Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Classic Film RangeFinders & Other Classics > Lomography

Lomography Dedicated to discuss all Lomography Products

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 01-21-2016   #41
k__43
Registered Film User
 
k__43's Avatar
 
k__43 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikos72 View Post
If min distance is your stance on this then one could get a macro lens and an SLR for one fifth of the price of that lens.

that part is almost offensive
0.7 is obviously nice to have when you are sitting on a table in a bar with people and try to take discrete portraits of them (exactly my problem)
I'm so in love with the sonnar look that I'm unable to swap my C-sonnar for a nokton asph that would do the trick.

I still think that IF they would change the focal lenght of this new lens to leica standard and get the focus accurately it would be a hell of a lens (and get the production in check).
If they just refurbish what they found in old boxes then you are right.

Also (as I said before) I'm someone that never buys new with these things so I see the competition to the second hand market very well. If you compare to brand new prices the only lens that comes close is the Nokton ASPH which is probably the better performer (but oh my that Sonnar character).
What would you think would Nikon and Canon charge if they would re-release their Sonnar-copies?
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-21-2016   #42
nukecoke
⚛Yashica
 
nukecoke's Avatar
 
nukecoke is offline
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Sweden/China
Posts: 537
Does it need to be shimmed to reach "real leica screw mount" standard?

Quote:
Originally Posted by zauhar View Post
I very much like the sample images
I never trust sample images from Lomography. For example, they've used images from the original Russar lens as sample images for the new Russar they sell.
__________________
tumblr

flickr

About Film Cameras
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-21-2016   #43
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 43
Posts: 17,802
Quote:
Originally Posted by nukecoke View Post
For example, they've used images from the original Russar lens as sample images for the new Russar they sell.
How do you know?
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-21-2016   #44
sweathog
Registered User
 
sweathog's Avatar
 
sweathog is offline
Join Date: May 2007
Location: London
Age: 29
Posts: 893
I may be a bit late to the party, but I find that price mind blowing. Whilst I have noticed a significant increase in prices since last time round when I was buying gear, I'm pretty sure I paid about a tenth of what they are asking for my J3, which was a cracking lens. Utterly regretting parting ways with it now, but at the time I had little choice.
Whilst I have always been quietly pro Lomo, as one can never argue with a company that is pushing film photography and making it a viable option, I always quietly seethe at them whenever they release something 'new' as it does seem to lead to an artificial inflation in prices of the original item. Maybe I'm just a bitter, miserly man, though?
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-21-2016   #45
DrMcCoy
Registered User
 
DrMcCoy is offline
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by WJJ3 View Post
I would hope the people building them are making a livable wage.
Yeah, but I'm not.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-21-2016   #46
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is online now
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,350
If they make a Zeiss design lens tack sharp, and they keep its main charteristics in tact, and if the minimum RF focus distance is really 60cm, then this price is OK. Maybe.

If we start to equate the new lens with the original J-3, I see differences. The original J-3 has charm, character, history, and flaws. The new J3+ iss till unknown to me.
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...n.php?cid=7007

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-21-2016   #47
nukecoke
⚛Yashica
 
nukecoke's Avatar
 
nukecoke is offline
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Sweden/China
Posts: 537
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
How do you know?
Check this sample shot from Russar+ gallery:
(copy the link and paste)

microsites.lomography.com/russar-lens/images/analogue/russar-lens-analogue-photo-11.jpg?14376035697

microsites.lomography.com/russar-lens/photos/analogue/

Apparently that's the original Russar lens with KMZ logo.
__________________
tumblr

flickr

About Film Cameras
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-21-2016   #48
Noserider
Registered User
 
Noserider is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Posts: 269
Didn't Dante Stella point out that Russian LTM lenses have a slight difference in the helicoid which results in consistent focus errors because the helicoid is based on the Contax rather than the Leica? If they used the same tooling but just substituted brass for aluminum would the focus errors still remain?
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-21-2016   #49
znapper
Registered User
 
znapper's Avatar
 
znapper is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 338
Just to be on the safe-side, I pulled the trigger on a J3 on eBay because of this. The prices are steadily increasing, so might as well just purchase one now.

- I shim them for M-mount myself, provided that they aren't duds, the operation is almost trivial.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-21-2016   #50
CameraQuest
Head Bartender
 
CameraQuest is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: over the hills from Malibu
Posts: 5,307
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noserider View Post
Didn't Dante Stella point out that Russian LTM lenses have a slight difference in the helicoid which results in consistent focus errors because the helicoid is based on the Contax rather than the Leica? If they used the same tooling but just substituted brass for aluminum would the focus errors still remain?
According to Lomo, that problem was taken care of in the new lenses.

I will be testing for that when the lenses arrive in about 10 days.

Stephen
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-21-2016   #51
k__43
Registered Film User
 
k__43's Avatar
 
k__43 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 934
Quote:
Originally Posted by CameraQuest View Post
According to Lomo, that problem was taken care of in the new lenses.

I will be testing for that when the lenses arrive in about 10 days.

Stephen
awesome news! can't wait to hear qualified feedback.

if you are talking to them - tell them people need black lenses !
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-21-2016   #52
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,803
I think it's great a nice well calibrated version in brass in now available. The build looks very good. .7 is great.

Are there any cheap brand new M or LTM 50mms, f/2 or faster?

A good LTM Zeiss 50/1.5 brings 400 easy for a 50+ year old lens.

Dante thinks if it's the old design 650 is rich, but is it cheaper to grind elements to the old spec?

We do see some cheap 50s for the DSLRs, but they are mass produced, and that brings the cost down.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-21-2016   #53
Nikos72
Registered User
 
Nikos72's Avatar
 
Nikos72 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Athens, Greece
Age: 44
Posts: 1,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by uhoh7 View Post
I think it's great a nice well calibrated version in brass in now available. The build looks very good. .7 is great.

Are there any cheap brand new M or LTM 50mms, f/2 or faster?

A good LTM Zeiss 50/1.5 brings 400 easy for a 50+ year old lens.

Dante thinks if it's the old design 650 is rich, but is it cheaper to grind elements to the old spec?

We do see some cheap 50s for the DSLRs, but they are mass produced, and that brings the cost down.
What about the voigtlanter lenses? They are cheaper, faster (1.4), come in M and L39 mounts, they aren't plastic, and I bet another 599€ that the J3+ won't be any good compared to these.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2016   #54
Ronald_H
Don't call me Ron
 
Ronald_H's Avatar
 
Ronald_H is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Helmond, The Netherlands
Age: 45
Posts: 1,730
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante_Stella View Post

Because if you have to keep reminding people that your pictures are "fine art," there is a big possibility you are really just shooting pr0n.
That made me laugh really hard
__________________
"The only substitute for Tri-X is more Tri-X"

My Flickr

My regular website: www.lookupinwonder.nl
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2016   #55
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 3,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikos72 View Post
What about the voigtlanter lenses? They are cheaper, faster (1.4), come in M and L39 mounts, they aren't plastic, and I bet another 599€ that the J3+ won't be any good compared to these.
Which CV lenses are you talking about? They do not make any new 50mm LTM lenses, and have no new 50mm M mount lenses faster and cheaper than the Lomo.

The CV Nokton 50 1.5 is $800 or $950 if you want brass like the Lomo. The Nokton 50 1.1 is $900. The slower 50 Heliar f2 is $800.

The Lomo is $650
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2016   #56
Nikos72
Registered User
 
Nikos72's Avatar
 
Nikos72 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Athens, Greece
Age: 44
Posts: 1,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
Which CV lenses are you talking about? They do not make any new 50mm LTM lenses, and have no new 50mm M mount lenses faster and cheaper than the Lomo.

The CV Nokton 50 1.5 is $800 or $950 if you want brass like the Lomo. The Nokton 50 1.1 is $900. The slower 50 Heliar f2 is $800.

The Lomo is $650
Don't think so!
Voigtlander M 50mm f/1.5 Nokton Aspherical Lens - Leica M Mount Lens - Black $760 that is 700 euros.
Locally I can have it for 610 New in the box and with warranty.

http://www.amazon.com/Voigtlander-50...VKMTD61AS46B9R

Not to mention that you can get the 40mm 1.4 in M mount for half the price of the Lomo lens.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2016   #57
Jockos
Registered User
 
Jockos's Avatar
 
Jockos is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Sweden
Age: 29
Posts: 887
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikos72 View Post
Not to mention that you can get the 40mm 1.4 in M mount for half the price of the Lomo lens.
Not to mention indeed, the 40 is nothing like the 50.
__________________
Don't trust anything I say or write before I get my morning coffee, at least I don't.

