PDA

View Full Version : Jupiter 3 vs. Jupiter 8


lars
09-08-2003, 21:26
Aside from the f-stop diff. btwn these two 50mm lenses, what other differences are there? If I want to buy one for my Bessa R, which would be the best choice?

I notice that at fedka.com, the J3 seems to cost more than the J8.


...lars

sobarel
09-09-2003, 01:58
They're both the same basic design, it's just that the J-3 is faster. It's quite soft wide open, but this can be quite a pleasing effect... I have heard of more problems with the J-3 though - both my J-3s have slight imperfections and faults, although they're both usable. Having said that, if you're planning to buy from Fedka you shouldn't have any such issues. An alternative if you're looking for a fast 50 would be the Voigtlander 50/1.5, or possibly the Canon 50/1.4 if you can find one.

Oh, and hi to everyone on the forum from a new member by the way!

NVARon
09-09-2003, 02:10
The Zeiss Sonnars 50/1.5 (both Jena and Opton-Carl Zeiss) are not that expensive either and I believe most if not all post-war ones are coated as are most Jupiters I believe, although none is as inexpensive as the Jupiters. Also the Canon 50/1.8 is an inexpensive lens.

scoop
09-09-2003, 15:44
The Jupiter-3's have a reputation for wide variations in lens quality. Some will focus well on a Leica, some well on a Russian LSM camera, and many just don't focus well at all. It is a real gamble to buy a Jupiter-3 and my own experience is that one has less than an even chance of getting a useable one. This is true of both the M39 and Contax mounts.

The Jupiter-8's seem much better and more consistent in build quality and chances are in your favor of getting quite a sharp, useable lens. Folklore is that the silver ones from the 1950's are the best but these often have petrified lubricant in focus helix which can require cleaning and replacement. There are at least three different mount designs on the J-8; two of these come apart easily for cleaning, the third requires removal of several tiny screws which can be difficult to remove.

I've been happy with the more modern black bodied J-8, a very sharp lens, even wide open. These usually have an aluminum body but I recent received one, manufactured in 2001, that has plastic arpeture and DOF rings.

lars
10-14-2003, 08:56
Well, I just bought a Jupiter 8 from Alex-photo on eBay. Hopefully the non-clickable aperture ring isn't going to be a huge annoyance. I'm not positive that a 50mm will be a lens that I use much (I already have the CV35/2.5 and CV75/2.5) so this will give me a very affordable way to try that focal length.

Now I just have to wait a week or two for the lens to arrive.

lars

pshinkaw
10-14-2003, 11:14
The 50mm Jupiter-3 and Jupiter-8 are both copies of Zeiss Sonnar lenses, but they are not exactly the same design. The Jupiter-3 is a 7 element/3 group lens (Zeiss 50/1.5 Sonnar )while the Jupiter-8 is a 6 element/3 group lens (Zeiss 50/2.0 Sonnar).

http://www.commiecameras.com/sov/35mmrangefindercameras/lenses/index.htm

http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~hd9f-segs/russian-lc-lens.htm

The Zeiss Sonnar 50/1.5 was made in a 39mm Leica thread mount while I'm not sure if the Zeiss Sonnar 50/2.0 was ever made for the Leica mount. It was original equipment on the Contax rangefinder. It was certainly copied many times however for the Leica.

http://www60.tok2.com/home/collector/5015snr.html http://www.davidde.com/articles/zeisscopies.html

My own experience with 7 different Jupiter-8's on screw mount and Contax mount cameras is that they are excellent lenses. I have never tried out the Sonnar 1.5 or any of its clones.

-Paul

lars
10-14-2003, 12:04
When I get the lens, I'm going to shoot half a roll of colour slide film, and then transfer the film to my Minolta Maxxum 7 and finish the roll using the Maxxum 50/1.7 lens which is a well regarded lens.

It'll be interesting to compare the bokeh, contrast, and sharpness.

...lars

taffer
10-14-2003, 14:40
Hi Lars,

I've taken a look to your PAW pages, and doing a bit of google search, I ended on Kyle Cassidy's page.

Very interesting project... I'm afraid I can't follow exactly the rules (I can't develope film myself so a roll each week would be a bit expensive) but I'll try to adequate it to a monthly project, choosing pictures for each week and uploading them once a month...

Unfortunately, cannot speak about J-3, but I'm very satisfied with my J-8, that together with the Zorki 3M is the outfit I'll carry tomorrow to see if I can follow my own PAW...

lars
10-14-2003, 14:59
Originally posted by taffer
Very interesting project... I'm afraid I can't follow exactly the rules (I can't develope film myself so a roll each week would be a bit expensive) but I'll try to adequate it to a monthly project, choosing pictures for each week and uploading them once a month...

I think most people who have PAW pages don't keep them up to date on a weekly basis. I certainly don't and I do have a darkroom. Lack of time is the main problem. I usually update my pages every 3 weeks. As long as you're regularly shooting for the sake of photography (as opposed to, say, recording family events) on a regular basis, then I think you are being true to the purpose behind PAW pages.


Unfortunately, cannot speak about J-3, but I'm very satisfied with my J-8, that together with the Zorki 3M is the outfit I'll carry tomorrow to see if I can follow my own PAW...

Well, I hope I'm happy with the J-8 when it arrives. If it turns out that a 50mm perspective is very useful for me, then I can consider a 50/1.5 Nokton.



lars

Duncan Ross
04-06-2004, 02:53
I used the J8M and the J3 side-by-side for some time and decided that I prefered the J8M. A painful decision as the J3 cost so much more (in fact cost more than my camera) - I felt almost compelled to use the thing.

The difference was small and the J8M needs to be above f4 but the sharpness and contrast was always a shade higher than with the J3; however both lenses are excellent. Also setting the aperture on the J3 is a pain.

If you are looking for an L39 mount lens you should seriously consider the Industar 61L/D, it is my favourite 50mm lens bar none (and I have an SMC Takumar f1.4). I curse the swines for not releasing it in Contax/Kiev mount! They cost almost nothing including the standard rear lens cap (a Fed 3) and are probably the best soviet standard lenses ever made.

mothra
04-06-2004, 05:14
The Fed 3 really is just a big rear lens cap, isn't it? Hahaha.

rover
04-06-2004, 07:29
An Industar 61 L/D 1995 is on its way to my house, $13 buy-it-now and $12 shipping. Silly cheap. I have to say though that I hope they skip sending me the Fed 3, I am running out of room to put cameras.

iMacfan
04-06-2004, 08:15
Originally posted by scoop
... I recent received one, manufactured in 2001...

Hi, do you then know where you can buy new russian LTM stuff?

Thanks,

David

rover
04-06-2004, 11:19
The first 2 numbers of the serial number indicate the year of manufacture. Thus the one I just picked up is 95xxxxx. Many of the sellers on ebay include this information in their description of Russian photo equipment as this is common info. I have had luck (fingers crossed) dealing on ebay so I don't see it as a great risk, though I always check seller's feedback to see what items they sell and what the specific comments are from their buyers.

taffer
04-06-2004, 12:54
Rover, I have some pictures taken with an Industar 26M (which could be considered the Industar 61 little brother) and in my opinion they are the sharpest ones I've got using Russian glass... That shouldn't be that way, considering there are Jupiter-8s and Helios 103s involved... but that's what I see...

So the 61 L/D sounds really interesting... I recognize I've been looking at a Fed3 w/I61LD from alex-photo, but you know, this race has no finish line, so there will be time...

What I'm really looking for is the yellow postal office receipt in my mailbox telling me that my 'new' Kiev II is finally here :D

But please, remember that we really want to read your experiences with that lens, and who knows, you may even like that Fed3. After all, once painted black it doesn't look that ugly anymore... don't leave it sitting in a closet, she would never do that... :)

http://www.geocities.com/fzorkis/black.html

Even though it still looks too tall for my taste...

Best !

Oscar

pshinkaw
04-06-2004, 14:03
In my experience a good I-26m produces images with very similar qualities to a CZJ Tessar. I really can't distinguish between my Exakta/Exa pictures and the I-26m.

A good I-61L/D on the other hand seems to have a bit more contrast which translates into sharper looking pictures.

The photo here of the Fireman Statue was done with a Fed-2d and I-26m while the photo of the power plant was done with a Fed-5B and an I-61L/D.

-Paul

pshinkaw
04-06-2004, 14:05
This is the I-61L/D photo:

rover
04-06-2004, 16:17
I actually have a J-8 which gets very little exersize. I just cannot get used to it, though I am very happy with the results I have gotten with it. I guess it is my fault then, because the tool obviously works, the user is the one who has issues. I would like to find an LTM 50mm that I can use regularly, and then hopefully some day I will be able to get an M mount body and make an M 50 the cornerstone of my RF photography. I actully am not getting a body with the I 61, so there will be no lonely bodies hanging around. The Canon lenses I have been watching have all gone for too much $ in my eyes, so much so that I would rather get a new CV Nokton. The I 61 was too much of a bargin not to give it a try. I have been looking at Zorki and Fed bodies though, who knows what will happen. I think this weekend I will give the J 8 some more use. Maybe this old dog can learn a new trick with a little practice.

MikeinDayton
04-06-2004, 18:52
All very interesting... My most recent purchase is a Kiev 4 w/ Jupiter 8 lens. Despite the fact that the lens has such a huge dent in the rear edge that it appears to have been thrown from the top of a high building, the glass is nearly perfect. It is extremely sharp, with good contrast. The value of some of these Russian cameras is amazing.

Duncan Ross
04-07-2004, 05:21
Maybe it improved it! Seriously, the globally accepted way of fixing a Lomo LCA with a jammed shutter is to roll it down the stairs!

pvdhaar
04-08-2004, 03:31
Originally posted by pshinkaw
In my experience a good I-26m produces images with very similar qualities to a CZJ Tessar ...
The photo here of the Fireman Statue was done with a Fed-2d and I-26m ...

That fireman picture reminds me of the Minox 35gte I had (also a tessar construction) at smaller apertures. Incredible detail, though a little 'cold'. Never could get used to focussing by guesstimation though, but that's another topic I guess..

Dingo
04-08-2004, 04:17
I guess my tests would provide more information for this discussion :

http://www.pbase.com/dingolee

Dingo

taffer
04-09-2004, 02:49
Thanks a lot for the link Dingo ! I really enjoyed a lot playing your Jupiter-3 vs. Nokton game :)

Dingo
04-10-2004, 08:42
Taffer,

Anytime. :^)