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 02-16-2016   #281
valdas
Registered User
 
valdas is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
1/ "Glass is very nice". What exactly does that mean? Perfect like new, or only a few scratches?
2/ No place in the US where we can get service like that for that little money!
3/ You still are not getting the same lens, no matter how nice a used one is. The build is different as is the coatings on the glass.
1) it means no scratches and very minor cleaning marks that will not affect the picture;
2) sure, labor cost in Eastern Europe is still much cheaper, so of course it depends on your location;
3) no, but I get the same "legendary" character that is so much advertised and is the main reason of this hype...
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-16-2016   #282
valdas
Registered User
 
valdas is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by photomoof View Post
I can hardly get a cab for 20 to 30€ where I live.

You are lucky if it is a good repairman, impossible price here, even 25 years ago. With the euro almost at parity with the dollar, maybe when it falls below parity?
Yes, I guess that's one of the advantages of living in Eastern Europe - qualified labor is still not expensive. And this is the best place in Vilnius (or the only left for the analogue cameras). They CLA'ed many of my lenses...
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-16-2016   #283
valdas
Registered User
 
valdas is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by photomoof View Post
Still, 20 euros is a depressing thought, anywhere in Europe.
yes, agree. but based on my experience with them, since they said 20-30 EUR I know I will end up paying 30 if that makes you less depressed...
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-16-2016   #284
Archlich
Registered User
 
Archlich is offline
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,299
I find it bizzare that people keep condemning a brand new lens with warranty being more expensive than used ones. Not to mention the shimming, the new brass barrel and 0.7m close focus.

Guess to please the RFFers they really should use another brand other than Lomography, of which the name seems to equal the original sin for some.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-16-2016   #285
rfaspen
Registered User
 
rfaspen's Avatar
 
rfaspen is offline
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Corvallis, OR
Posts: 1,683
Thanks for the test images Jan. I'm glad you grabbed one of these new lenses. Yes, the series of images are similar from the older 1953 lens and the new one (including the change in contrast from wide open to stopped down), but folks should keep in mind your '53 is a particularly nice example and has been shimmed for optimum focus; and perhaps Brian brought it up to the correct Leica focal length (51.6mm)?

By the way, I have your 1957 J3 and I rather like it. Thanks! Someday, it might be nice to meet up in the Portland area next time I'm up there. I would like to see this new J3+ in person.

I noticed Brian L. grabbed one of these new J3+ lenses and it appears he loves it. The lens is natively the correct focal length for Leica. It has a substantial brass (chromed) mount/barrel. It has new multi-coating with modern coating formulas. And, its built with much higher tolerances and quality than most of the old J3's. If you read what Brian has to say about it (and he is perhaps most qualified to offer opinion on these), the lens is not overpriced and is, in fact, a "quality item".

He suggests we pretend the lens is made and offered by Nikon, Cosina, or Canon. Its of that level of manufacture and even comes with a 2-year warranty. 14-day money back return.

I recommend reading what Brian has to say over at that other Leica-heavy forum. Its a featured post/article. And in fact, Lomography was so concerned about Brian's opinion on these new lenses, they sent him his lens via overnight shipping and asked to interview him to see what his experience/opinions are.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-16-2016   #286
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by valdas View Post
1) it means no scratches and very minor cleaning marks that will not affect the picture.
There you have it. A lens with "cleaning marks" is compared to a new one..

FYI cleaning marks are scratches. it's just a nice spin on it.

This is why people buy new lenses.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-16-2016   #287
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotohuis View Post
You can do the same with a new lens when just doing the cleaning wrong. The biggest improvement should be the modern coating. So in front light I would like to see an example.
But I keep my point of view: A right price tag for this lens should be around Eur. 400,- not Eur. 600,-
And what should the right price tag be for the Cosina Voigtlander Sonnar 50mm 1.5? In the US it is $1200 vs $649 for the Jupiter.

Just so we have a comparison.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-16-2016   #288
ulrich.von.lich
Registered User
 
ulrich.von.lich is offline
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Algiers, Algeria
Posts: 271
Fotohuit, are you sure in Holland you only pay the double (i.e. 4 times the Ukranian price) ? Which would mean 60€ for lenses and 120€ for cameras? That still sounds too cheap. I can't find the tariffs of Will van Manen but I remember the return postage alone costs 60€ or so. In France, a lens CLA costs 150€, recoating costs about 80€ for each element, no idea about collimation but it doesn't sound cheap. Not to mention the fact Photo Suffren, a supposedly good Parisian repair shop, once messed up one lens of mine, and I still had to pay half the price which was 75€, for nothing. Not only I went out of the store forever, I have never sent anything to service ever since.