Da gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2016   #58
DominikDUK
Registered User
 
DominikDUK's Avatar
 
DominikDUK is offline
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 928
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikos72 View Post
Don't think so!
Voigtlander M 50mm f/1.5 Nokton Aspherical Lens - Leica M Mount Lens - Black $760 that is 700 euros.
Locally I can have it for 610 New in the box and with warranty.

http://www.amazon.com/Voigtlander-50...VKMTD61AS46B9R

Not to mention that you can get the 40mm 1.4 in M mount for half the price of the Lomo lens.
700 Euros is still more than the quoted price for the Lomo, even the 610 Euros is more than the quoted price for the Lomo. Regarding the 40mm 1.4 well this lens is pretty much useless on an LTM camera aside from the fact that the focal length isn't supported by any mainstream ltm camera viewfinder.
Furthermore if LOMO is the mfg I wouldn't dismiss them, modern Lomo cine lenses are optically nearly on par with Zeiss lenses and we are talking the T1.3 line of Lomo lenses. Mechanically they are no match to Zeiss but what is. Even the best Voigtländer/Cosina lenses are optically inferior to good Lomo cine lenses and are definitely outclassed by Lomo Space and military optics.
The price isn't out of bound for a new lens in any way, the original Zeiss Sonnar was a great lens, if Lomo can match the lens' optical quality the price is more than fair (for a new lens)
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2016   #59
k__43
Registered Film User
 
k__43's Avatar
 
k__43 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 934
hey .. I know of a 50 f/2 lens that costs 6950€ why don't we start comparing everything to this?
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2016   #60
Nikos72
Registered User
 
Nikos72's Avatar
 
Nikos72 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Athens, Greece
Age: 44
Posts: 1,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by DominikDUK View Post
700 Euros is still more than the quoted price for the Lomo, even the 610 Euros is more than the quoted price for the Lomo. Regarding the 40mm 1.4 well this lens is pretty much useless on an LTM camera aside from the fact that the focal length isn't supported by any mainstream ltm camera viewfinder.
Furthermore if LOMO is the mfg I wouldn't dismiss them, modern Lomo cine lenses are optically nearly on par with Zeiss lenses and we are talking the T1.3 line of Lomo lenses. Mechanically they are no match to Zeiss but what is. Even the best Voigtländer/Cosina lenses are optically inferior to good Lomo cine lenses and are definitely outclassed by Lomo Space and military optics.
The price isn't out of bound for a new lens in any way, the original Zeiss Sonnar was a great lens, if Lomo can match the lens' optical quality the price is more than fair (for a new lens)
It seems that you are missing something in here. We are not talking about Lomo (the manufacturer), but for Lomography (go through the thread).


Quote:
Originally Posted by DominikDUK View Post
...Regarding the 40mm 1.4 well this lens is pretty much useless on an LTM camera aside from the fact that the focal length isn't supported by any mainstream ltm camera viewfinder...
Useless? Really?
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2016   #61
Nikos72
Registered User
 
Nikos72's Avatar
 
Nikos72 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Athens, Greece
Age: 44
Posts: 1,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by k__43 View Post
hey .. I know of a 50 f/2 lens that costs 6950€ why don't we start comparing everything to this?
The bet is if it is worthy of 599euros for what it gives. Personally I'd rather spend double that amount for a well reputed proven quality lens than buy anything from the masters of plagiarism.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2016   #62
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 3,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikos72 View Post
Don't think so!
Voigtlander M 50mm f/1.5 Nokton Aspherical Lens - Leica M Mount Lens - Black $760 that is 700 euros.
Locally I can have it for 610 New in the box and with warranty.

http://www.amazon.com/Voigtlander-50...VKMTD61AS46B9R

Not to mention that you can get the 40mm 1.4 in M mount for half the price of the Lomo lens.
Your link shows $760 which is $110 more than the Lomo.
Where can you get it locally for $610?

The 40mm lens is not a 50mm lens so I am not sure what your point is.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2016   #63
DominikDUK
Registered User
 
DominikDUK's Avatar
 
DominikDUK is offline
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 928
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikos72 View Post
It seems that you are missing something in here. We are not talking about Lomo (the manufacturer), but for Lomography (go through the thread).




Useless? Really?
The Mfg of the lens isn't Lomography they don't make anything.
Zenit-BelOMO is the mfg. and they make tactical sights, laser target designators etc... so again military grade tools that require a certain amount of QC.

Useless Really yes if it is an M-Mount lens than it is useless on an ltm camera and the availability of the New J3 lens in LTM is what makes this lens interesting to some people.

