Which is copy? Biogon or Jupiter 12

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

I read somewhere Russian lens designer Rusinov is the father of Biogon concept. So which lens is the father of other ?

Umut

 

[jmcd]

The J-12 is the copy, I am pretty sure.

 

[André E.C.]

Well, not quite far from truth, yet, not really so!

Indeed, in 1951, Dr.Ludwig Bertele, based his Biogon design (second and current form) on a double ended reversed-telephoto objective design, patented by M.M Roosinov in 1946. Which consists of a central positive structure with one or more large menisci at each end making a roughly symmetrical arrangement.

The Zeiss design had two menisci at the front and a single strong meniscus element at the rear. The distance from the element to the plane of the film is very short to lower distortion levels and increase contrast, therefore interfering with the mirror on SLR designs.

A master patent wasn't possible for this design, and many other companies embrace this excellent optical disposition, examples are Schneider's Super Angullon, with one menisci at each end, the Wild Aviogon and the Hologon developed by Dr.Erhard Glatzel in 1966 ( in reality, the Hologon it's a modification of the Biogon design).

So no, M.M Roosinov just created a design which gave the base to another concept.

Surelly, Bertele is the creator of the Biogon design!

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

The first Biogon was a 35mm f/2.8 made in 1935.

The Jupiter is is apparently a very close copy, slightly tweaked in order to make it less sensitive to construction tolerances (so I've heard).

 

[df cardwell]

Bertele designed the first Contax Biogon, a variation of the triplet design; it is a cousin of his Sonnar.
The Jupiter is the same lens. It is not a wide field design, and will not fit on post war Contax cameras.

The second lens by Bertele named Biogon is the postwar Zeiss design that IS a wide field design that is drawn from the same principle of Roosinov used to give correct illumination in the corners of a wide field lens.

 

[Xmas]

A J12 in LTM is cheap, there is a large £$ step to the next lens option the Cosina Voightlander f/2.5 35mm.

 

[cmo]

A J12 in LTM is cheap, there is a large £$ step to the next lens option the Cosina Voightlander f/2.5 35mm.

Guess why:

1. The J12 is a copy of the pre-war Carl Zeiss Biogon 3.5cm f/2.8 for the Contax, a design from the 1930s, built between 1950 and 1960, whereas that Voigtländer lens was introduced in 2004.

2. The J12 was built according to russian manufacturing standards whereas Cosina is good enough to build lenses for Zeiss these days.

3. Both.

You might consider a Summaron 35mm, they sell for low prices today.

 

[Xmas]

Guess why:

1. The J12 is a copy of the pre-war Carl Zeiss Biogon 3.5cm f/2.8 for the Contax, a design from the 1930s, built between 1950 and 1960, whereas that Voigtländer lens was introduced in 2004.

2. The J12 was built according to russian manufacturing standards whereas Cosina is good enough to build lenses for Zeiss these days.

3. Both.

You might consider a Summaron 35mm, they sell for low prices today.

Hi

My J12 in LTM serial number said it was made in '91. It was a reasonable lens, and nearly as cheap as the LTM to M adapter ring.

Cosina or the Russians can/could employ whatever build standard they chose, e.g. at the beginning of WWII the T34s (medium tanks) were beautiful little tanks, the last one they were able to make in Stalingrad while the storm troopers were assaulting the next building may have cut some corners. But I'm sure it gave a good account of itself, in combat.

Cosina have made lenses and bodies for other suppliers than Zeiss.

The Summarons are nice lenses, the 35mm f/2.8 a real good performer, but an optically mint one will be more expensive than a CV 35mm f/2.5 by some margin, they are in the London shops, the collectors snap them up...

Noel

 

[cmo]

Hi

My J12 in LTM serial number said it was made in '91. It was a reasonable lens, and nearly as cheap as the LTM to M adapter ring.

Cosina or the Russians can/could employ whatever build standard they chose, e.g. at the beginning of WWII the T34s (medium tanks) were beautiful little tanks, the last one they were able to make in Stalingrad while the storm troopers were assaulting the next building may have cut some corners. But I'm sure it gave a good account of itself, in combat.

Cosina have made lenses and bodies for other suppliers than Zeiss.

The Summarons are nice lenses, the 35mm f/2.8 a real good performer, but an optically mint one will be more expensive than a CV 35mm f/2.5 by some margin, they are in the London shops, the collectors snap them up...

Noel

You are right, it was also built later, but in a different company named LZOS.

The problem with build quality is that the Soviets were really strong at building military equipment, and that includes quality control. (Russia is still one of the three biggest countries in terms of weapons exports.) Consumer goods for the average Iwan have never been a major focus for Kremlin potentates.

I remember times when Cosina was a maker of cheap 3rd party lenses. They have come a long way, and some of their own lenses are really good, too.

Regarding London and Summarons... well, London IS expensive, and 'mint' items from the 1950s are a costly hobby. But I often see acceptable Summarons for acceptable prices.

