Jupiter-3

R

ruben

Guest
Hi Friends,

I have two very good J-8 for my Kievs. I would say more than "very good" since at widest aperture they deliver sharp images, in contrast to other J-8 I gathered along times.

The only reason I have for a Jupiter 3 is to actually use the 1.5 aoerture. But for some kind of personal prejudice I don't concede for granted that an excellent J-3 is as excellent as an excellent J-8 at widest aperture.

Would you mine to write your image experiences with the J-3 at f/1.5 ?

Thanks
Ruben
 
Last edited by a moderator:
They can be really sharp Ruben.. I have difficulty finding good illustrations at hand, as most of my low-light shots are also at slow shutter speeds and high sensitive film, not really giving a judgement to the lens.

The color one was between f/2 and f/1.5, the rest i think at 1.5. Exposures anywhere between 1/50 and 1/10.
 

Attachments

  • bergen56.jpg
    bergen56.jpg
    115.3 KB · Views: 0
  • bergen80.jpg
    bergen80.jpg
    129.2 KB · Views: 0
  • bergen92.jpg
    bergen92.jpg
    125.8 KB · Views: 0
Also a causal portrait of my friend Espen, 1/25 f/1.5.
 

Attachments

  • espen1.jpg
    espen1.jpg
    113.3 KB · Views: 0
Looks impressive. I bet J3s in good shape fetch a (relatively) high price. Gotta get one! ;)

EDIT: Hey, 100th post, whee.
 
Ruben

You need to use slow film and a tripod to see any difference, the H103, should be better then a J3 or J8, in microcontrast away from the axis. the J3 and J8 are pre war designs.

Noel
 
The Helios-103 I have is not dramatically better low light performer than my Jupiter-3, sharpness wise it feels the same, contrast is a bit higher but not to make a principal difference. It is also bigger and half a stop slower. Still nice lens though, I use it as a back-up.

I would not equal J-3 to J-8 however, as none of J-8s I tried gave a comparable result: the results were inadverently washed-out and flat at full opening. With J-3 ($50 on ebay with shipping) I got lucky from the first attempt. That extra lens in the rear group is there for a reason I guess.

The only thing J-8 has over J-3 is price; they are very close in size and weight. At f/2-f/4 my J-3 really shines, you have all image quality you need but there is still that smooth Sonnar feel throughout OOF areas.

Mods: I would've attached a couple more pics, but the forum software compains they already been uploaded in another forum thread?
 
Ok, let's try it embedded:

main.php


main.php
 
Eugene and Noel, thanks for your postings.
When trying once all my Soviet standard lenses and Zuikos standard ones, over the same film, tripod, widest aperture and 1 meter - a lot of surprises appeared. On the good side one J-8 matched the Zuiko macro, the standard Zuiko f/1.8 following suit. On the worse side, the Zuiko 1.4 and Helios found their place there. I know the Helios is highly appreciated, as the Zuiko 1.4, but those were my samples. Although I have to state too, the negs were home scanned and compared by simple enlargement at computer screen.

I liked very much the kind of pics of Eugene, which are the ones I need the extra stop for. So I guess my options are to try my luck with either another Helios, or with a Jupiter-3. It can be also a long and expensive story.

Noel, my technical level prevents me from understanding your message in full:
"the H103, should be better then a J3 or J8, in microcontrast away from the axis" Would you like to explain for dummies ?
It seems you are saying that I will have better results with a good Helios at f/1.8, than with a Jupiter at f/1.5.


Cheers,
Ruben
 
Here are a few of mine, all wide open. I really love this lens. Mine was adjusted by Brian Sweeney, and I think that makes a huge difference in how well it behaves.

RT-J3.jpg



271518902_5e96f3037a_o.jpg

link


261684831_53f6d073d7_o.jpg

link
 
Chaser, Very nice pics, specially I love the second one, with its very pleasing diagonal "S" line.

Nevertheless, I must ask a perhaps unpleasant question about the second, and kindly remember that regarding many things, including optics, I am a plain dummie.

