View Full Version : HU: BLACK J-3 50mm/1.5 in LTM
I have no connections with the seller here:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=180128320287&ssPageName=ADME:B:WNA:US:12
Some of you want a mint J-3... for Father's Day?
Raid
crap, someone got it over me...i didnt expect it to go so high
A clean J-3 can sell for more than $100 these days. This one was mint and in black.
xayraa33
06-17-2007, 09:10
a lot of money for a late black one.
some of these late ones cannot even be shimmed properly.
a lot of money for a late black one.
some of these late ones cannot even be shimmed properly.
This is useful information. I did not know this fact. :bang:
Raid
xayraa33
06-17-2007, 09:19
yes Raid, Kim Coxon had a late Black J-3 that could not be correctly shimmed. Something about the rear lens group that was cemented instead of threaded like what is on the older J-3's.
Kim or Brian S. can elaborate more on this subject.
The difference is the max aperture of 1.5, with a Sonnar look in the resulting images. As for collapsible Summicrons, some of them still sell for $300 or so. The J-8 always has been a super bargain.
Raid
Bluesman
06-17-2007, 10:08
F2eyelevel - that avatar pic has to be Marilyn, huh? "Last sitting"?
Love that pic - and you, my man , have good taste!
Cheers /Richard
Stephanie Brim
06-17-2007, 10:21
My LTM J-3 was an exceptional performer. For the $80-100 you'll pay, you really can't get a better lens. Then again, I had an older chrome model.
I did not buy the FSU lenses to have them replaced by others. Quite often we buy beyond our needs for photography.
I have used a Canon 50/1.4 but I liked the Canon 50/1.5 better. There are advocates for each of these two lenses; I have neither one. The J-3 was a relatively inexpensive way to get a 1.5 lens in LTM for me. The Summarit most of the time has "problems", and it costs more than a J-3. My reshimmed J-3 cost me $75. I agree with Stephanie's comment above.
Raid
xayraa33
06-17-2007, 10:49
[QUOTE=f2eyelevel]I don't get the point of paying $100 or more on a possibly not correctly shimmed FSU lens in LTM when you can have a very nice LTM Canon 50/1,8 for that price. Actually.
and not to mention the mickey mouse aluminium construction of the Jupiter- 3.
The construction of the J-3 is truely poor. I wish that they would make the construction better, but this is not an option.
Nokton48
06-17-2007, 11:48
I have had a multitude of FSU lenses, and I enjoy "whippin' them into shape" and consequently creating something truely great with them, in terms of images. That to me is part of the allure of the lowely FSU products.
I don't agree with you about the J-3's optical low level performance. Maybe it is simply a matter of personal taste. When comparing the J-3 to eleven other 50mm lenses here on RFF, several people chose the J-3 as the lens with excellent performance. I got my J-3 after owning many 50mm lenses, made by companies such as Zeiss, Leitz, Canon and Nikon. It really is a nice lens optically.
I sold my Zeiss Opton. [no good reason]
Raid
I gotta agree with Raid. I (still) have a Jupiter 3. And I paid just a bit more than $100 for it. Bought it from a fellow rff member. And it's a black one. Guess it's not a late model black one since it was properly shimmed by Brian Sweeney (before I bought it, hence the price I was willing to pay for it). Like Raid said, it's a relatively fast 1.5 lens with the great (in my opinion) Sonnar look. Yes, I have other fast lenses. And some of them are Sonnar designs, too. Doesn't mean I'm not happy shooting with my J-3. May just be one man's view, or perhaps two if you count Raid's, but for the record I am a believer in mine.
-Randy
Optically, no doubt, since it's a Sonnar 50/1.5 clone as for the glass (although manufacturing a lens based upon the same optical schemes with different refraction glass might be a huge issue by itself).
The issues are mainly mechanical. Shimming and collimation, but also lens barrel assembly and construction tolerances. One fraction of millimeter missing here, and a fraction surplus there, can ruin a lens that is otherwise optically excellent.
I guess it's mainly a matter of quality control (or of lack of some). That's why the early 1950's KMZ Jupiter-3 lenses are the most sought after, and the rarest on the market. These ones were still made under critically controlled manufacturing tolerances.
Mine was a 1959 GOMZ one and obviously, I didn't hit the jackpot when buying it. Lesson learnt.
Reshimming is almost a must.
Unless I am mistaken, Brian chose a KMZ version J-3 for me, followed by a careful shimming and testing. I am a lucky guy.
By the way, Quality Control is my field of expertise.
:D
Well, I do have a 1.5/50 early KMZ J-3, I use it most of the time.
There's a used camera shop here where am a welcome visitor, so the owner kindly allows me to try all the lenses I can mount on my cameras. Surely modern and previous version crons have everything over J3 except a stop and the sonnar look, but it seems an old J3 can compare decently to Leitz optics from 1950s. I was offered a great deal on 1st gen summilux-m 50, but after much thinking turned it down: wide open I've seen no advantage over my j3.
The only wartime coated CZ Sonnar 2/50 coll. I tried was totally off the focus. I had to try it twice, thinking I didn't collapse it all way out first time, but no. It also had the worst lens mount I've seen ever.
Main attraction of the jupiter to me is rather unique combination of (usable) speed, Sonnar look, and low weight&bulk. The last point must be stressed: it is smaller than Summilux, Summicron, Industar-50 3.5/50, and a few millimeters longer than CV Heliar 2/50 collapsible.
The drawbacks are the rather cheap mount, and yes, the prices that are getting well over $100 for good samples.
It does have such a logo. I am quite sure of it, and I will check once I go home. Brian told me that such a lens was most likely meant for military applications and that it supposedly had better QC. maybe that's why I like this lens so much. It really performs well.
Well, I do have a 1.5/50 early KMZ J-3, I use it most of the time.
There's a used camera shop here where am a welcome visitor, so the owner kindly allows me to try all the lenses I can mount on my cameras. Surely modern and previous version crons have everything over J3 except a stop and the sonnar look, but it seems an old J3 can compare decently to Leitz optics from 1950s. I was offered a great deal on 1st gen summilux-m 50, but after much thinking turned it down: wide open I've seen no advantage over my j3.
The only wartime coated CZ Sonnar 2/50 coll. I tried was totally off the focus. I had to try it twice, thinking I didn't collapse it all way out first time, but no. It also had the worst lens mount I've seen ever.
Main attraction of the jupiter to me is rather unique combination of (usable) speed, Sonnar look, and low weight&bulk. The last point must be stressed: it is smaller than Summilux, Summicron, Industar-50 3.5/50, and a few millimeters longer than CV Heliar 2/50 collapsible.
The drawbacks are the rather cheap mount, and yes, the prices that are getting well over $100 for good samples.
Eugene: I also like the light weight and relatively small size of the J-3. I use a squarish lens hood [made by Franka] with the lens becuase the lens hood is chrome and is very light too.
I have a war-time Zeiss 50/2, which is quite rare in LTM. I had to send it twice to DAG to get it back in shape. First, I sent it to well-known precision repairshop, but they told me that it would be cost prohibitive to repair this lens, and they mailed it back to me. Don Goldberg did a wonderful job in adjusting the shimming and in making the lens barrel turn smoothly after it was stuck. He then [in the second round] cleaned the lens from inside.
As for its lens mount, my lens also has a horrible one. It appears as if the Zeiss glass was inserted into a Leitz lens barrel, but I never figured out how the lens really was put together. According to two people at the Zeiss Historical Society, my lens is one out of a batch of 200 lenses that were ordered by Sweden in return for metal ore. This part is the most fun for me. Lenses I have plenty, but a piece of history is precious.
Raid
KMZ Jupiter-3 are actually the best, and the rarest.
If your J-3 is a KMZ one, it must have the following logo on the name ring near the s/n.
http://www.commiecameras.com/sov/images/kmz2logo.gif
The symbol on my J-3 is similar but not identical. It is similar to an eye ball with a straight error though it. On the other hand, my rigid I-50 has the same symbol for KMZ that you have posted above.
Raid
edited:
I searched the net, and I found the "truth"; My J-3 was made by ZOMZ, which is little known, and which has been associated with KMZ! It is making J-3 lenses.
Brian Sweeney got me the J-3, and he once wrote:"Raid: I think your lens is from 1962. It was one of the sharper of the bunch, despite the cleaning marks. It has the "eyeball with optical ray" logo, right? Walker (Doubs43) told me that they were produced in smaller numbers with higher quality control, by a subsidiary that made lenses for the military."
... to which Doub43 said: " That is correct according to Princelle's book. The "ZOMZ" (eyeball-light ray logo) factory was under the KMZ military-industrial complex umbrella and backed up the main plant. Princelle says that the ZOMZ-made chrome LTM J-3 is "uncommon" and the same lens in Kiev mount is "rather rare". Plants that manufactured for the military generally had better quality products from all I've been able to learn.
Walker"
Thank you, Brian. I love such little pieces of history.
Raid
Interesting, Raid. Thanks for sharing this history. Caused me to search for more info on my black J3. Turns out mine is a 1975 made by Valdai in Russia and bears what is called a "shish kebab" logo.
-Randy
Spyderman
06-20-2007, 03:10
Brian: it seems mine silver J-3, manufactured in Zagorsk (ZOMZ) with serial number starting 63.... also has the optics module where the rear group cannot be unscrewed from the back like on J-8. What can I do to shim it correctly? Is there any hope at all ;) ?
Interesting, Raid. Thanks for sharing this history. Caused me to search for more info on my black J3. Turns out mine is a 1975 made by Valdai in Russia and bears what is called a "shish kebab" logo.
-Randy
Randy: When I was asked here whether my J-3 was made by KMZ, I started to google for logos on FSU optics, and I spent about two hours reading older threads on this topic. It really is interesting to read about the history of lenses.
Raid
Randy: When I was asked here whether my J-3 was made by KMZ, I started to google for logos on FSU optics, and I spent about two hours reading older threads on this topic. It really is interesting to read about the history of lenses.
Raid
Sure is interesting, Raid. Also interesting to wonder where our lil' lenses may have been over their decades of existence. And it sounds like you already found where on the web the logos are shown and described but if not then let me know and I'll post a couple I came across.
-Randy
Randy: This is a good start for reading up on FSU lenses:
http://www.cameras.alfredklomp.com/introduction/
http://www.rus-camera.com/history.php?history=kmz
http://www.zenitcamera.com/qa/qa-logos.html
http://www.commiecameras.com/sov/index.htm
Raid
I agree with Randy and Raid, these are great lenses, but mechanical construction is quite poor. Unique look wide open.
But, you have to be very lucky to buy a well collimated lens (or get
a "Sweeneyfied" lens), even Fedka and Oleg only do infinity collimation,
and the risk of poor close up/wide open performance is high.
I am using the father of the J-3, a ZK 50/1.5 from 1950 that came
well collimated out of the box.
Roland.
As usual, Raid, you're WAY ahead of me. I had seen a couple of those links but not all of them. Looks like I've got some reading to do. Thanks!
And Roland is right about the advantages of a well-collimated J-3 lens. I'm not sure I see any great benefit in only having correct infinity focus for a fast lens that I plan to use in close up, relatively dark settings. Which makes me very happy to have my "Sweeneyfied" J-3 lens which does great up close.
I'm curious, Roland, when you say this lens has a unique look wide open. Are you merely referring to the Sonnar look or to something more/different about the J-3 specifically?
-Randy
P.S. Just to show what a properly collimated J-3 can do, here's a shot taken with my J-3 wide open and at about minimum focusing distance. Focus is on the empty glass containers/holder for same.
I agree with Randy and Raid, these are great lenses, but mechanical construction is quite poor. Unique look wide open.
But, you have to be very lucky to buy a well collimated lens (or get
a "Sweeneyfied" lens), even Fedka and Oleg only do infinity collimation,
and the risk of poor close up/wide open performance is high.
I am using the father of the J-3, a ZK 50/1.5 from 1950 that came
well collimated out of the box.
Roland.