The main reason that people don't seem accept the price is not lack of quality (the faux Petzval lens seems to deliver what it promises) but dislike towards the Lomographic society.

Also like a previous poster said it's no cheaper to grind the lenses for an old design than for a new design, quiet the opposite in fact, modern lenses are optimized for economics of production older lens design not so much.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2016   #64
k__43
Registered Film User
 
k__43's Avatar
 
k__43 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikos72 View Post
The bet is if it is worthy of 599euros for what it gives. Personally I'd rather spend double that amount for a well reputed proven quality lens than buy anything from the masters of plagiarism.
meh .. we cannot judge quality yet. Maybe that thing is rubbish, maybe not.
I don't see why you are so busy defending your position, it was heard I guess. I'm with you .. I'm not going to buy this thing now, but I'm happy that they make the effort and look forward to see results and if those are good snap one second hand.

Also "masters of plagiarism" isn't true. They got the original design, machinery and even parts for the Contax Sonnars as part of reparations. If anyone then the Japanese camera industry started as the masters of plagiarism (and evolved from there).

I'd also love to rub the Lomography label from it since it's highly connected to loud marketing and toy cameras, but this maybe doesn't mean it's a bad lens.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2016   #65
Nikos72
Registered User
 
Nikos72's Avatar
 
Nikos72 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Athens, Greece
Age: 44
Posts: 1,048
I am just expecting something more for that price. Aside the quality that indeed I cannot judge now, I have been looking more for a soul in these old lenses. Else, I would be buying something like a Japanese all perfect thing with coatings from the future, and blahblah that would work with AF perfectly even on a 20 buck electronic film camera.
Indeed that plagiarism thing is me over-reacting.

Anyway, lets see how it performs and if it really is "phenomenal" as they state.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2016   #66
valdas
Registered User
 
valdas is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 939
Quote:
Originally Posted by DominikDUK View Post
The Mfg of the lens isn't Lomography they don't make anything.
Zenit-BelOMO is the mfg. and they make tactical sights, laser target designators etc... so again military grade tools that require a certain amount of QC.
you are misinformed, it is not Belomo... it's former KMZ. Check this on the Lomography page:

http://www.lomography.com/magazine/2...story-timeline

And here is BeLomo:

http://www.zenit-belomo.by/
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2016   #67
Nikos72
Registered User
 
Nikos72's Avatar
 
Nikos72 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Athens, Greece
Age: 44
Posts: 1,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by brbo View Post
You've found a way to mount Nokton 40/1.4 on a LTM camera?
Nope! Are you going to buy that lens for your $10 rangefinder? Yes, I have an M Leica.

Bear in mind that you can get the 1.5 Nokton in LTM mount for less than $400 in the used market.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2016   #68
brbo
Registered User
 
brbo's Avatar
 
brbo is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikos72 View Post
Nope! Are you going to buy that lens for your $10 rangefinder? Yes, I have an M Leica.

Bear in mind that you can get the 1.5 Nokton in LTM mount for less than $400 in the used market.
Yes, if nowadays $10 gets me a good working LTM Leica I'm certainly interested in getting the new J-3.

Bear in mind that you will have trouble finding a LTM Nikkor 50/1.4 in good condition for the price of this new J-3.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2016   #69
DominikDUK
Registered User
 
DominikDUK's Avatar
 
DominikDUK is offline
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 928
Quote:
Originally Posted by valdas View Post
you are misinformed, it is not Belomo... it's former KMZ. Check this on the Lomography page:

http://www.lomography.com/magazine/2...story-timeline

And here is BeLomo:

http://www.zenit-belomo.by/
Thanks for the correction, but what is it with this webgains thing.

Also you still compare new to used prices and M to ltm mount. I agree the lens is less attractive to M-Mount users but rather attractive to ltm users
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2016   #70
santino
eXpect me
 
santino's Avatar
 
santino is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Autriche
Posts: 750
I think that a part of the controversy is that it's a product that people associate with stuff from the former ussr. Those products were indeed less expensive than "western" gear but also quality was varying from sample to sample.
The price is IMO high and we have to wait if the lens deserves such a price.
__________________
Vivent les télémétriques ! -
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2016   #71
raindog61
Registered User
 
raindog61's Avatar
 
raindog61 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Toronto, Canada
Age: 55
Posts: 127
The sample photos look great (both digital and analog). I admit, I am interested in this lens.

