OK, this is totally not fair

A totally un-objective, qualitative, subjective, opinion observation:

The Nikkor 50/1.5 wide open seemed to have more of a busy, "parallel" type OOF (some call it bokeh) than I expected. As an uncommon lens, I don't see images from it very often, and even less often do I pay much attention to lens character of those images. But this time I did and the OOF seemed a little "busy" as some call it. But, not near as much as a lens known for "busy" bokeh.

Now, the 1949 ZK is really something in this last post. Like many sonnars, it is sharp without seeming sharp. But there's something more to the image...not easily described. I like the OOF (bokeh) quite a bit more. Still a touch of parallel-ness, which actually kind of surprises me, but to be honest it just has that "sonnar quality" :rolleyes:

Of course, I looked at all the images in this thread. Correctly guessing many of the challenges (but not all). Generally, I appreciate the "round", un-busy OOF (bokeh) and deceptive central sharpness (sometimes very sharp) of many of the older lenses.

Since I like this look, you would think I would also have a small collection of sonnars. But, looking through my lens cupboard, I see very few sonnars. My "go to" sonnar in 50mm is my 1957 J-3 that Brian shimmed (and whatever else he did to it). Supposedly not as good as a 1956 or earlier, but I wouldn't know. I'm just a poor caveman unaware of your modern ways. I do have to manage some minor focus shift wide open and close in. Part of the charm, right?

I thought about the new Lomo J-3+ when it came out. I'm glad I didn't. I rather wish I could acquire an early lens with good glass and enough integrity to be pampered into a "Brian-level" lens. But, with changing market dynamics and overall rising prices, I'm much less inclined to play the game and attempt an acquisition (or two/three). The good ol' days are over; so I'm told. :(


Brian, glad you got that Nikkor 50/1.5 LTM to help complete your collection. Nice!
 
dexdog said:
Hey, that looks just like a Sonnar!:D
Click to expand...
I've read that the Nikkor-SC 5cm F1.5 was formulated in 1937 and that the Japanese had a supply of Schott glass. Japan hired German optical engineers. The Nikkor renders very much like the v3 Sonnar.
The 5cm F1.4- pushed the design, but still a Sonnar type lens.
 
Another set, J3+ and Canon 50/1.5. Same conditions as above, I measured out the one meter mark and used this to set camera distance because my Canon lens is set up for feet insteada meters. High resolution available, click the pic and use RFF as the password.
J3+ at f1.5. I forgot...point of focus is the name Frank Dikotter on the Cultural Revolution book. I swapped the playing cards around, figuring the use of Russian playing cards was appropriate for fooling around with a J3+

Canon at f1.5
 
Last edited:
I ended up with three of the J3+, originally bought serial 00000092, liked it, wanted a back-up. Bought 00001144 from eBay, which would not focus to infinity. I contacted the seller, and he said that he could refund purchase price, or give me another J3+ and I could keep both. I took the offer of the two lenses. Lens 1144 was assembled incorrectly, 4 starts on the thread for the lens mount, somebody had chosen the wrong one- problem resolved. Lens 1588 was another story- one of the screws that holds the optical mount together had completely fallen out (seller gave me the screw). Turns out that the hole drilled to accept the missing screw was simply too big. I replaced the missing screw with one I scrounged from an old Zorki, fixed the issue. Lenses 92 and 1144 are nice and solid, while 1588 is a bit wobbly in the barrel, but works OK. Ironically, the janky lens is the one that did best in corner sharpness on this simple test. A warning to not get too obsessed with pixel-peeping?
 
Last edited:
Yes, the J3+ did not kept up with the hype. All the improvements sound good on paper but unfortunately the assembly seem to be an issue on the new Jupiters. Mine does not reach infinity too. And it looks like my Jupiter suffers from sever decentering. That was the reason why I have not tested it with the other Sonnars in my bookshelf test.
 
The focus on both of my J-3+ lenses are perfect from close-up to infinity on my Leica M9, which is "my gold standard". Many people have lenses that were tested with it.
But- as noted, the sample-to-sample deviation was high, and the lens is no longer available. If you have a good one, hold onto it.
 
Yeah, all of mine do well on the one meter wide-open test, and I would not hestitate to use any of them. The sample variation will drive you crazy if you let it! I used lens 1144 on the various "tests" above, because it just happened to be on my desk at the moment
 
rfaspen said:
Since I like this look, you would think I would also have a small collection of sonnars. But, looking through my lens cupboard, I see very few sonnars. My "go to" sonnar in 50mm is my 1957 J-3 that Brian shimmed (and whatever else he did to it). Supposedly not as good as a 1956 or earlier, but I wouldn't know. I'm just a poor caveman unaware of your modern ways. I do have to manage some minor focus shift wide open and close in. Part of the charm, right?

I thought about the new Lomo J-3+ when it came out. I'm glad I didn't. I rather wish I could acquire an early lens with good glass and enough integrity to be pampered into a "Brian-level" lens. But, with changing market dynamics and overall rising prices, I'm much less inclined to play the game and attempt an acquisition (or two/three). The good ol' days are over; so I'm told. :(
Click to expand...

That is what I tried to tell with my examination. You do not have to buy 50 Sonnars to find a good one. You don't even need to spend a fortune for a single lens. If you really want to enjoy a nice and sharp Sonnar 50 your best choice is look for a Opton Sonnar. Those were made in high numbers and there are hundreds out there available and some are really cheap. Zeiss in West Germany had a pretty solid quality. You have to look out for separation on lenses with serials > 1.6M though. And not every Sonnar 50mm f/1,5 might be super sharp but the T coating of the time was good and gives the images a contrasty look and build quality is very solid.

My surprise find are the all Chrome f11 Sonnars. Some seem to be equally sharp like the post-war Opton Sonnars. And even those that are not up to this level are sharp and build like a tank. And they were made in huge numbers. At this time Zeiss Jena had stabilized their production and the build quality is very good until the wartime changed everything. But those Chrome Sonnars are not coated. There are some T coated samples but they are rare and the wartime coating is not as effective. Prices for those Chrome Sonnars are pretty cheap too. All those Sonnars that were made in huge numbers do not fetch high collectors prices.

You can even buy a nice and clean Canon 50mm f1,5. When I got mine I was impressed with the sharpness. Unfortunately in my latest test it was not up to the Optons level but only by a tiny fraction. Since Canon started production late after the war the production quality might even be better than that of Zeiss itself. The Canon is build like a tank too. Very heavy and Chrome.
 
Last edited:
Räuber said:
That is what I tried to tell with my examination. You do not have to buy 50 Sonnars to find a good one. You don't even need to spend a fortune for a single lens. If you really want to enjoy a nice and sharp Sonnar 50 your best choice is look for a Opton Sonnar. Those were made in high numbers and there are hundreds out there available and some are really cheap. Zeiss in West Germany had a pretty solid quality. You have to look out for separation on lenses with serials > 1.6M though. And not every Sonnar 50mm f/1,5 might be super sharp but the T coating of the time was good and gives the images a contrasty look and build quality is very solid.

My surprise find are the all Chrome f11 Sonnars. They some seem to be equally sharp like the post-war Opton Sonnars. And even those that are not up to this level are sharp and build like a tank. And they were made in huge numbers. At this time Zeiss Jena had stabilized their production and the build quality is very good until the wartime changed everything. But those Chrome Sonnars are not coated. There are some T coated samples but they are rare and the wartime coating is not as effective. Prices for those Chrome Sonnars are pretty cheap too. All those Sonnars that were made in huge numbers do not fetch high collectors prices.

You can even buy a nice and clean Canon 50mm f1,5. When I got mine I was impressed with the sharpness. Unfortunately in my latest test it was not up to the Optons level but only by a tiny fraction. Since Canon started production late after the war the production quality might even be better than that of Zeiss itself. The Canon is build like a tank too. Very heavy and Chrome.
Click to expand...
To add a bit to what Rauber said, the f2 lenses are less expensive than the f1.5 lenses. I endorse rauber's recommendation for a Zeiss-Opton
 
rfaspen said:
I thought about the new Lomo J-3+ when it came out. I'm glad I didn't. I rather wish I could acquire an early lens with good glass and enough integrity to be pampered into a "Brian-level" lens.
Click to expand...
I think that "Brian-level lens" should become a thing on RFF! I will try my best. For example "Yeah, this lens is a BLL for sure!"
 
Last edited:
Räuber said:
Yes, the J3+ did not kept up with the hype. All the improvements sound good on paper but unfortunately the assembly seem to be an issue on the new Jupiters. Mine does not reach infinity too. And it looks like my Jupiter suffers from sever decentering. That was the reason why I have not tested it with the other Sonnars in my bookshelf test.
Click to expand...
Your lens is probably fixable. I have rectified a number of messed up Jupiter 3 lenses, and a couple of goofy J3+ lenses, and I am no where near as good as other folks. In my opinion, these lenses are worth fixing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom