Comparison between Jupiter-3 and C-Sonnar ZM 50

hyun5suk

hyun5suk

Member
Local time
2:23 PM
Joined
Jul 26, 2007
Messages
23
View My Gallery
I made comparison between Jupiter-3 and C-Sonnar ZM 50.
I used same camera(R2a) and I shoted with one lens and changed lens.
I set same F/numbers, and used AE(but almost same exposure time)

The first one is by Jupiter-3 and the second is by C-Sonnar ZM50.

How do you think about these pictures?
 
Last edited:
It's difficult to compare these shots for a few reasons:

1) a tripod wasn't used, so the camera position is slightly different between the lenses
2) some of the jpegs are more compressed than others. For example, in the ones labeled 009, the ZM photo is far more compressed than the J3 shot. (edit: this is fixed now)
3) The focus point doesn't seem to be the same in every shot. For example, in 009 the J3 is focused on the back wall while the C-Sonnar is focused on the tree.
4) Photos 011 doesn't seem to be at the same aperture for both lenses, either that or the C-sonnar was very misfocused.

With that said:

The C-Sonnar seems to flare differently (see 004).

The J-3 has a more yellow/warm cast to the colors (leaves in 010 for example, and any color shot really). This is similar to the results I got when I compared my CV40MC to a J-8.

Bokeh is VERY different in photos 014. The C-Sonnar again seems focused further away than the J-3.
 
Last edited:
I am very thanks for your comment.

--------------------------
It's difficult to compare these shots for a few reasons:

1) a tripod wasn't used, so the camera position is slightly different between the lenses
-> That's very true. I made shots in hand, but I tried to take same scene.

2) some of the jpegs are more compressed than others. For example, in the ones labeled 009, the ZM photo is far more compressed than the J3 shot.
-> I have no idea about that. All picture have taken same process.

3) The focus point doesn't seem to be the same in every shot. For example, in 009 the J3 is focused on the back wall while the C-Sonnar is focused on the tree.
-> I tried to focus same spot with two lens.

4) Photos 011 doesn't seem to be at the same aperture for both lenses, either that or the C-sonnar was very misfocused.
-> You are right, but I tried to focus same spot with same F/number. I am not sure. It can be because C-sonnar's focus shift ??


With that said:

The C-Sonnar seems to flare differently (see 004).

The J-3 has a more yellow/warm cast to the colors (leaves in 010 for example, and any color shot really). This is similar to the results I got when I compared my CV40MC to a J-8.
-> You are right, I also feel that.

Bokeh is VERY different in photos 014. The C-Sonnar again seems focused further away than the J-3.
-> Again, I tried to focus same spot with two lens.
 
Last edited:
hyun5suk said:
I am very thanks for your comment.

2) some of the jpegs are more compressed than others. For example, in the ones labeled 009, the ZM photo is far more compressed than the J3 shot.
-> I have no idea about that. All picture have taken same process.
Click to expand...

Sorry, this was my fault. I've fixed it now and all the files are the correct ones.

By the way, I have a feeling that shots 014 were mislabeled. The current labeling has the J-3 with the cooler colors, which contradicts all the other color shots. Also, the C-Sonnar is focusing in front of the J-3 in all the other photos except for that one. There may be some sort of problem with either your LTM->M adapter (more likely) or your C-Sonnar.

In shots 009, were you focusing on the back wall or on the branches of the tree?
 
Last edited:
Contrast is lower on the Jupiter. This is to be expected when comparing a 50's lens to a modern one. Nice to see the bokeh is quite similar. There is nothing like a sonnar.
Do you find close-focus shift in both lenses?
For a better comparison, don't use AE. Especially for the night shots.
 
i think j3 held pretty good compared to zm in this test. i can see some improvements in contrast in zm but that is matter of taste. someone likes low someone high contrast. only thing which show more difference is focus - that should be checked more.
it would be nice if someone do real world test for that focus in zm - so many stories about it but everybody look at charts... anyway both are very nice - as laptoprob say - old sonnars, what else?
 
For me the differences seem small and the two lenses definitely have the Sonnar family look. A J-3 in good working condition remains a bargain for that very reason. You got to love that Sonnar look. If you have a J-3 it makes you wonder if you should trade up to the new Zeiss.

Bob
 
With the ZM you get the advantages of aperture click-stops, better coatings/color reproduction, and the possibility of buying a new lens guaranteed to have no scratches / dings / etc.
 
Sam N said:
With the ZM you get the advantages of aperture click-stops, better coatings/color reproduction, and the possibility of buying a new lens guaranteed to have no scratches / dings / etc.
Click to expand...