Like many, I have a strong preference for new lenses. It's simply unfair to compare a used lens, as mint as it could be (which is rarely the case), to a new lens.

By the way, all other options cost more in France. Nokton 50/1.5 sells for 649€ in aluminium, 789€ in brass; Zeiss 50/1.5 sells for 979€ in both colours.

Feel free to verify yourself on the website of one of the best online stores in France :

http://www.lapetiteboutiquephoto.com...lg=lg_fr&num=3
http://www.lapetiteboutiquephoto.com...lg=lg_fr&num=4
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-16-2016   #289
valdas
Registered User
 
valdas is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
There you have it. A lens with "cleaning marks" is compared to a new one..

FYI cleaning marks are scratches. it's just a nice spin on it.

This is why people buy new lenses.
I agree, but those are so faint that I have to inspect really carefully to notice them. And this will never ever affect the image. This is why people buy used lenses...
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-16-2016   #290
nukecoke
⚛Yashica
 
nukecoke's Avatar
 
nukecoke is offline
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Sweden/China
Posts: 1,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan Pedersen View Post
Sorry about the late response, i missed the thread.
Object distance was real close to min focus distance for the lens, maybe 0.85m
The Owl is about 13 - 14" tall.
Contrast pretty low and not much different than the original J3 but i still need to do a direct comparison.
Thanks for the real life sample shots! They look very J3ish.
__________________
tumblr

flickr(abandoned)

About Film Cameras
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-16-2016   #291
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotohuis View Post

So what are we talking about.

How much do you think the Sonnar 1.5 ZM should cost? In the US it is double that of the Jupiter

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotohuis View Post

ps. In Holland the C.V. lens is even cheaper:
http://www.fotokinolinders.com/produ...oducts_id=2408

Then I withdraw the Dutch 21% VAT: Netto Eur. 495,00. I think a much better deal then Lomography.
If you live in Holland how do you avoid paying the Dutch VAT?

Also, perhaps most importantly that some have conveniently forgotten about, that CV lens, as well as every other new M mount lens, cannot be used on an LTM camera.

The Jupiter is a NEW lens that can be used on an LTM camera as well as M (and any other mirrorless) camera. No-one else offers that option, at any price.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-16-2016   #292
Monochrom
Registered User
 
Monochrom's Avatar
 
Monochrom is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,043
Wow thanks for posting!!!

Impresive

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan Pedersen View Post
Too busy at work this week to do anything worthwhile with the new J3+ but, my loyal Owl was sitting there at my patio so I thought I should upload a few from the M246.
Shot in DNG and converted to Jpeg in Lightroom and resized in Photoshop. No other manipulation.
First at f1.5 then f2.0, f2.8, f4 and f5.6

If light and weather permits I will run another quick test and compare my 53 J3 sometime this weekend.


L1002389 by JLP1954, on Flickr


L1002390 by JLP1954, on Flickr


L1002391 by JLP1954, on Flickr


L1002392 by JLP1954, on Flickr


L1002393 by JLP1954, on Flickr
__________________
M9 Vc 28/3.5 Ltm 5/3.5
Leica IIIF Black Paint
Fuji Gf670
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-16-2016   #293
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotohuis View Post
It is very simple, I have a photographic company so all products related to this are free of VAT.
Dood.

You have to admit that your pricing then has nothing to do with the avg customer's pricing. We're talking retail pricing.
And the J3+ would not need to be reshimmed on a decent LTM camera like a Leica Barnack...
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-16-2016   #294
Robert Lai
Registered User
 
Robert Lai is offline
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,637
No lens is for everybody.
I happen to want new, because I've had too many bad experiences with Soviet era lenses. This new one is an excellent lens optically and mechanically. I knew the cost up front, but that's behind me now. I just use it.

If others are happy to reshim and CLA Soviet era lenses, then so be it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-16-2016   #295
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,810
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Lai View Post
No lens is for everybody.
I happen to want new, because I've had too many bad experiences with Soviet era lenses. This new one is an excellent lens optically and mechanically. I knew the cost up front, but that's behind me now. I just use it.

