Jupiter 9 vs Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 8.5cm ????

[pb908]

did anyone ever compare it ? I have been looking around rff and google, but can't find any comparation.

how good is the real sonnar compare to the copy one ? (or vice versa)

I get a good offers for the zeiss (for contax/kiev) in mint optical condition. SN >3M, so it is post war with T coating. but i don't know if J9 (half cost of the zeiss offering) will do better..
please advice.

thanks a lot !!!

 

[rxmd]

Disclaimer: I haven't been shooting postwar Sonnars. Kiev J9s, however, are usually fine. They're subject to a lot less sample variation than their LTM brethren, and they don't have the focus issues.

I'd doubt if they are actually better than a postwar Zeiss Sonnar, but they're probably pretty close.

 

[sevo]

If you can get a post-war Zeiss for twice the J9 going rate, get it - it would be the better investment. But from a user perspective, the difference is fairly insignificant - by now, the state of the individual copy will almost always have greater impact on the image quality than the minor design and build differences.

 

[dexdog]

I used to have a 1951 vintage J-9 that performed every bit as well as my Zeiss-Opton 85/2 on my Contax cameras. I sold the J-9 because the fit, finish and focusing of the Zeiss lens was a lot nicer.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Depends on the year the J-9 was made. Those made before 1954 most likely have German glass in it. My 1958 and 1959 J-9 are very sharp. My 1975 J-9 is not as sharp as those made in the 1950s. Both J-9's in Contax/Kiev mount required shimming to perform properly on my Contax. The error was in the lens, and one of them required an additional 0.5mm.

If you like the Sonnar, keep it. The cost and time to find a J-9 as good as it is will be frustrating.

 

[pb908]

Well, I finally grab it. Along with nice black dial IIa, 5cm CZJ f2 for total less than $300. I'll try few roll and post it here asap. Thanks guys !