This is very true but at a cost of almost $900.00 difference for me. I don't use a 50mm much and I did get lucky first crack with the J-3 so for me it was worth it. I am not saying the they are equal in build quality or even in image quality, only that the J-3s are/were a relative bargain.

Bob
 
I will soon compare these two 50mm lenses in more detail. I may have four examples of the J3 available to me and two examples of the ZM. The J3 is not in the same cost group as the ZM, so a direct "which lens is better" comparison is not applicable. The ZM is a modern design lens that also costs much more than the typical $75-$125 for a clean J-3.
 
raid said:
I will soon compare these two 50mm lenses in more detail. I may have four examples of the J3 available to me and two examples of the ZM. The J3 is not in the same cost group as the ZM, so a direct "which lens is better" comparison is not applicable. The ZM is a modern design lens that also costs much more than the typical $75-$125 for a clean J-3.
Click to expand...

I would disagree that comparing them directly is not possible or desirable simply because the ZM cost far greater money. I think it is all the more reason to do direct a comparison as it would be interesting to see how far we may or may not have come in the lens world. I think a lot of folks would like to make up their own minds on weather or not the extra cash layout is worth it to them personally. I have no doubt that the ZM is superior but it is the cost to performance ratio that also factors into a decision to buy or not to by a lens.

Bob
 
Nikon Bob said:
I would disagree that comparing them directly is not possible or desirable simply because the ZM cost far greater money. I think it is all the more reason to do direct a comparison as it would be interesting to see how far we may or may not have come in the lens world. I think a lot of folks would like to make up their own minds on weather or not the extra cash layout is worth it to them personally. I have no doubt that the ZM is superior but it is the cost to performance ratio that also factors into a decision to buy or not to by a lens.

Bob
Click to expand...

Hi Bob,
I was thinking of my test when I said what I said above. The first test is to shoot into a scene where a bare light bulb is the "model". Vintage lenses cannot stand up to the modern lenses with multicoating and better flare control.

I do not own a single expensive RF lens, so I love my J-3.

Cheers.
 
raid said:
Hi Bob,
I was thinking of my test when I said what I said above. The first test is to shoot into a scene where a bare light bulb is the "model". Vintage lenses cannot stand up to the modern lenses with multicoating and better flare control.

I do not own a single expensive RF lens, so I love my J-3.

Cheers.
Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly agree that there are these differences but if you know what they are and can live with the performance for your use of the J-3 you can save a bunch. I find I just live with it and work around it when I can.

Bob
 
Me too, Bob. I avoid strong light sources and I favor portraits by the window or in the open shade of a porch.
 
Last edited:
Yes. The filenames are labeled too. The only exception are the last 2 images, which I think are reversed.

I'm still curious about the focusing anomalies. Was the LTM adapter too thin (causing backfocus) or was the Sonnar just front-focusing? Any input Hyun?
 
Sam N, I am very thank for your kind support and comment for this thread.

-----------
Yes. The filenames are labeled too. The only exception are the last 2 images, which I think are reversed.
-> Yes, You're right. The last 2 images are changed, that was my mistake,

I'm still curious about the focusing anomalies. Was the LTM adapter too thin (causing backfocus) or was the Sonnar just front-focusing? Any input Hyun?
-> Um. That is little complicated.
My j-3 is not orignal status. The first time I got this from e-bay, this lens show serious back focus.
So I recalibrationed this by adding shim thickness according to Brian Sweeney's great guide.
My reshimming may be incomplete, I will check it later.
About ZM's front-focuse, I don't have any idea. -_-.

I will post several images about J-3 and C-Sonnar's focus.
All picturea were taken in same conditions with changing F/number from 1.5 to 4.0, and I might try to focus the stain in the middle of the iron rod.(I could not remember exactly which stain I tried...)

I don't know if these can give you answer or not. ^^'

PS:How I can post images on this forum without problem?

-> I have posted images again via Flickr.
I hope this time has no problem...
2608794323_abd558bbbb_o.jpg

J-3 F/1.5
000033.JPG
2609625324_0b003a417b_o.jpg

J-3 F/2.0
2608794409_c5de49b18c_o.jpg

J-3 F/2.8
000031.JPG
2609625416_a0dfd3acb3_o.jpg

J-3 F/4.0


2609799824_d9e91e14b7_o.jpg

C-Sonnar F/1.5
000037.JPG
2608968209_7a356208f5_o.jpg

C-Sonnar F/2.0
000036.JPG
2609799902_39f8bdae19_o.jpg

C-Sonnar F/2.8
000035.JPG
2608968303_c12729aecd_o.jpg

C-Sonnar F/4.0
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom