Larry Cloetta
Veteran
This is more of a question to members than it is about one lens versus another.
Usually when you hear people comparing the pre-war 85 f/2 Contax Sonnar lens to the post-war West German Opton 85 f/2 version, the only difference they mention is that the pre-war versions were uncoated and the post-war Opton versions were coated, and differences in rendering are solely attributed to that, and that alone.
Then, if the Carl Zeiss Jena (Russian sector) post war lenses enter the discussion, it is usually claimed that "the barrels were different, and they were coated, but optically they were the same as the pre-war versions."
Then considering the Jupiter 9, it seems that they are usually considered to just be Soviet versions of the pre-war 85 Sonnar, but coated, so, provided you get a good one should render like a post-war West German Opton Sonnar. Or so the thinking seems to go.
I am just wondering if any of this is actually correct, reason being that the pre-war Sonnar and the post war Oberkochen Opton Sonnar were different lens designs, pre-war being 6 elements in 3 groups and the post war West German being 7 elements in 3 groups. So there was more than just coating differences.
And then, if the following diagram is correct, the Jupiter 9 is actually a copy of the 1951 West German Opton Sonnar, being 7 elements in 3 groups, and not a copy of the pre-war Sonnar, (and the 1946-on Jena Sonnar, presumably) (?) This seems to not make sense, that it would be a copy of the Opton Sonnar. (Since it was made in 1948, 3 years before the Opton Sonnar was designed.)
I guess my question is, to the extent I have one, am I the only one who thought that there were only coating differences between these lenses?
Or should I just go back to wrapping Christmas presents and stop thinking about it?
Usually when you hear people comparing the pre-war 85 f/2 Contax Sonnar lens to the post-war West German Opton 85 f/2 version, the only difference they mention is that the pre-war versions were uncoated and the post-war Opton versions were coated, and differences in rendering are solely attributed to that, and that alone.
Then, if the Carl Zeiss Jena (Russian sector) post war lenses enter the discussion, it is usually claimed that "the barrels were different, and they were coated, but optically they were the same as the pre-war versions."
Then considering the Jupiter 9, it seems that they are usually considered to just be Soviet versions of the pre-war 85 Sonnar, but coated, so, provided you get a good one should render like a post-war West German Opton Sonnar. Or so the thinking seems to go.
I am just wondering if any of this is actually correct, reason being that the pre-war Sonnar and the post war Oberkochen Opton Sonnar were different lens designs, pre-war being 6 elements in 3 groups and the post war West German being 7 elements in 3 groups. So there was more than just coating differences.
And then, if the following diagram is correct, the Jupiter 9 is actually a copy of the 1951 West German Opton Sonnar, being 7 elements in 3 groups, and not a copy of the pre-war Sonnar, (and the 1946-on Jena Sonnar, presumably) (?) This seems to not make sense, that it would be a copy of the Opton Sonnar. (Since it was made in 1948, 3 years before the Opton Sonnar was designed.)
I guess my question is, to the extent I have one, am I the only one who thought that there were only coating differences between these lenses?
Or should I just go back to wrapping Christmas presents and stop thinking about it?