However, my only curiosity is. Does that aperture ring have click stops. Or is it free turning like a Jupiter-8. (Can't speak for the original J-3 since I've never used one)
__________________
- - - - -

Photographing since 1976...

FlickrTumblrFacebook
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2016   #72
santino
eXpect me
 
santino's Avatar
 
santino is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Autriche
Posts: 750
Original j3s don't have click stops. Only the Industar 61 in soviet l39 world.

Click stops are a must have. I also wonder about the 40.5 filter thread.. 39 filters are easier to get.
__________________
Vivent les télémétriques ! -
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2016   #73
CliveC
Registered User
 
CliveC is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Toronto, Canada
Age: 34
Posts: 658
Great, all this will do is drive up the cost of the old Jupiter 3s. I hadn't been able to find one at a reasonable quality and price and this won't help.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2016   #74
Archlich
Registered User
 
Archlich is offline
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 740
I find it bizarre that people condemns a new lens being more expensive than used ones...
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2016   #75
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
 
xayraa33's Avatar
 
xayraa33 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archlich View Post
I find it bizarre that people condemns a new lens being more expensive than used ones...
If the original J-3 in LTM did not exist in quantity and selling for between 90 to 300 dollars in the last 15 years, then no one would complain about the new one.

A good J-3 is not inferior to any Zeiss f1.5 Sonnar or its Japanese derviatives.

The new J-3 looks to be superior to the original J-3 construction wise, and a new fast 50mm in LTM selling for $650 is not outrageous in this day and age.

In 1951 the Nikkor 5cm f1.4 in LTM sold for around 200 dollars which would be around 1800 dollars today.

The new J-3 would cost 71.30 in 1951 dollars, a real bargain then.
__________________
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2016   #76
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikos72 View Post
The bet is if it is worthy of 599euros for what it gives. Personally I'd rather spend double that amount for a well reputed proven quality lens than buy anything from the masters of plagiarism.
haha, yes how dare those Russians steal anything from the country which invaded them! Twice!

Funny I don't hear the same critique of the American Space program, also "stolen" from Germany!

The only comparable CV lens is 760USD, and it is not brass, which is more expensive for sure. As you know, Leica eliminated the brass top plate on the 262.

I think it's fine to think "i don't want to spent the money", on any lens. I don't want to spend the money on a 50 APO. But I don't trash Leica for making the thing.

Why do people dislike Lomography?
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2016   #77
Paul T.
Registered User
 
Paul T.'s Avatar
 
Paul T. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,846
It's great they're doing this - good luck to them. And of course that's a competitive price for a well-calibrated lens, which you can surely return if it doesn't work properly.

I know many of us, myself more than many, are committed bottom-feeders who focus on used gear, but even the most dimwitted should surely understand that new gear has to be produced, if we're to buy it used!
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2016   #78
jkjod
Registered User
 
jkjod's Avatar
 
jkjod is offline
Join Date: May 2013
Age: 32
Posts: 227
I had the ZM 50/1.5, I loved that lens. One of the main reasons I sold it was because of the 1m minimum focusing distance. If I were in the market for a fast 50, this would probably be it - if (and thats a for sure "if" as of right now) it performs close to the ZM I think its worth it as its brand new. I just hope there are enough made to show up on the used market at some point.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2016   #79
goamules
Registered User
 
goamules is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,601
I think they've made a good choice in the next re issue lens. The Petzval was just a lot of hype, and isn't even a Petzval design, they basically lie a lot in their ads. On this new J-3, one reads, "First developed in Soviet Russia in the late 1940’s, the original Jupiter lens was crafted by the optical pioneers at the Zenit factory." No, it wasn't developed by the Soviets at all, it was manufactured using the Zeiss blueprints, glass, and factory tooling. And it wasn't Zenit back then, it was KMZ. But I bet they're making a fine J-3 this go round.

http://www.cryptomuseum.com/manuf/kmz/index.htm

On pricing, remember that when things are first released, they are very expensive. The seller cashes in on the hype and those that must have new. Then the price comes down incrementally the next few years. Witness Fuji X-Pros and lenses, the Lomo Petzval (which started at $750 and now sells for about $400), etc.
__________________
Garrett

My Flickr Photos
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2016   #80
gb hill
Registered User
 
gb hill's Avatar
 
gb hill is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: North Carolina
Age: 57
Posts: 5,784
Wow! I wonder what I can get for my 63 J-3 that Brian helped me calibrate?
__________________
Greg
flickr
instagram
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 17:47.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.