still wouldn't be able to create sharpness when it doesn't exist in the original. Soft corners in a photo can be easily seen, and no amount of sharpening can change that.

For example, if the photo were unsharp in the corners, you would be able to see this and sharpening the image would simply give you more pronounced grain in what would still be an unsharp image. You would be able to notice a smearing of the image in the corners.

When I originally bought this lens, I used it side by side with a postwar 85/2 Sonnar, and I fully expected the Sonnar to visibly outperform the Triotar. Imagine my surprise when the Triotar held its own against the Sonnar.

I since have bought a prewar Triotar but haven't yet shot with it. (I'm currently in the midst of a fascination with Agfas -- mostly the simple Karat models.)

If it comes down to price, the postwar Triotar is a good lens. Keep in mind that it probably will need to be serviced. Another alternative is the postwar 135mm Sonnar. This is one of the sharpest lenses that you'll encounter.

I hope this helps you, and I hope that I haven't blathered on for too long.