The Sonnar 50/1.5 variations 70+ years

dexdog

dexdog

Veteran
Local time
4:53 PM
Joined
Jan 22, 2005
Messages
3,711
View My Gallery
I was experimenting with lenses today (i.e., farting around) and decided to try out a few Sonnar design lenses that I had on hand. The lenses are a 272 series CZJ 5cm f1.5 Sonnar from 1943 in LTM, a Jupiter-3+ in LTM from about 2016 or so and a Jupiter-3 in LTM from 1951 that has 272 series CZJ lens elements/optical block. The point of focus is the sawed/cracked branch at about 2.5 meters. The pictures are not posted in the above order to make things more entertaining. If I did not know the file names I dont think I could distinguish which lens was which. The composition may vary a little due to me moving the the tripod a bit while swapping lenses
Lens one at f1.5

Lens two at f1.5

Lens three at f1.5
 
Last edited:
Lens #2 is my favorite, followed closely by #1.

I always find these tests very interesting, very humbling, and very, very GAS-inducing.

Thanks, Dexdog.
 
I think that this comparison is interesting because while the 1943 CZJ lens and the 1951 J-3 are both genuine Sonnars from the same batch of optical blocks, the J-3+ was produced in 2016, about 73 years after the first two lenses, and is a faithful reproduction of the original Sonnar/Jupiter lens. I think that is pretty cool. The images were taken on a Sony a7iii at large jpeg resolution, no post-processing
 
I think that the rendition of all three lenses is just beautiful, but I am biased because I really like Sonnars. I will identify which pics were from which lenses in a later post. Lastly, I am fortunate to have really nice clean examples of the above lenses, which makes the puzzle more enjoyable.
 
Last edited:
the first one seems to render a little bit cooler, that's all i see.
lovely and inspiring - i should make more use of my (uncoated) CZ sonnar.

thanks, dexdog
 
Interesting. Did you set the white balance in camera to a fixed setting?

#1 looks less saturated and contrasty compared to #2 and #3. My initial thought was #2 and #3 must be the #272 block lenses because they look so similar. But then again I do not know who applied the coating to the German glass used in early Jupiters... Were they coated in Germany, or did the Soviets just use the glass and applied their own coating?! If the latter was the case, I would guess #2 and #3 to be the Jupiters.

It would be interesting to have such a comparison with more lenses involved, like the uncoated pre-war Sonnars and the post-war Zeiss Opton and Jena variants. I recall @TenEleven 's Zeiss lens compendium where he mentions the subtle differences in the rendering of these lenses. Maybe even add lenses from other manufacturers such as the Canon LTM 50mm 1.5 or the Nikkor S.C. 5cm 1.4... But that's a lot of work.
 
White balance set to daylight for all photos. Not very apparent in these pics, but the J-3+ renders colors differently than the older lenses, probably due to being multi-coated. Sonnar Brian had a series of photos a while ago of some tombstones that showed the difference pretty well. I think that the rendition of the J-3+ is cooler/more blue shifted than the older lenses
 
The mystery of old lenses is both interesting and fun to observe here. Thanks.
Calibrated J-3 lenses can be as good as genuine CZ lenses, as we all know.
 
Lens one is a 1951 Jupiter-3 with Zeiss optical elements with CZJ serial number (2)726544
Lens two is a 1943 CZJ Sonnar in LTM, serial number 7275606. The above J-3 has lens elements from the same batch as the CZJ
Lens three is the Jupiter-3+
The lenses are very similar in performance
 
After the quibbling and nit-picking the end result is that the Sonnar is a great lens. I have two KMZ J8's that are very pleasing in color perception and shape modeling. This equals good images. That is what makes me happy.

I dread the Skyllaney Bertele, if it ever shows up, as it will be the Sonnar but in a new, more refined construction.

Thanks for the test shots.
 
boojum said:
After the quibbling and nit-picking the end result is that the Sonnar is a great lens. I have two KMZ J8's that are very pleasing in color perception and shape modeling. This equals good images. That is what makes me happy.

I dread the Skyllaney Bertele, if it ever shows up, as it will be the Sonnar but in a new, more refined construction.

Thanks for the test shots.
Click to expand...
Agreed!
 
How would you characterize the main differences between a J-3+ and a Skyllaney Bertele Sonnar? Both are "modern". Right?
 
quite a non-technical remark.

there is nothing nicer for a photographer to do, than to take pictures of a beautiful woman with a sonnar on the camera.
(heard from a photo dealer in shanghai. wise man.)
 
raid said:
How would you characterize the main differences between a J-3+ and a Skyllaney Bertele Sonnar? Both are "modern". Right?
Click to expand...
That's for For another thread.

My Daughter has been photographed using more Sonnar formula lenses than most anyone.L1005486.jpg

1950 J-3 wide-open, on the M9.

and 1936 5cm F1.5, wide-open.

L1006245.jpg
 
titrisol said:
Lens #1 is a bit soft for me, but the wide open image is lovely
At f/4 I dont see a difference between 2 and 3
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I see. The old wood that is the in-focus area seem sharper with lenses #2 and #3 at f/4. I have a sense of the contrast being higher in those two, than for #1. This may account, either partly or entirely, for the appearance of sharpness. Is there a difference in the coatings?

I looked and looked at the OOF background; I just can't see any difference at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom