View Full Version : Kindly Rate My New J-3
My first J-3 has arrived and I feel somewhat emotional. I will thank you if you could rate its quality. All the pictures but one have been shot at f/1.5, and mostly at very short distances around 1,5meter or closer (short distance is part and parcel of the toughest lens test). The single shot at middle apperture is the first.
In order to help you I can add the following info:
- Film is Tmax 100 somewhat overdeveloped (adding unnecessary grain) due to problems of low temperatures here, leading me to higher than desired dev temperature and mental compensation in shortening time. (= "Bardak", in our local sleng)
- Scanner: Epson 2450
- You may notice here and there some misfocusing. So pick those you see correctly focused.
- All the pictures have been cropped. The last one, extremely cropped.
If you notice there is a reason for which you cannot rate, kindly inform me. Kindly put aside compositional likes or dislikes, as I have to decide if this lens is a "keeper", or I have to start discussing with the seller ($125) .
Thank you indeed for your help.
Cheers,
Ruben
Picture No-1 - Middle Apperture
Hi Ruben,
I have rated it good ... I haven't used my own J3 for a long time but I seem to remember it being sharper than I expected when I got it!
I love 'those eyes' in pic 2 ... such emotion!
Cheers ... Keith. :)
Looks fine to me.
#1 suffers from development. So does #2.
In #2 and #4 it would be helpful to know if focus is where you wanted it to be.
#6 is out of focus. Difficult to say something on that one.
#8 looks fine. It would be easier to say something if one knew where you had focused and how extreme the crop was.
All in all it looks OK. For saying whether it is great or not one would need better scans and a film without too much development problems.
Looks fine to me.
#1 suffers from development. So does #2.
In #2 and #4 it would be helpful to know if focus is where you wanted it to be.
#6 is out of focus. Difficult to say something on that one.
#8 looks fine. It would be easier to say something if one knew where you had focused and how extreme the crop was.
All in all it looks OK. For saying whether it is great or not one would need better scans and a film without too much development problems.
Hi Philipp,
I agree with most of your points.
As for your questions, #2, focus was obviously on the girl face, #4 on the baby face.
#6 I will try to replace it for a better one. #8 I will attach besides the full frame pic. At #8 I focused for the whole bunch as it was the best I could. Nevertheless take into account that the issue of where I have focused is of lesser importance, since it points to the camera rangefinder accuracy - not to the lens sharpness.
Development was indeed quite problematic. Now I am going to scan the full frame of #8.
Thank you for your comments,
Ruben.
Nevertheless take into account that the issue of where I have focused is of lesser importance, since it points to the camera rangefinder accuracy - not to the lens sharpness.
Er, yes. I was just asking since the single most criticised issue of the J-3s is the focusing accuracy wide open. However I remember that you are probably using a Kiev anyway where this seems to be less problematic.
xayraa33
01-31-2008, 06:03
The photos look good Ruben, although Max's old 1971 J-3 seemed to produce a crisper image.
in a perfect world Max should have never sold that one.
the lens is excellent. Sharp and with good definition. With such a shallow DOF it is dificult to define your focal point as already stated. I think #s 3 and 7 show the quality of the lens with a clearly defined focal point.
Nice shots, Ruben, I particularly like # 7.
robbiechad
01-31-2008, 06:35
Hi Ruben, Nice photos I would be more than happy with a lens that produces pics like those wide open, I would like to see some of the lens stopped down to see just how sharp it is, I would rate the lens as good.
Looks good to me. I would think that if you're really interested in assessing the quality of the lens you should do more scientific shooting in a "lab" type environment. I think these shots all look good, but, as others have pointed out, there are too many variables in the: focal point, processing, cropping, etc to make an authoritative assessment.
Personally I avoid doing this. If I like the pictures, it's a good lens. I don't WANT to know if my J-3 is backfocusing by 2.5 cm at f/1.5 and 1 meter. It would only depress me. I like the pictures I get from it, and that's good enough for me!
I didn't vote: some of the shots seem to suffer from motion blur, others from misfocusing, or combination of the two. It is best to give lens a try with static subject in daylight to have an idea how good it is.
jolefler
01-31-2008, 07:37
I have a J3 and seem to get very similar results, again not knowing where you focused while looking at the shot complicates matters. It seems to me that in my J3 usage the DOF is not centered on the focus point....I usually have more DOF behind the focus point than in front of it. Oh, I use mine on a Barnack...I think that matters. That's just subjective guessing, though.
shadowfox
01-31-2008, 07:45
Ruben, the pictures look a bit soft to me also. I have pictures from J8 (also Contax mount) that is sharper than those, but then again the J8 can't go to f1.5.
If you're like me, I find that doing lens tests is very annoying, but maybe spending about 12 frames doing a tripod portrait session with those subjects by a window, and bracket both for focus and aperture, will tell you definitely if the lens has problems or not. Tripod being the key here.
Hi Pitxu, Bill and Eugene,
I agree with you, and before I got the lens I was thinking about making a test wide open of all Jupiters and Helios I have, tripod mounted and static subject.
First I confess I feel lazy. There is such a snow and cold now outside that I don't know what to do in order to warm my home more, so I am eating and eating.
However, there is another point of view, perhaps, to judge this pics here. These will be very much the kind of shots I will be submitting to the gallery, in their optical aspect. I will be photographing mooving people like here, and under some time pressure, and misfocusing sometimes. I purchased the J-3 to shoot at f.1,5 like I have done here.
So perhaps untill the day I make the mother of all tests (and I will), you can or cannot tell me if the lens is to be kept or start negotiations with the seller for return.
As for the full frame negs, I tried several times, but it seems to me that perhaps there is a quota alocated to each member among the new changes, and I may have filled that quota - RFF software doesn't allow me any single image more to this thread.
The average level of cropping can be estimated around some 70%.
So instead of participating in the poll you could tell me: a) Keep the lens b) Return the lens, or c) The pictures provided here are not enough to judge even a) or b)
Cheers,
Ruben
Picture No-8 -LAST ONE- Extreme cropping and Full Frame
xayraa33
01-31-2008, 09:00
after a while you might like your Helios 103 better than this lens Ruben.
Hi Ruben,
How does it react in backlight? is it prone to flare? Do you also have a J8 or J8M? Would you mind posting some comparison shots? I love the J8M and I was wondering whether this extra stop is really for free or the J3 quality is worst.. :p
Thanks,
Rob.
Dave Wilkinson
01-31-2008, 10:12
The pictures are fine, - though a little soft at wide aperture, as would be expected from Russian (and many other !) lenses. There does'nt seem to be anything wrong with it, so I would be surprised if the seller accepts a return because you expect it to be more than what it is - an fsu lens :) ....if you like the results....enjoy! :)
Dave.
Ruben,
Seems to me that you've tested the lens under the conditions you're likely to be using it in, and the results are fine. I think if you're shooting at a moving target, at f/1.5, and the image is a little soft ... that's probably to be expected -- not enough DOF to compensate for even a minor movement toward or away from the camera. Given the age and nature of the J-3's design, I would expect a little bit of softness shooting a bowl of fruit at f/1.5 ...
I think you've got a keeper.
mike goldberg
01-31-2008, 11:03
Hi Ruben,
I voted "Good," the middle choice. I had a J3, and found that I liked my J8's better.
Consider the following: On the plus side, your J3 is in a Contax mount, and you've got the great, wide RF base of the Kiev. On the minus side [possibly; I'm not sure]... you're an eyeglasses wearer, and when you focus, the lens of your spectacles is up close to a tiny, rear RF window.
Thus, is your close focusing, with lens wide open, absolutely accurate? Finally, the J3 gives you, yes, one extra stop, more weight, and apparently NO more sharpness than the J8m. Good luck with your decision; if you paid over $100- you must be happy with your lens.
Tchau, Mike
Hi Ruben,
How does it react in backlight? is it prone to flare? Do you also have a J8 or J8M? Would you mind posting some comparison shots? I love the J8M and I was wondering whether this extra stop is really for free or the J3 quality is worst.. :p
Thanks,
Rob.
Hi Roberto,
Along the years I have assembled a kiev fleet, with a dozen standard lenses of all the types.
Although I am not an expert, and far from that, I have the feeling that besides a really crappy lens, all others may show between good and superb according to the specific Kiev camera they are mounted on.
The test of full apperture and close distance is very difficult to perform with extreme accuracy, if you want to test all of them on the same camera/roll of film. I have done it in fact, and will continue whenever I will change the Kiev in actual use.
But the results cannot be but approximate. The DOF is miserable. Then you have the problem of ensuring that all lenses will be tested at the same point in the distance scale, and related to that, mounting and dismounting standards on a Kiev is perhaps unpossible to do without mooving the tripod by a tiny bit. But every tiny bit counts in this field, in which you are spliting hairs.
Therefore in this complex situation, as in other Kiev accuracy related, like rangefinder accuracy, I go by the path of the acceptable and avoid going crazy. I do my best within what is sensible logical.
I am using now two Kievs 4AM, which by an educated guess we can assume are not the most accurately built also in terms of mount to film plane distance. Therefore I did my all lenses tests and found that the best was a 64 J-8M, followed by 2 Helios. I am aware that by more severe testing I may have arrived to somewhat different conclusions. But I want to make pictures, and gossip at RFF as much as possible and not go crazy.
In a previous test, some years ago, on behalf of a Kiev IIA, a J-8 surpassed on the same film my Zuiko macro 3,5.
I think that owning a 1,5 lens is worth for the 1,5 aperture first of all. In my opinion this half stop extra over the Helios, is somewhat psychological and sometimes usefull. Sometimes you find yourself scratching light, so to speak as to illustrate the need of maximum possible apperture.
In my case it is somewhat more accute as I am not sure I can obtain a sharp shot with a standard at 1/25, This is due both to my hands and to the fact that I am still a newbie in the streets, becoming tensioned when the opportunity appears.
But in terms of manipulation I prefer the smoother and double scaled Helios, and then the J-8M for its double scale. J-8 and J-3, witout clicks, and single scaled, are not the most comfortable for me.
As for flare, I have never used any lens of any type for any camera without a hood, and this pictures here are just my first roll with this J-3.
As for this specific J-3, upon the reactions of the members, and taking into consideration the shots were at f/1.5 on an overdeveloped film - I think I have bordered the possible worst, and if this is within the acceptable to me, then further shots will be only better.
Cheers,
Ruben
after a while you might like your Helios 103 better than this lens Ruben.
This lesson too is worth over $100.
Cheers,
Ruben
BTW, we all complain about our GAS. And there is much truth in our complains. But it is also true that I cannot really know about a piece of gear unless I buy it and use it. Many times I have found I have made a mistake, or half a mistake, so? I don't know a smarter way than practice and experience.
Brian Sweeney
01-31-2008, 12:20
Ruben, I like the pictures and think you got a good, well-collimated lens for the Kiev.
What I would like to see to "Evaluate" the focus would be "more boring, controlled" pictures. I always have to explain to Nina why we have such a well-photographed fence post. And I get an "OOhhhh....", but also get in-focus pictures when using the camera/lens.
My "BORING Test Shots" of a J-3 made from a 1959 lens with a 1986 front element, collimated for the Leica:
Wide-Open, Full-frame
http://flickr.com/photos/oldcamerapictures/sets/72157602481458663/
I love your shot #2, a real flare-test and great shot.
And congratulations to the family with the new Baby!
Hi Ruben,
Thanks for your answer... I agree with you n the Helios, it's probably better than the J8/J8M, the only drawback for it is the fact that cannot be mounted on a screw mount camera :-( other than that it'll probably beat also a much more expensive lense like a Summicron (I know.. I know.. no one else will agree with me on this.. ;-) )
Cheers,
Rob.
shadowfox
02-01-2008, 07:00
Hi Ruben,
Thanks for your answer... I agree with you n the Helios, it's probably better than the J8/J8M, the only drawback for it is the fact that cannot be mounted on a screw mount camera :-( other than that it'll probably beat also a much more expensive lense like a Summicron (I know.. I know.. no one else will agree with me on this.. ;-) )
Cheers,
Rob.
I would disagree that Helios is "better" than J8. It depends on your definition. It has a bit more contrast, and sharper at the corners, being a newer lens, but as far as bokeh (or OOF rendering for those who are alergic to that word) and sharpness, I find the pictures from the J8 to be more pleasing to see.
Yup, seems like you got the point, Sonnars (like J8) have very nice bokeh, Guass designs like Helios, seems to have a less fashinating bokeh..
Rob.
So instead of participating in the poll you could tell me: a) Keep the lens b) Return the lens, or c) The pictures provided here are not enough to judge even a) or b)
I didn't vote in the poll because I don't think this is really a "poll-able" question. It really comes down to your personal opinion, Ruben... are you happy with the results and the quality?
But that being said, I vote "C" with the following caveats: the pics tend to be soft and the contrast isn't what I'd find acceptable. I'm also a bit concerned about the haloing of the background highlights (#4 and 5, especially).
But if it meets your needs... then congratulations on a new pice of equipment!
I rated your j-3 as good. To me it's a bit soft. If you like the softness of the lens then thats good.I like a soft lens. I love the bokeh. Not all photos have to be sharp. The lens looks to focus nicely. Mine is off on my bessa r and needs a thinner shim acording to Brian S. I know he is right BTW. So I guess the contax mount versions don't suffer from the same faults as the m-39 screwmount copies. I like your photos and the lens is certainly a keeper.
Ruben,
Assuming that you focused precisely, I have the impression that your J-3, like mine, does not focus 100% accurately because even wide open it's able to be sharper than on your pics. I tinkered around with mine (which is already the second one, btw.) and could get the close focus accurate by adding paper shims, but then it was off at infinity. Adjusting both is not possible with adding/dropping shim rings only, as explained in Brian Sweeney's Tutorial (PDF (http://pentax-manuals.com/repairs/j3service.pdf)) but needs a real collimation service. I'm not shure if I will do it, as I'm a bit tired of tinkering russian stuff. Probably I'll raise funds for a pre-asph Summicron 50 or a ZM Sonnar 50...
Didier
Brian Sweeney
02-12-2008, 14:59
Ruben's lens is a Kiev Mount J-3, used on his Kiev. The Kiev is calibrated for the Contax standard. But- the "Sonnar" focus shift can also get you.
Ruben- I've got my Kiev-Mount J-3 on my Contax IIIa, and loaded up! Checked the focus at the film-gate. I am expecting good images from it. The Zeiss-Opton 50mm F1.5 that was on it is going to an RFF enthusiast.( I have a second Zeiss Opton 50/1.5 that I'll use for a comparison shot, use it on the custom-shimmed Nikon S2.)
The Helios/Menopta do show "Summarit Swirlies" from Astigmatism. Some like it, others hate it.
I still think that making a proper test (i.e. tripod-mounted or fast shutter speed, static subject), would be advantageous.
I understand the point about typical shooting conditions, but the heading reads "Rate My New J-3", and we don't really know how much of it is J-3 or your shooting technique.
giovatony
02-13-2008, 09:58
They all loook good enough to me.
John
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.