Redseele
Established
Hi all,
A couple of months ago I inherited a 70s production Zorki 4 in perfect shape (apparently my late grandfather received it as a gift in the 1970s and never used it, so he put it away and I only discovered it going through his old things). Just today I bought an LTM adapter to use it on my Leica M6 and noticed that it is one of the models that measures distance exactly as my other 50mm lenses (a collapsible Summicron and a contemporary Zeiss Planar).
Since I can use it on my Leica, therein my question: what's the difference between an old Sonnar (be it the Jupiter 8 or those wartime old RF lenses) and the modern ones? I know for one that the biggest difference is coating and therefore how much it flares, but this Jupiter 8 is coated. So then, what else is different then? Could it be that a lowly Jupiter 8 be a good competitor to the MUCH more expensive contemporary Zeiss Sonnar? (in which case might tempt me to sell my Planar, which for some reason I don't entirely love).
Thanks for the information in advance!
A couple of months ago I inherited a 70s production Zorki 4 in perfect shape (apparently my late grandfather received it as a gift in the 1970s and never used it, so he put it away and I only discovered it going through his old things). Just today I bought an LTM adapter to use it on my Leica M6 and noticed that it is one of the models that measures distance exactly as my other 50mm lenses (a collapsible Summicron and a contemporary Zeiss Planar).
Since I can use it on my Leica, therein my question: what's the difference between an old Sonnar (be it the Jupiter 8 or those wartime old RF lenses) and the modern ones? I know for one that the biggest difference is coating and therefore how much it flares, but this Jupiter 8 is coated. So then, what else is different then? Could it be that a lowly Jupiter 8 be a good competitor to the MUCH more expensive contemporary Zeiss Sonnar? (in which case might tempt me to sell my Planar, which for some reason I don't entirely love).
Thanks for the information in advance!
kaiwasoyokaze
Half Frame Goodness
in use, the soviet sonnar (jupiter 3 or 8) doesnt have click stops compared to modern sonnar. it also doesnt the scale marked out in feet. the coating should be nonexistent or only single coated.
the old ones stopped down to 22 AFAIK, i dont know about the modern ones.
there was a thread by Raid that compared them all (canon, nikon, jupiter, etc.) i think a while back.
most people write about and notice the focus shift more n the f1.5 model versus the f2 model.
the old ones stopped down to 22 AFAIK, i dont know about the modern ones.
there was a thread by Raid that compared them all (canon, nikon, jupiter, etc.) i think a while back.
most people write about and notice the focus shift more n the f1.5 model versus the f2 model.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
If both lenses are OK, image quality at widest f-stops must be different: it should be perceived even in normal size prints. Apart, quality control in Russian lenses was below normal, so lots of those lenses are not OK now and/or were not OK when new. But they can be OK sometimes.
Why don't you do the same photograph with both lenses, say at f/2 first, and then two more at f/8, and compare the results on four 8x10 prints? Then you´ll know what you prefer...
Russian lenses can be really fine... I use an old Russian sonnar, and I love the lens, a 50 f/1.5 Jupiter-3... It was "worked" by an expert, using 1955 KMZ glass (German?) from a Contax mount one, then all glass was placed inside a LTM barrel&mount: it was shimmed, and optimized for close focus wide open... I've read f/2 ones (J8's) are often fine without being "worked": at least it's easier finding a good J8 than a good J3, so you should try yours comparing it to a modern 50 if you want to see differences on prints...
Cheers,
Juan
Why don't you do the same photograph with both lenses, say at f/2 first, and then two more at f/8, and compare the results on four 8x10 prints? Then you´ll know what you prefer...
Russian lenses can be really fine... I use an old Russian sonnar, and I love the lens, a 50 f/1.5 Jupiter-3... It was "worked" by an expert, using 1955 KMZ glass (German?) from a Contax mount one, then all glass was placed inside a LTM barrel&mount: it was shimmed, and optimized for close focus wide open... I've read f/2 ones (J8's) are often fine without being "worked": at least it's easier finding a good J8 than a good J3, so you should try yours comparing it to a modern 50 if you want to see differences on prints...