Hi Roland,
I may have been lucky to get a Sweeneyfied "KMZ controlled J-3." It is very sharp wide open abd it has a pleasing rendering for portraits. Cosmetically it looks bad. This makes it a great travel lens. Nobody would want to steal such a bad looking lens.
Raid
As usual, Raid, you're WAY ahead of me. I had seen a couple of those links but not all of them. Looks like I've got some reading to do. Thanks!
And Roland is right about the advantages of a well-collimated J-3 lens. I'm not sure I see any great benefit in only having correct infinity focus for a fast lens that I plan to use in close up, relatively dark settings. Which makes me very happy to have my "Sweeneyfied" J-3 lens which does great up close.
I'm curious, Roland, when you say this lens has a unique look wide open. Are you merely referring to the Sonnar look or to something more/different about the J-3 specifically?
-Randy
P.S. Just to show what a properly collimated J-3 can do, here's a shot taken with my J-3 wide open and at about minimum focusing distance. Focus is on the empty glass containers/holder for same.
Randy: The image looks nice. The J-3 seems to have a "near Sonnar" look, but maybe I am wrong here. I am not a Sonnar expert as some people here on RFF.
Raid
Thanks, Raid. Just to be clear, the image I posted isn't anything artistic. Intent was simply to show that a properly collimated J-3 can focus up close.
As for the look, I thought the J-3 was a Sonnar design hence had a Sonnar look. Perhaps that's all Roland was referring to above. But if not, I'm hopeful that he will chime in here and further enlighten me.
-Randy
edit: I just found a test shot I did of the J-3 up close and wide open that makes it even clearer that Brian Sweeney's collimation worked. Here's the test shot (with credit to Roland for the "style" of test shot).
second edit: I realized after uploading the test shot that it did not have high enough resolution to show the proper focus. So, I've added a cropped version that should better show the plane of focus. And no, in case anyone is wondering, I'm not focusing as close as 20 inches as the cropped image implies - 20 inches on the tape measure is the point/plane of focus but I'm standing a bit back from the edge of the table where the tape measure starts.
Randy: Your shots show that you J-3 is fine. I have had no problems with my J-3 since Brian sent it to me. He deserves a special thanks from many of us here.
Raid
As for the look, I thought the J-3 was a Sonnar design hence had a Sonnar look. Perhaps that's all Roland was referring to above.
This is what I meant, Randy (The "Ur Sonnar" look :), like seen in your pictures)
Cheers,
Roland.
clarence
06-24-2007, 11:45
My J-3 wears the guise of a CZJ T Sonnar. Nr. 2846XXX. I got it from someone on rff whose name escapes me right now. I wonder when and where it was originally produced.
Clarence
Clarence: Is it a CZJ lens or is it just the labeling?
Raid
clarence
06-24-2007, 12:12
The person who sold it to me said it was a fake CZJ lens but was actually a J-3. it is labelled as a Sonnar.
Here is a picture of it.
Clarence
Clarence:
I wonder if your J-3 is any different from "regular" J-3 lenses. How did you identify it as a J-3?
Raid
clarence
06-24-2007, 13:14
Raid, I only know it is a J-3 based on the information given to me by the seller. Having said that, the markings on the lens do look a bit cheap and FSU-esque.
One other thing about the lens which I am intrigued by is that there are two dots marking the current aperture: a red one and a green one. The aperture ring starts and stops at the red one, so I ignore the green one.
Clarence
Clarence,
you can see if it's a fake CZJ using two indications:
- focus mark on a Russian lens is "M" on the original CZJ lens "m"
- if you unscrew the front barrel, an original CZJ lens will have a serial
nr. on the barrel, matching the nr. on the front ring.
Even original war-time CZJ lenses have sometimes focus mounts the origin
of which is not clear.
In any case, even if its a fake, from your picture one can see the typical
CZJ coating rings on the inner elements (only the center of the elements
is coated, see also H. Scherer's website). Good indication that (1) your
lens is old, from the late 40s or early 50s and (2) there are at least
some original CZJ parts in it ...
Might not matter to you, as long as it's well collimated a J-3 behaves
almost identically to a war-time 50/1.5 Sonnar.
