Old sonnar (e.g. Jupiter 8) vs modern Sonnar

Having used pretty much every RF version of the 50mm Sonnar, from a 1933 f/1.5 Sonnar to the modern ZM (including the Soviet Jupiters, Zeiss Sonnars, & Nikon variants from the 1950s), I agree w/Roland. You will also see much less flare w/modern glass.

ferider said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Dante_Stella said:
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
Click to expand...

I'm confused Dante. Zeiss shows 6/4 for the ZM C-Sonnar (http://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/Ph...center/datasheets_zm/csonnar_1-5_50_zm_en.pdf).

Whatever Frank writes on his web-site, this is my understanding:

- An Ernostar is basically a triplet with an extra positive component in the front airspace
- A Sonnar is an Ernostar with an additional compounded element between the Ernostar's second and third element.

Both come in variants with 1, 2, or 3 compounded elements in the rear group. Might want to check the patents that I referred to above.

Then again, Zeiss originated the term "Sonnar", so they can use it for whatever design they want :) Even for the double-Gauss ZM 85/2 (http://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/Ph...oadcenter/datasheets_zm/sonnar2_85mm_zm_e.pdf).

Thanks.
 
This might sound novel…. but
Have you put the lens though it paces?
Load up a roll and go out and shoot under all types of light and subjects
And then compare the images to those taken with the other lenses.
You could have a sleeper or a dud.
 
As several have suggested, shoot a test roll, that's the way to tell. My 1968 export (Latin) Jupiter-8 does very well. I try to take good care of it. Qualified as one of the best values in photo equipment.
 
ferider said:
Then again, Zeiss originated the term "Sonnar", so they can use it for whatever design they want :) Even for the double-Gauss ZM 85/2 (http://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/Ph...oadcenter/datasheets_zm/sonnar2_85mm_zm_e.pdf).
Click to expand...

They can and did. I've got a 1920s "Sonnar" that I use via an adapter on my Rollei SL66E and it seems to be similar to a Tessar in design. I wrote about it here. And here's an iPhone pic of the beastie in question:

photo-757950.JPG
 
anerjee said:
I wonder if the 55mm f/1.8 Sony is a SINO (Sonnar In Name only).

I'm not technical, but the block diagram is here.
http://www.sony.net/Products/di/en-us/products/lenses/lineup/detail/sel55f18z.html

Can anyone confirm please?
Click to expand...

Even though it does look strange, it might still be a Sonnar. Viewed by functional pairs rather than element by element, it might be within the definition (depending on the - unknown - glass types). Almost everything once cemented has been separated, it has aspheric lenses, and several elements changed places (most notably, the front group is reversed, concave out), but that is not uncommon in modern lens makeovers.
 
ferider said:
- An Ernostar is basically a triplet with an extra positive component in the front airspace
- A Sonnar is an Ernostar with an additional compounded element between the Ernostar's second and third element.
Click to expand...

That definition tries to make a brand name change a technical change. But these are all one family, there is no hard separation. The prototypical 1930's Sonnar front group was already in lenses branded as Ernostars, the (now) characteristic Sonnar rear evolved only a few generations past the name change.
 
Actually the Zeiss Sonnar is not the first lens named Sonnar Nettel used the name for it's Tessar version. Nettel would later become part of the Zeiss Ikon conglomerate so Zeiss was able to use the name without breaking the trademark laws. But the lens for the Nettel was not made by Zeiss

All three the Ernostar, Sonnar and Tessar are modified Triplets so there is at least some relation. :)
 
uhoh7 said:
While the term "sonnar" has a somewhat loose application over time, is there any doubt which lens made the word resonate?
if you find a good copy, there's no need for a newer one :)
Click to expand...

Hi,

Great photo but I reckon the Summitar more...

Regards, David
 
Heresy, the Summitar is not bad either but lacks the Zeiss glow :D

For high speed I prefer the Leitz/Schneider/Cooke Xenon to the Sonnar it's special but neither as sharp nor as well corrected as the Sonnar.

The Sonnar, Summar, Summarit (old), Xenon are outstanding lenses because of their faults (strength) not because they are so well corrected. So if you want something out of the ordinary über well corrected (planar) lenses choose one of the lenses mentioned above.
 