If others are happy to reshim and CLA Soviet era lenses, then so be it.
Exactly. It's a wonderful option to have. Why it's controversial I don't have a clue, except possibly some of the acolytes of the J3 are fixated on great super cheap lenses, which once upon a time the J3 was. It's not cheap any more at all since they are 150-200 bucks and there are so many copy issues. Those who really know the lens well and have seen many copies all agree on this, and are happy to see the J3+

The re-issue of this lens in brass with good coatings and calibration is unexpected and something really nice.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-16-2016   #296
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
 
Dante_Stella's Avatar
 
Dante_Stella is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,761
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
There you have it. A lens with "cleaning marks" is compared to a new one..

FYI cleaning marks are scratches. it's just a nice spin on it.

This is why people buy new lenses.
Which is really funny. Take a 60-year old lens with a couple of marks on the glass that are mainly (or completely of psychosomatic significance). Compare its cosmetic and functional condition to that of the 60-year-old complaining about the marks.

Sure, cleaning marks are scratches. But if they are not severe enough to have a real-world effect, it should not be surprising that some people don't want to pay 4x as much money for a lens without. Some lenses have rough grinds on inside elements right from the time of manufacture. On some lenses, glass defects are inevitable - like the idiopathic pinpoint "nicks" that occur when a pore in the coating (present since the factory) allows moisture to come in, corrode the glass, and cause it to "pop." Or bubbles in optical glass.

Modern coatings are fantastic as far as durability - cleaning marks on a modern lens might be a sign of abuse; marks on a really old one with soft coatings are an artifact of being used. Remember, it was conventional to use tissue paper to clean lenses until relatively recently. Today wood products are verboten for that.

D
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-16-2016   #297
bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
 
bobby_novatron's Avatar
 
bobby_novatron is offline
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: the Great White North (Canada)
Age: 49
Posts: 1,237
Got mine today, I have to say (like others have stated) I'm quite impressed with the build quality. It seems like a very well-made product. The lens is compact but has a definite heft. It feels much more substantial than the original J-3.

The focus throw and aperture ring are velvety smooth when turned. The chrome-plated brass housing is nicely done. The entire lens reminds me of classic lenses of the 1950's and 1960's, an era when lenses were manufactured with dense alloys and fine machining. Small annoyance: the aperture numbers are small and difficult to read in low light.

FWIW the Lomo-designed packaging is OK. The outer hardshell box is nicely done, but the inner packing could be a little better. The lens and accessories sit in different spots on coloured cardstock paper. It doesn't seem substantial enough for a high quality hand-made optical instrument, especially for the price.

Another disappointment: the included booklets are not particularly well-written. Considering the long history of KMZ, I would have liked more background into KMZ and the history of the Sonnar / J-3 ... something more than the watered-down bullet points they cut-and-pasted from "sovietcams.com".

There's a lot of congratulatory text about how the new Jupiter-3+ will open new creative vistas for you, etc. etc., and a lot of blather about "what the hell is Lomography?" My thoughts are "who the hell wrote these books?" I guess even Lomography must hire low-paid and hungry interns to write product inserts.

Back to the lens: the multicoated optics are evident from inspecting the glass -- there are definite differences regarding the coatings on the J-3+ compared to the original. The new J-3+ elements show strong magenta / blue / purple glints, whereas the original J-3 glass was much more subdued. I won't know how this impacts the image quality until I get a chance to shoot some A/B tests with my original J-3 (I still have a 1960's J-3 in Contax/Kiev mount).

I shot a few sample images earlier today. Image quality of the new J3+ is very strongly reminiscent of the original Jupiter-3, although from my cursory test this afternoon I'd say the contrast is a bit higher and the new version is a bit sharper than the old Jupiter-3. Out-of-focus areas have that typical quirky squashed spheroid look that many FSU lenses have. But you definitely can't accuse this lens of not having character!

I'll post some comparison shots between the new J-3+ and the original J-3 soon.
__________________
my Flickr:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bobby_novatron
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-17-2016   #298
alexandru_voicu
Registered User
 
alexandru_voicu is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Posts: 111
What about the build quality between the C-Sonnar and the new J-3, did anyone have the chance the compare them side by side? I have the C-Sonnar but, as an admirer Jupiter lenses, I must admit I'm seriously thinking about the new J-3. Does the J-3 exhibit the same focus shift, for what aperture is focus optimized?

Many thanks.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-17-2016   #299
RichardPhoto
Registered User
 
RichardPhoto is offline
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 54
Wow! £500 in the UK!