Cheers,
Juan
Redseele
Established
Heheheh, the problem is that I don't have a modern Sonnar to compare my Jupiter 8 to, just a Planar which is altogether different from Sonnars because it is sharp throughout the image.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
As far as I remember, the Sonnar f/1.5C is the only genuine Zeiss Sonnar in normal length in recent times (they also made a few moderately long, mostly 75-90mm Sonnars over the past decades). And no, the general opinion on the f/1.5C is that its optics are a close imitation of the post war Oberkochen (Opton) f/1.5, in all its stregths and weaknesses. With a nice Leica M mount and barrel - these mechanics essentially are what you pay for, vs. a adapted lens.
Jupiters can vary a lot, due to inconsistent production quality - whether a given Jupiter is a match to a Oberkochen Sonnar (whether modern or old) will depend on many factors (some can be cleaned or adjusted, some are beyond all hope). The Jupiter-3 would be the one to look at, by the way, the -8 is their copy of the f/2 Sonnar, which is different in character.
Jupiters can vary a lot, due to inconsistent production quality - whether a given Jupiter is a match to a Oberkochen Sonnar (whether modern or old) will depend on many factors (some can be cleaned or adjusted, some are beyond all hope). The Jupiter-3 would be the one to look at, by the way, the -8 is their copy of the f/2 Sonnar, which is different in character.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
The real difference is that a modern one will be new and an old one from either the old USSR, on a FED or Zorki, or from pre-war Germany, on a Contax etc, will be used, second-hand and probably knocked about and worn.
I don't blame the makers for what has happened to a second-hand lens over the last 80 years (Carl Zeiss) or the last 65 years (FED and Zorki). People have been known to drop them and then trade them in or sell them on ebay etc.
BTW I think Sonnar is a name they put on the modern ones, I don't see them as modern, exact copies of the pre-war ones.
My experience of old and fairly new lenses is that you never know what to expect but can be pleasantly surprised. Or badly disappointed, so far I've only had to scrap two lenses a Leitz Summar and a Leitz Summitar. The first was beyond help the second probably had a few usable parts in it including lenses.
In your shoes I'd put the lens on a body and run a roll of film through it. A few test shots on a tripod at various distances and apertures should give you the answer. If it will help I'll add that getting a lens cleaned and so on is not expensive and most technicians can do it and test it for you.
Regards, David
The real difference is that a modern one will be new and an old one from either the old USSR, on a FED or Zorki, or from pre-war Germany, on a Contax etc, will be used, second-hand and probably knocked about and worn.
I don't blame the makers for what has happened to a second-hand lens over the last 80 years (Carl Zeiss) or the last 65 years (FED and Zorki). People have been known to drop them and then trade them in or sell them on ebay etc.
BTW I think Sonnar is a name they put on the modern ones, I don't see them as modern, exact copies of the pre-war ones.
My experience of old and fairly new lenses is that you never know what to expect but can be pleasantly surprised. Or badly disappointed, so far I've only had to scrap two lenses a Leitz Summar and a Leitz Summitar. The first was beyond help the second probably had a few usable parts in it including lenses.
In your shoes I'd put the lens on a body and run a roll of film through it. A few test shots on a tripod at various distances and apertures should give you the answer. If it will help I'll add that getting a lens cleaned and so on is not expensive and most technicians can do it and test it for you.
Regards, David
leighmarrin
Established
While I can't directly answer your question, about 30 years ago I got a lot of use out of a LTM Jupiter-8 from a early '70s Zorki, on a Leica IIIf and later a Leica M3. For the IIIF I had a very heavy, slow-focusing Summarit f1.5, and for the M3 a heavy slow-focusing DR Summicron with a badly scratched front element, which caused it to flare badly. Even though the J-8 was not quite as sharp as either Leitz lens, it was GOOD ENOUGH at f4 and smaller stops, and much lighter. Its focusing helix/barrel was much quicker than the Leitz lenses. I took many pictures with it, and still have it.
I've read that there are huge sample variations in FSU lenses, so certainly test the one you have. At f2 it's probably not going to be very sharp, but may be fine for portraits or "dreamy" effects.
