50s Comparison: M-Hex, Jupiter 3 and Jupiter 8

[Uwe_Nds]

During my Easter vacation, Ania and Joanna went to Poland for one week to visit my parents in law. I decided to stay at home and take the opportunity to re-lube my Jupiter 3 and Jupiter 8 whose focussing was quite stiff (thanks to Kim and Brian for providing the great instructions!).
Re-assembly and adjustment of the Jupiter 8 was a piece of cake - I was lucky to have one of the easy ones.
The Jupiter 3 was a bit more reluctant and took me some time to achieve proper focus.
Reference lens was my M-Hexanon.

The pictures show 100% crops of 2700 dpi scans equivalent to 20x30 cm prints @ 300 dpi. Focussing point was the "R".
Center sharpness of all lenses is IMHO more than sufficient and I am very happy with the performance of all three lenses. Looking forward to some real world pics from the serviced Russians.

Best regards,
Uwe

[Uwe_Nds]

And here's the picture from the M-Hex.

Best regards,
Uwe

[xayraa33]

the J-8 shot is very crisp.

[Uwe_Nds]

Yes, as written before, I am very happy with all three lenses.
Sharpness in the field however is much better with the M-Hexanon. I will post some examples from the same setup tomorrow.

Best regards,
Uwe

[wallace]

Nice to see how good the J8 performs.
Scanned with Polaroid 35plus ?

[Uwe_Nds]

Nice to see how good the J8 performs.
Scanned with Polaroid 35plus ?

No, Minolta Elite 5400 Mk I and Vuescan.

Best regards,
Uwe

[retnull]

This is a great test, thanks for doing it. The results make me wonder about my own obsession with lenses...is paying 5 to 10 times more worth it? With such close results, can't say that it definitely is. Note to self: think more about what's in front of the camera, and less about the %#$@& camera lens.

[Limpovitj]

I think you made a little mistake. Pictures #2 & 4 are the same, just cropped slightly different (they even have the same dust marks).

[Brian Sweeney]

Looks good! The Jupiters look good.

[xayraa33]

the plot thickens.

[Uwe_Nds]

I think you made a little mistake. Pictures #2 & 4 are the same, just cropped slightly different (they even have the same dust marks).

You are right!
#4 is the same as #2 - the Jupiter 3 example.
I attach the true M-Hexanon one. Still, the Russian lenses are doing very well.

Best regards,

[Uwe_Nds]

Looks good! The Jupiters look good.

Brian,
They do! But I couldn't have serviced them myself without your brilliant instructions.
Thank you again!

Best regards,
Uwe

[Uwe_Nds]

Well, I am quite embarrassed having mixed up the scans, so I did some new crops showing the tags for the individual lenses.

Best regards,
Uwe

[jja]

I'm amazed by the J8 performance! Do you have instances, in day-to-day use, where you can see, "Oh, that is just J8 weakness showing up, should have used the Hex?"

[Uwe_Nds]

I'm amazed by the J8 performance! Do you have instances, in day-to-day use, where you can see, "Oh, that is just J8 weakness showing up, should have used the Hex?"

Not really, because up until recently the J8 was quite stiff so I didn't use it that often.
I am currently finishing a roll taken with the J3 at different apertures and different distances. After that I will try out the J8 and report.

Best regards,
Uwe

[Uwe_Nds]

Wide open, the Jupiters are getting a bit soft at the edges, but - in my opinion - still usable.

Best regards,
Uwe

[jja]

These are very informative comparisons, thanks for taking the time to post samples and respond!

[Uwe_Nds]

Thank you and you're welcome!

Best regards,
Uwe

[raid]

I am not surprised by the excellent results by the Jupiter lenses. Thanks for the tests.

[Brian Sweeney]

I need to finish up a test roll in my Contax with a J-3. On Edge-Sharpness- the Sonnar formula lenses have more curvature of field than most Planars. So the edges may be in better focus at a different distance. If anything, that is the "weakness" of a Sonnar formula lens, bi it Zeiss or Jupiter. But it can also be made into a strength if you have an idea of where the best focus lies. I've got some portraits where the face and hands are in sharp focus, using the field curvature as an advantage.

[gb hill]

Did you have to re shim the J-3? I have a J-3 that I need to shim. I posted a thread here and picts. Brian & Kim C. were invaluable help. I need to get at it so I can use the lens on my bessa R. BTW the J-8 looks impressive.

[Uwe_Nds]

No, I didn't have to re-shim. Actually that is one thing I didn't understand in Brian's instructions: there is this ring on the lens module's helix which is held by two screws.
I just took out one screw and losened the other one and turned the ring until focussing was ok.

Best regards,
Uwe

[gb hill]

I guess I should ask if it's LTM or not? I assume it's LTM. The shim is the metal o ring that you see when you unscrew the helix from the body. I need to make a thinner shim than the one thats in place now so the rear element will sit closer to the film plane. I wasn't as lucky as you. My helix was screwed all the way out already.

[Uwe_Nds]

Yes, it is LTM.
Ok, if the helix is screwed all the way, then I understand the need for shims.
Sometimes, even I get lucky... ;-)

Best regards,
Uwe

[Brian Sweeney]

That ring held in by two screws- That is the variable stand-off ring. I'll use it for fine adjustment, but prefer the shim when possible. If you screw the variable ring out far, it can move slightly. You might want to tap new set screw holes to make sure the ring sits properly. If the optics are screwed in all the way to the mount, and there is no shim, you can remove the variable ring and polish it down.

[Uwe_Nds]

So, here's a portrait of Ania.
Again, full frame and 100% crop of a 2700 dpi scan.

Best regards,
Uwe

[xayraa33]

the J-3 preformed well.