I remember buying a Lomo LC-A (and also buying into the lomo scene) briefly as a naive youngster in the 90s. I did the whole cross-process cliche (well, probably not a cliche back then) before the camera broke. Sold it for the same over priced sum on eBay to someone was happy to have it as the broken stuff was 'part of the Lomo charm/mystique'. I'm constantly surprised all these years later that Lomo is still making a business churning out over priced hispter snake-oil.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-17-2016   #300
goamules
Registered User
 
goamules is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,807
Yeah, us too. It's good they finally contracted with an actual experienced lens maker, and offered a serious lens in the J-3. Instead of all that plastic hipster junk.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-17-2016   #301
goamules
Registered User
 
goamules is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,807
Here is a comparison by Brian to a Zeiss, and a vintage J-3. Not sure if this was linked to before: http://www.lomography.com/magazine/3...-brian-sweeney

Looking at his big version comparisons, the main difference I see is what I always liked about the vintage J-3s, the warmer colors than any other Sonnar type that I've used. The new one otherwise looks very close to the old, and to the Zeiss original. https://www.flickr.com/photos/907686...57664046010901
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-17-2016   #302
bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
 
bobby_novatron's Avatar
 
bobby_novatron is offline
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: the Great White North (Canada)
Age: 49
Posts: 1,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by goamules View Post
Here is a comparison by Brian to a Zeiss, and a vintage J-3. Not sure if this was linked to before: http://www.lomography.com/magazine/3...-brian-sweeney
Now THAT'S the kind of info I would have liked to read about in the Lomo booklets with the new J-3+!!! Thanks for posting that link, great reading.
__________________
my Flickr:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bobby_novatron
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-17-2016   #303
goamules
Registered User
 
goamules is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,807
I bet the Lomo background with their marketing to starry eyed posers and hipsters was so successful, they didn't realize this J-3 will be for a more serious photographer buyer. It worked for them with their other stuff, including the so-called Petzval, so they don't want to mess with what's working. But they will miss a lot of mature, experienced people in their advertising and box materials.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-17-2016   #304
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by goamules View Post
I bet the Lomo background with their marketing to starry eyed posers and hipsters was so successful, they didn't realize this J-3 will be for a more serious photographer buyer. It worked for them with their other stuff, including the so-called Petzval, so they don't want to mess with what's working. But they will miss a lot of mature, experienced people in their advertising and box materials.
I don't think so. Mature experienced people can see through the marketing spin. Whether it is from Canikon, Sony, Fuji, Olympus or even Lomo!

The J3 had a justified reputation of being a really decent hunk of glass if you could get a good one. Now with the J3+ all that guess work has been removed.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-17-2016   #305
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is online now
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 30,754
Today at B&H: You Pay: $799.00
__________________
- Raid

________________


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

Old 02-17-2016   #306
Brian Legge
Registered User
 
Brian Legge is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 2,685
Quote:
And I doubt that somebody who has a Leica 4-2 or earlier would fit this LTM lens on the camera because a M-bayonet is much better and easier then.
The some Summicron 35mm v1s were LTM and included an adapter. Are those less desirable than the native M mount versions? As long as this lens comes with an adapter and it focuses down to 0.7m, why is an LTM native a big deal?
__________________
Shooting whatever I can get my hands on.
Recent Work
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-17-2016   #307
bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
 
bobby_novatron's Avatar
 
bobby_novatron is offline
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: the Great White North (Canada)
Age: 49
Posts: 1,237
I know the booklets aren't the point of the product, but they are part of the 'scope of delivery'. Plus, the cost of producing the booklets is a component (however small) of the overall price.

It's too bad about the text, because the layout and graphic design of the booklets are quite attractive.

The red booklet ("Lomography / Zenit: the Russian Rebirth") is fun to browse through. It's about 97 pages in length. But the first 79 pages are all filled with Lomo's self-congratulatory artsy silliness. Finally, on page 80 there's a brief history of KMZ that lasts 13 pages.

The grey booklet ("New Jupiter 3+ Manual") is very basic, with common-sense instructions like "do not look at the sun through the lens" and "do not try to disassemble the lens" printed in eleven languages.

The turqouise booklet is the thickest of the three books. As others have mentioned, it's kind of a micro-sized coffee table book showcasing the abilities of the J-3+. Again, it's fun to browse through. There are lots of interesting photos.

On pages 78-79 there is a brief history of the Jupiter-3 -- literally cut-and-pasted from sovietcams.com (they credit the website as a source). Two whole pages! I'm glad they didn't burden the purchaser with a fascinating retrospective of 70 years of KMZ's rich history. Those pages are much better utilized for cross-processed photos of cats, and dreamy pictures of macaroons.

On page 83 there is IMHO a very odd and erroneous reference to the the planet Jupiter: "While it's true the the largest planet in our great Milk Way galaxy can easily be spotted with the naked eye..." Sorry to disappoint you Lomography, but a quick Google search reveals that there are 122 exoplanets (as of 2016) that are larger than Jupiter. Many of them are considerably larger. Later on the text switches 'Milk Way' for 'solar system', leading me to think that the author either was not a native English speaker or he/she has a terribly shallow understanding of the cosmos.

Despite the somewhat sophomoric booklets, I'd say overall I'm happy with the J-3+. Having previously owned the ZM C-Sonnar 50/1.5 (a lens I never warmed up to) I'd choose the J-3+ over the Zeiss. The J-3+ unashamedly embraces its quirky character. Plus, if you're counting shekels, the Zeiss is about twice the price of the new J-3+ (the Zeiss is $1200 USD at B&H as of this writing).

So is it a lens for everyone? Not at all. Many people will still consider the J-3+ to be overpriced for what it is. But as a unique photographic tool, it's well worth considering when compared to other similar offerings.
__________________
my Flickr:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bobby_novatron
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-17-2016   #308
coelacanth
Ride, dive, shoot.
 
coelacanth's Avatar
 
coelacanth is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 3,476
I am not into lomography/toy camera type of stuff at all, but this lens has a very unique combination of things that I think resonates well with some (or many) people on RFF including myself. Sonnar design LTM compatible (of course that means it can be mounted on M and virtually all mirrorless systems out there) 0.7m min focus compact fast lens made of brass with modern coating.

It's easy to dismiss it as a overpriced-hipsta-yuppie-toy for $5 coffee drinkers in SF or NYC or Tokyo, but really? I think you just might be missing something good and yummy by judging it by its cover and label.
__________________
- Sug

b/w guy.

flickr | Instagram

  Reply With Quote

Old 02-17-2016   #309
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,810
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexandru_voicu View Post
What about the build quality between the C-Sonnar and the new J-3, did anyone have the chance the compare them side by side? I have the C-Sonnar but, as an admirer Jupiter lenses, I must admit I'm seriously thinking about the new J-3. Does the J-3 exhibit the same focus shift, for what aperture is focus optimized?

Many thanks.
It's apparently right on the money with M9 wide open. It's made of brass, if anything the build should be superior to the Cosina ZM, which is a light construction in comparison: though perfectly fine of course.

"The focus is accurate across range on my M9." Brian, from here:
https://www.leicaplace.com/threads/j...mography.1443/

Another selling point: this lens will close focus to .7 meter.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-17-2016   #310
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by raid View Post
Today at B&H: You Pay: $799.00

For the Nokton 1.5
And $1201 for the CV ZM 1.5

Neither of which are a new LTM lens.

If you don't care about LTM then yes, perhaps one would want the Nokton for $150 more, but that depends on the rendering you are going for. modern vs old.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-17-2016   #311
bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
 
bobby_novatron's Avatar
 
bobby_novatron is offline
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: the Great White North (Canada)
Age: 49
Posts: 1,237
FWIW I did a comparison of 4 fast 50's including the new Jupiter-3+. The images can be found here:

http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/s...34#post2585034

I compared the original J-3, the new J-3+, the Opton Sonnar, and the Nokton ASPH.

Not a scientific test by any means but it might be helpful to some people.
__________________
my Flickr:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bobby_novatron
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-17-2016   #312
fer_fdi
Registered User
 
fer_fdi's Avatar
 
fer_fdi is offline
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Barcelona & Empordà, Spain
Posts: 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by valdas View Post
I bought J3 a week ago and paid 120€. Glass is very nice, only focusing is stiff. So I asked for CLA and collimation to fit my M cameras. It will cost me 20-30€. That is in Lithuania. So 150€ in total. I don't see any reason why I would ever pay 600€.
I think part of FSU lenses is what you get (a lot!) for little money.
If you make them expensive but with the same performance it's not very interesting anymore, imho.
I have a very very good 1955 KMZ Jupiter-8 that was $70, that's great.
Same lens for $300, not so. I'd buy something else for that money, maybe a Voigtlander or a Canon.
For 600 Euro I'd buy an "as new" ZM lens, not the J-3+, sorry.
And for J-3 character, I'd buy an original J-3, which is already expensive for $200, but with patience you may find a good one.

But of course, that's just how I see it.
I understand and respect other's POV
__________________
~
Fer
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-17-2016   #313
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,810
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
For the Nokton 1.5
And $1201 for the CV ZM 1.5

Neither of which are a new LTM lens.

If you don't care about LTM then yes, perhaps one would want the Nokton for $150 more, but that depends on the rendering you are going for. modern vs old.
Yes, the comparisons in price with the Nokton are silly anyway, because it's a totally different lens, basically a pre-asph 50 Lux, which is wonderful of course, and was the design which supplanted the Sonnars. But the Sonnars look different, and if you can't see that or don't care you don't consider this lens anyway.

And if you live in eastern Europe, you can see many old J3s and test each, plus 600USD is much money there. In America sorting through J3s is a greater pain, and returning the bad ones a nightmare. I don't even buy Russian lenses any more for this reason, I've seen enough copies with clean glass and terrible mechanics.

If the lens was priced at 450USD, they would probably triple sales, no doubt. But a new clean J3 with .7 CF, modern coatings, in brass with good calibration was simply unobtainable two months ago at any price.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-18-2016   #314
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is online now
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 30,754
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
For the Nokton 1.5
And $1201 for the CV ZM 1.5

Neither of which are a new LTM lens.

If you don't care about LTM then yes, perhaps one would want the Nokton for $150 more, but that depends on the rendering you are going for. modern vs old.
I have a ltm Nokton 50/1.5 and I have several Sonnar 5cm 1,5 J-3 and Zeiss lenses that Brain adjusted for me in the past.
__________________
- Raid

________________


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

Cat in a bag??
Old 02-19-2016   #315
Alberti
Registered User
 
Alberti's Avatar
 
Alberti is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Holland
Posts: 418
Cat in a bag??

Interesting pictures on the LOMO website: Some like the portraits and the concert show why this is a nice lens.
However, the cat in a bag has backfocus. Like my own J-3.
In Holland we talk about buying a 'cat in bag' when one gets less than expected. Like buying on the 'Bay.
I hope this lens is better than this picture and this proverb promis.
__________________
Nil camera, sed usus (after an emblematic text)
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-19-2016   #316
DominikDUK
Registered User
 
DominikDUK's Avatar
 
DominikDUK is offline
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 1,031
If you find a 50mm Sonnar without focus shift I'll be interested of hearing about it, because currently I am unaware of any such beast. Even the C-Sonnar has focus shift and it isn't even a true Sonnar. Also going after images on the LOMOgraphy website is always a bad idea.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-19-2016   #317
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by DominikDUK View Post
Also going after images on the LOMOgraphy website is always a bad idea.
Agreed, it is as if they deliberately make them lo-fi/blurry.

The books that came with my Horizon Perfekt and with my Minitar 32 are full of blurry images. But mine taken with the camera, and with that lens, are sharp and 'properly' exposed!
I guess they set the bar low, so the avg user is not disappointed by him/her not knowing how to focus/expose etc (unless that is the look they are going for..)
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-19-2016   #318
alexandru_voicu
Registered User
 
alexandru_voicu is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Posts: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by DominikDUK View Post
If you find a 50mm Sonnar without focus shift I'll be interested of hearing about it, because currently I am unaware of any such beast. Even the C-Sonnar has focus shift and it isn't even a true Sonnar. Also going after images on the LOMOgraphy website is always a bad idea.
Why isn't the C-Sonnar a true Sonnar?
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-19-2016   #319
ferider
Registered User
 
ferider's Avatar
 
ferider is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 11,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexandru_voicu View Post
Why isn't the C-Sonnar a true Sonnar?
Because it's missing an element.

Then again: Sonnar is a Zeiss trademark, they can call anything Sonnar they want.

Roland.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-19-2016   #320
DominikDUK
Registered User
 
DominikDUK's Avatar
 
DominikDUK is offline
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 1,031
The C-Sonnar is a 6/4 (Ernostar) construction a nice lens but not a Sonnar in fact it predates the Sonnar one could say it is the Sonnars direct predecessor. They are very close though they also share the same designer
  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 13:27.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.