You might be interested in this thread of a comparasion of two J-8s, one uncoated 5cm/f2 Sonnar and a f1.8 Helios lens, all in Contax/Kiev mount.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43000
I've read that there are huge sample variations in FSU lenses, so certainly test the one you have. At f2 it's probably not going to be very sharp, but may be fine for portraits or "dreamy" effects.
You might be interested in this thread of a comparasion of two J-8s, one uncoated 5cm/f2 Sonnar and a f1.8 Helios lens, all in Contax/Kiev mount.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43000
DominikDUK
Well-known
The Jupiter 8 is single coated the modern C-Sonnar is Multicoated
The old 1.5 Zeiss Sonnar and the C-Sonnar is based on the old design has one lens element more than the f2 Sonnar (Jupiter 8 and Zeiss Sonnar before and after war).
Modern lens has click stops Jupiter 8 not, the old Zeiss Sonnar is usually better build than either the Jupiter 8 or modern Sonnar.
Some early examples of the Jupiter 8 (mid 1950's with infinity lock) have a sort of sparkle which is the result of small highlight flares. The modern Sonnar has much better flare control and thus creates a cleaner looking image. Although the Sonnar C is clearly the better lens from a technical point of view I prefer the older Sonnars and Jupiter 8's because of that sparkle.
The Planar is extremely well corrected and often lacks character (not always a bad thing) the Sonnar old and new have plenty of that.
The old 1.5 Zeiss Sonnar and the C-Sonnar is based on the old design has one lens element more than the f2 Sonnar (Jupiter 8 and Zeiss Sonnar before and after war).
Modern lens has click stops Jupiter 8 not, the old Zeiss Sonnar is usually better build than either the Jupiter 8 or modern Sonnar.
Some early examples of the Jupiter 8 (mid 1950's with infinity lock) have a sort of sparkle which is the result of small highlight flares. The modern Sonnar has much better flare control and thus creates a cleaner looking image. Although the Sonnar C is clearly the better lens from a technical point of view I prefer the older Sonnars and Jupiter 8's because of that sparkle.
The Planar is extremely well corrected and often lacks character (not always a bad thing) the Sonnar old and new have plenty of that.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
There were a lot of different versions of the the J-8 developed from the Sonnar. These links give a lot of info about them:
http://www.sovietcams.com/index.php?-483601546
http://www.sovietcams.com/index.php?-1090910983
Regards, David
There were a lot of different versions of the the J-8 developed from the Sonnar. These links give a lot of info about them:
http://www.sovietcams.com/index.php?-483601546
http://www.sovietcams.com/index.php?-1090910983
Regards, David
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
J-8 is cheap, simplified mass produced version. With nothing special and nothing wrong results from it. Sharp enough where it is needed, "no name" bokeh. Easy to find like new and black version is a lot cheaper than white.
I would only compare J-3 to Sonnar. Both are 1.5 and 7/3. Both might be like or hate it, because they are lenses with "character".
I would only compare J-3 to Sonnar. Both are 1.5 and 7/3. Both might be like or hate it, because they are lenses with "character".
Thanimal
Established
My J-8 does have click-stops; then again, it's Kiev mount. Do the LTM ones not?
DominikDUK
Well-known
Ko-Fe the classic and first Sonnar was the f2 Sonnar and not the the 1,5 Sonnar. The bokeh of early J8 and Sonnars is very close. The later Jupiter 8 are not as good (special) as the earlier models with the infinity lock imo.
I own the modern Zeiss, a classic Zeiss and the Jupiter 8.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Dominik, OP was asking about Leica mount. First Sonnar (50/2) was for Contax.
I owned white with collar one J-8 from fifties and modern black one. Zero difference in images for those two copies.
Both were like new. To be honest, I liked images from black one more.
I owned white with collar one J-8 from fifties and modern black one. Zero difference in images for those two copies.
Both were like new. To be honest, I liked images from black one more.
ferider
Veteran
The new ZM Sonnar-C (*) is not a Sonnar, but an Ernostar (6/4).
In practice, your Jupiter 8 will have noticeably less contrast at all f stops, and less center resolution when stopped down. Also rougher "bokeh" when you compare to (*).
Roland.