The original (old) Sonnar lenses will have medium to low levels of contrast, along with medium to high resolution, whereas the ZM Sonnar will display high contrast and high resolution.

The other major difference is the cost.
 
raid said:
The original (old) Sonnar lenses will have medium to low levels of contrast, along with medium to high resolution, whereas the ZM Sonnar will display high contrast and high resolution.

The other major difference is the cost.
Click to expand...

In fact, the original sonnar f/1.5 was famed for phenomenal contrast, unlike the summitar.


L1022971 by unoh7, 1937 uncoated 5cm f/1.5 on M9
Though I would not doubt the zm50/1.5 has yet more contrast, a clean original sonnar will give high contrast: more than any 135mm lens of it's age, possibly.

The biggest "tell" of it's age is how the very sharp centers tend to degrade on the edges, even at f/8 or f/11 compared to a 50 cron etc.

These days I think sonnar, and I think unique bokeh, but back in the day a WO shot would have been the exception. Contrast at f/1.5 is much less than at f/4 (where it is basically "modern")


L1022938 by unoh7,1937 sonnar on M9 WO

and this is where you really get some glow in some shots. Shot above is not PPed from M9 DNG.

here is same shot with nikkor 5cm f/1.4, which was a "copy" (this time it may some pp)

L1022622 by unoh7, on Flickr

The Nikkor has it's charm, but the zeiss is a lot better for general use IMHO, and is much sharper at infinity.

Not until 1961 and the v2 50 lux was there a better all-round high speed 50.

The Canon 50/1.4 LTM is quite nice, but not sure it can match the zeiss. I have one and should test ;)

In theory the jupiter 3 is identical, but as we know, Russian builds are highly varied to say the least. Really clean German LTM copies are almost as rare as a clean, well built, Russian lens. But perfect Contax mount sonnars can be found easily for 200US, often with camera attached lol. Then you grab an Amedeo adapter and make images with your digital M or whatever :)
 
Here a lot of people talk about the old Sonnar 1.5, that is the Jupiter 3, not the Sonnar 2.0 that is the Jupiter 8! They were very different lenses, I have two Zeiss Ikon (W.Germany) Sonnars, the 2.0 is more alike my Jupiter 8s than the modern Planar, and I'm sure my old f1.5 is more alike a Jupiter 3 than a new Sonnar.

From Zeiss' website it appears they haven't changed the formula of the lens, but the quality of coating from the 50s to now has dramatically improved. Plus, the Jupiter 8 has never been the most contrasty Soviet Lens around, mine work well with B&W but colour images look a little desaturated, however used properly they are all good vintage performers.

jai51t.jpg


2m6sy1u.jpg


Not the best pics to represent the J-8, I understand...these were taken with a 1961 copy.

13yupw.jpg


2447koj.jpg


The two pics above have been taken with a 1977 Zorki 4K like the one the OP inherited, 1977 black J-8, BW400CN and Sunny rule, but as you can see the lab printed them atrociously, it's not the fault of the Soviet glass. Unfortunately late (after 68) J-8 have the front element that rotates so you can't use the square hood produced by FED, for the rest I noticed the colour of the coating has been changed from violet-blue to brown but the quality depends more by the single lens in object than the age.
 
raid said:
It was famed. Now, the modern lenses have higher contrast.
Click to expand...
Less so in this case.

The reputations of the f/2 sonnar and f/1.5 may be getting mixed, as noted above.

The legendary sonnar is a high contrast lens, then and now. The f/2 not so much.

That is, unless you have haze.

On the other hand, you may be lucky, like me, and have a nice 70 year tarnish on the glass, which Henry tells me makes the lens sharper than new :)

Don't touch it though LOL


Rear element of my 1937 sonnar:

DSC02269-1 by unoh7, on Flickr
 
High contrast doesn't really mean high contrast in a modern sense compared to an uncoated double gauss design any triplet derivative is a high contrast lens. The 1.5 Sonnar (old) is supposed to be a bit sharper but the difference is minimal.
 
I have several vintage Sonnar lenses (1.5 and 2.0), and I love using them. They don't have a "modern look" to them. I prefer the old look anyways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom