Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/06/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 12:15 PM 6/16/05 -0400, Mark Langer wrote: >Optically, it is the same as the Sonnar. Mechanically, there is >considerable difference. The prewar Zeiss Sonnars are brass and >chrome, and are a delight to handle. Wartime Sonnars have the glass >in aluminum mounts, which are considerably inferior to the earlier >lenses in build. Nevertheless, a good sample can still be satisfying. > The Jupiters really don't have the quality control of the Zeiss >lenses. A good sample can be an incredible bargain -- the only >problem is that you may have to go through several to get a good >example. This is no big deal if you are patient -- you can buy and >sell them on eBay easily. Mark There is a book in this tale. The Jupiter-3 lens design is that of the Prewar Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar as continued, Postwar, in production by the Communist CZJ works, though slightly different from the western Zeiss-Opton or Carl Zeiss lenses. Early Jupiter-3 lenses were almost certainly produced at Jena in Germany from Zeiss parts. Quality control on the Jupiter-3 line was always tighter than that on many of the other Soviet lenses. It has been my experience that the finest and most consistent lenses of this breed are those produced by the ZOMZ works, these being relatively late lenses finished in flat-black paint. Look for serial numbers beginning with 83.. or 84.. or the like, up to 94.. or so. A solid Jupiter-3 is a magnificent lens: the design dates from 1932 and was one only equalled by Leitz with its second version of the 50mm Summilux. A good Jupiter-3 will certainly overwhelm a Summarit in all optical parameters, stalwart though the Summarit may be. Marc msmall@aya.yale.edu Cha robh b?s fir gun ghr?s fir! NEW FAX NUMBER: +540-343-8505