 

[Xmas]

You are right, it was also built later, but in a different company named LZOS.

The problem with build quality is that the Soviets were really strong at building military equipment, and that includes quality control. (Russia is still one of the three biggest countries in terms of weapons exports.) Consumer goods for the average Iwan have never been a major focus for Kremlin potentates.

I remember times when Cosina was a maker of cheap 3rd party lenses. They have come a long way, and some of their own lenses are really good, too.

Regarding London and Summarons... well, London IS expensive, and 'mint' items from the 1950s are a costly hobby. But I often see acceptable Summarons for acceptable prices.

Hi

My records indicate the

J12 was 40 GBP in caps, mint
CV 35mm f/2.5 classic 160 GBP, ditto + box etc.
CV 35mm f/2.5 pan 140 in opt hood and caps, ditto

How much can you get Summarons for here resonable optics 300 or more. E.G. Ivor of Red Dot one of our advertisers

http://www.reddotcameras.co.uk/product_info.php?cPath=34_36&products_id=1686

325 GBP

Noel

 

[cmo]

Hi

My records indicate the

J12 was 40 GBP in caps, mint
CV 35mm f/2.5 classic 160 GBP, ditto + box etc.
CV 35mm f/2.5 pan 140 in opt hood and caps, ditto

How much can you get Summarons for here resonable optics 300 or more. E.G. Ivor of Red Dot one of our advertisers

http://www.reddotcameras.co.uk/product_info.php?cPath=34_36&products_id=1686

325 GBP

Noel

I saw Summarons in acceptable state here for 100-200 Euros here. J12s are often much cheaper, due of east german history. The problem is that most of the russian lenses you get here are sold because they are bad.

"CV 35mm f/2.5 pan 140 in opt hood and caps, ditto" sounds good, I would recommend that one.

 

[Xmas]

I saw Summarons in acceptable state here for 100-200 Euros here. J12s are often much cheaper, due of east german history. The problem is that most of the russian lenses you get here are sold because they are bad.

"CV 35mm f/2.5 pan 140 in opt hood and caps, ditto" sounds good, I would recommend that one.

Hi

Ok I apologize, for lack of clarity, the list was from my purchases in the rescent past. All the lenses were mint condition and the only problems with the J12, were,

- it would sometimes iris image when the sun got to the front optic, at a 'wrong' angle, at f/5.6-/11 it was otherwise indistinguishable from other lenses.
- it did not mount on my Canons VI-L and P, it fouled their anti refection baffles

I use several bodies at once and only really use 35mm lenses.

I need a trip to Germany... to look at summarons, 325 is the best I've seen for a while...

Noel

 

[Xmas]

Hi

I understand the cheap summarons now there is a premium for the f/2.8s, there is a big gap in performance between the f/3.5 and f2.8, the 2.8 was an excellent performer in its day and is still good the f3.5 softens in the corners, more.

Noel

 

[Vincenzo Maielli]

I read somewhere Russian lens designer Rusinov is the father of Biogon concept. So which lens is the father of other ?

Umut

The Biogon wide angle lenses was designed for the Zeiss Ikon II and III, pre II World War rangefinder cameras. In 1945, after the german defeat, the russian army moved the Zeiss industries, cameras, lenses and plans in Kiev, Ukraine. Therefore, the Jupiter 12 35/2.8 is clearly the copy of the Zeiss Ikon Biogon 35/2.8 and the Jupiter 9 85/2 is the copy of the Zeiss Ikon Sonnar 85/2.
Ciao.
Vincenzo

 

[Xmas]

I read somewhere Russian lens designer Rusinov is the father of Biogon concept. So which lens is the father of other ?

Umut

Hi Vincesco

All you say is 100% but ...

The OP question was about the post war Biogons,and deriatives.

M.M Roosinov in 1946

I'd suggest it is gene pool soup, unless you are an optical engineer.

The title is seductive.

Noel

 

[Vanishing Point Ent.]

What did the Russians say about their Jupiter lenses ?

Hi

Ok I apologize, for lack of clarity, the list was from my purchases in the rescent past. All the lenses were mint condition and the only problems with the J12, were,

- it would sometimes iris image when the sun got to the front optic, at a 'wrong' angle, at f/5.6-/11 it was otherwise indistinguishable from other lenses.
- it did not mount on my Canons VI-L and P, it fouled their anti refection baffles

I use several bodies at once and only really use 35mm lenses.

I need a trip to Germany... to look at summarons, 325 is the best I've seen for a while...

Noel

OH I apologize, for the lack of clarity !

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.

 

[Xmas]

Hi Vincenzo

Hi Yes I was off topic, bad case of do as i say, not as i do.

Don't think any one is going to help us with the derivations

Noel

 

[Ralph Javins]

Hi Vincenzo

. . .

Don't think any one is going to help us with the derivations

Noel

Calculus, anyone?