Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/03/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 05:49 PM 3/15/2000 -0500, Javier wrote: > > >How does the Jupiter compare optically to a Summarit? I believe Erwin dissents, but I would rate it 10,995% better. The Summarit is quite low-contrast, where the Sonnar on which the Jupiter is based is, even in its uncoated original form, rather high-contrast. Several caveats: the best Jupiter-3's are those made in the past 12 years, with the matte-black finish. These are jewels and are multi-coated, to boot. And the Summarit was a hand-assembled lens, and there are variations from example to example. The Jupiter-3 is also hand-assembled. A good Summarit will pound a bad Jupiter-3 to death, and vice versa. However, on average, and even given, the, well, to be charitable, uneven quality-control of SPS manufactures, enough good Jupiter-3's to make the risk well worth it. A solid Jupiter-3 is a stunningly fine lens. Marc msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315 Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!