Best,
Roland.
clarence
06-24-2007, 14:48
Clarence,
you can see if it's a fake CZJ using two indications:
- focus mark on a Russian lens is "M" on the original CZJ lens "m"
Thanks, Roland. A quick check shows that it is a capital 'M' and not a small 'm'. I'm currently using it on a Fed 2 body and it seems to be working well, but I have not used it at minimum range and maximum aperture yet.
Clarence
This is a really great, informative thread. I'm a big fan of the Jupiter-3. Mine has always focused correctly, as far as I can tell, and the glass is perfect. Reading this thread, I've learned that it is also from the ZOMZ plant, but has the pre 1962 "three lenses glued" logo. serial number is 6109000 -- I love nice round serial numbers :)
Hi Bill,
The history of a lens is quite an interesting issue. We sometimes just guess where our lenses came from,and it is fun to figure out some information about the background of a lens.
Raid
Hi Bill,
The history of a lens is quite an interesting issue. We sometimes just guess where our lenses came from,and it is fun to figure out some information about the background of a lens.
Raid
Raid,
I wholeheartedly agree! It's one of the things I like about FSU gear. There are so many manufacturing centers, model variations, etc.
Roland,
Might not matter to you, as long as it's well collimated a J-3 behaves almost identically to a war-time 50/1.5 Sonnar.
I guess as long as you have a well-collimated, good sample, you can strip the "almost" in that sentence :)
Philipp
David Murphy
06-24-2007, 23:24
I don't get the point of paying $100 or more on a possibly not correctly shimmed FSU lens in LTM when you can have a very nice LTM Canon 50/1,8 for that price. Actually.
Even a Leitz Summitar will give you better results and mint ones sell for $150 or so. The prices of the LTM collapsible Summicron 50/2 have dropped, too. I'd say, $185 or so for a pretty nice one.
I have bought a mint late black (Made in USSR 1982 KMZ export model) J-8 for my son's FED-2. It happens to be a very good lens, properly shimmed, with no problem. But I paid $25 for it and would not have paid a penny more.
I agree with you 100%. I've read some real horror stories here about the J-3. Who the hell wants to pay $100+ for one of these and then have to send it out to be fixed with an uncertain result. My regard for lenses or cameras that must be routinely repaired to correct defects caused by poor manufacturing is personally nil. So many of the FSU cameras are like that too. (There is even a company that does this for medium format Kiev 88's).
You can find Canon LTM 50/1.4's for about $200 on eBay (with patience) and they will work great. Better still bite the bullet and get a used 50/1.5 CV for $250 or so (right here) if you wait.
David,
The Sonnar look differs from what you can get with the Canon 50/1.4.
Cheers,
Raid
vanyagor
06-27-2007, 00:13
I agree with you 100%. I've read some real horror stories here about the J-3. Who the hell wants to pay $100+ for one of these and then have to send it out to be fixed with an uncertain result. My regard for lenses or cameras that must be routinely repaired to correct defects caused by poor manufacturing is personally nil. So many of the FSU cameras are like that too. (There is even a company that does this for medium format Kiev 88's).
You can find Canon LTM 50/1.4's for about $200 on eBay (with patience) and they will work great. Better still bite the bullet and get a used 50/1.5 CV for $250 or so (right here) if you wait.
I have 4 different J-3. 3 silver, 1 black. All 4 perform great. The black one has the short focusing problem but I can not see it on any of my real life pictures (I guess the effect is only visible at the extreem short focus and widest aperture).
I guess you can find the Canon lens for 200$ (with patience). but then you can also get the J-3 for 50$ (with patience) ;) (probably "patience" should be typed in big bold letters). I got all 4 of mine below 80$. One of them (an early ZOMZ version) came with a beautiful Zorki 4 body with original box, original passport and a matching original J-8 + shutter cable release: everything for 107$ (including 25$ shipping from Ukraine).
...................................
It is strange that Princelle mentiones the ZOMZ version as "uncommon". 3 out of 4 mine are made at ZOMZ and it seems that many other people have it.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.