In practice, your Jupiter 8 will have noticeably less contrast at all f stops, and less center resolution when stopped down. Also rougher "bokeh" when you compare to (*).
Roland.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Either was originally for Contax. Very, very few were made in Leica Thread Mount - and quite a few were later re-assembled into LTM or are even more recent fakes (J-3 disguised as Sonnars).
If you are after a M mount one, I'd recommend either getting the modern Sonnar f/1,5 C or a Contax version and a adapter - certified original LTM ones and a good LTM->M Adapter bring the cost almost up to the former, and cheaper fakes or after-market hacks are likely to perform worse than a Contax version, for a still higher price...
DominikDUK
Well-known
As Sevo said very few Sonnar were made for the Leica but since the OP was also asking about older Sonnars I've answered the question as best as I could.
As a note the Ernostar design is a bit older than the Sonnar design and Bertele partially based the Sonnar design on the Ernostar
As a note the Ernostar design is a bit older than the Sonnar design and Bertele partially based the Sonnar design on the Ernostar
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
In the UK, in the 1930's, there were several firms adapting Sonnars to fit Leicas. And I think that during the war Zeiss made Sonnars that had the fittings for the Leica for the armed forces.
I've a Contax II in the heap waiting for a film test after a repair, this has reminded me I ought to be doing it...
Regards, David
In the UK, in the 1930's, there were several firms adapting Sonnars to fit Leicas. And I think that during the war Zeiss made Sonnars that had the fittings for the Leica for the armed forces.
I've a Contax II in the heap waiting for a film test after a repair, this has reminded me I ought to be doing it...
Regards, David
ferider
Veteran
Lens trivia
Lens trivia
That's correct: Ludwig Bertele invented the Ernostar in 1919 (a 10cm f/2 lens for use on 4,5x6cm sheet film - DE Patent 428,657). In 1931, he completed the design of the first Sonnar (50/2 on 35mm - DE Patent 570,983). Basically he replaced the air space between the Ernostar's second and third elements with an additional low dispersion glass element. This reduced the number of glass/air interfaces, and made for a flare resistant and compact lens design (even without coating, which came later, DE Patent 685,767, 1939).
Interesting to me that in the ZM 50/1.5-C, Zeiss removed this additional glass element again, modern coatings must have reduced its benefit.
Roland.
Lens trivia
That's correct: Ludwig Bertele invented the Ernostar in 1919 (a 10cm f/2 lens for use on 4,5x6cm sheet film - DE Patent 428,657). In 1931, he completed the design of the first Sonnar (50/2 on 35mm - DE Patent 570,983). Basically he replaced the air space between the Ernostar's second and third elements with an additional low dispersion glass element. This reduced the number of glass/air interfaces, and made for a flare resistant and compact lens design (even without coating, which came later, DE Patent 685,767, 1939).
Interesting to me that in the ZM 50/1.5-C, Zeiss removed this additional glass element again, modern coatings must have reduced its benefit.
Roland.
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
If you look at the ZM block diagrams, the ZM Sonnar is not an Ernostar. It's a 7/3 Sonnar (the f/1.5 version) with the middle group changed so that one of the triple cemented elements is replaced with an airspace. It still has a triple-cemented rear group, which is unique to 50/1.5 Sonnars. I suspect that part of this is that you can do a lot more with less glass these days. See the differences between Sonnars and Ernostars here:
http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Biotar_en.html
But I agree that the current ZM lens blows the Soviet stuff out of the water (as one would expect for a 6-12x price differential).
Dante
Scrambler
Well-known
Zeiss actually went back to the Ernostar design with other Sonnars before the ZM. The 40/2.8 for the Rollei 35 most notably. T* coating made the difference.
On the OP question, rendering is similar, with flare lower in multicoated modern Sonnars but all the quirks are the same between old and new. And while I haven't used the ZM I own, use and love an uncoated prewar Zeiss Sonnar 1.5, Jupiter 8 and a Rollei 40/2.8 in Leica mount.
While in my brood the J-8 is neither fish nor fowl so is on permanent loan, if I had to have just one Sonnar, it would be the one. Light, fast enough, coated enough. The design was optimised for uncoated lenses so even single coating virtually eliminates flare.