Now, I notice at the background of the second pic here, some not nice circles: Is this a necessary evil at widest aperture and short distance, even for the Helios and J-8 at similar situation ? Or perhaps on the contrary, given the situation those circles are to be considered one of the best possible results among this superwide aperture lenses ?

I would like to know your opinion.
Cheers,
Ruben

UPDATE
Excuss me Chaser, I meant the third pic at the end of your posting.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
On the second picture the circles are gelled stage lights and the weird shape in the upper left is actually reflections off of the moving drumstick (i believe). In the third picture the highlights in the tree are a little bit wild, I think it is to some extent a necessary evil...but highlights through trees are about the most likely subject to cause this. In most situations I have been pleased with the J3's out of focus areas.
 
Ruben

So sorry, my English is not as good as it should be.

The (optical) axis of the lens points at the centre of the 24mm x 36mm frame, i.e. is an imaginary line through the centre of the optical system and the centre of the 24mm x 36mm frame.

The centre of the negative should have the best definition and at 5.6 or smaller the definition should fall away slowly, to the edges of the frame, at f2, 1.8 or 1.5 the centre should still be good but the J8 and J3 should fall off more rapidly than the H103. Note the should.

The problem is any of the lenses may have been taken apart or dropped. The example that is most simple to appreciate is Russ Pinchbecks set of vibrators in the celebrated Kiev survival site.

I have a J3 but I only use it at night at 1/10 sec hand held so cannot say anything about it, I have taken phots of J8, '61 vintage Sonnar f2, and H103 on Kchrome 64, on tripod of scenery and the foliage at distance on the Sonnar has the same edge effect as H103 where the lens is better than the film grain effect but the J8 does not do this. K chrome has a strange grain like effect

My J8 may have been damaged, or not vibrated on assembly on FSU kitchen table top. It performs as well as the Sonnar or J3 or H103 in night shots with lights in the sceane, causing little flare, but it does not have the same performance on a tripod, even with the chrome film.

Noel

edit
P.S. The only real thing to do is to get a j3 and try it, on a tripod with slow B&W and at night with colour, judging lens performance is somewhat subjective, unless you have a MTF machine - like Leitz use.
 
Last edited:
Have to say I've been pleased with mine...

I stripped it down a bit and cleaned it up, and although being a little stiff is perfectly usable. Focus wise it seems pretty sharp and the contrast doesn't seem that bad either:

testroll009.jpg

(f/1.5, 1/60, ~closest focus... squeegees are satan's little helpers :bang:)


testroll012.jpg

(f/1.5, 1/250, focus on nearest crayon, ~1m away)


I hear that you need a bit of luck when buying one, but I definitely think it's worth a pop. :)
 
Thank you, Ruben, for showing me this thread. I had started one on my own. Hard to navigate with the current filing of forums (forae?)

Here's mine: A Jupiter-3 I got from Brian Sweeney (I call it a Brianov J-3). Taken with :gasp: an M8...

 
What a lovely, dreamy photo, Gabriel!
Here are a couple J3 shots. Photo 1 & 3 with Kiev-2A, photo 2 & 4 with Contax-IIIa.


Laurence


Markéta


Grand Café Orient, Prague


Midou
​
 
ruben said:
Hi Friends,

I have two very good J-8 for my Kievs. I would say more than "very good" since at widest aperture they deliver sharp images, in contrast to other J-8 I gathered along times.

The only reason I have for a Jupiter 3 is to actually use the 1.5 aoerture. But for some kind of personal prejudice I don't concede for granted that an excellent J-3 is as excellent as an excellent J-8 at widest aperture.

Would you mine to write your image experiences with the J-3 at f/1.5 ?

Thanks
Ruben
Click to expand...

ruben said:
The colour drawing-like, a masterpiece !
Click to expand...

if I may be so bold, I don't think the virtues of a j-3 at 1.5 lies in the sharpness, but rather in what Ruben has already commented on - the way it renders images. I'm not saying the j-8 is inferior, but the thing I want in a wider aperture than f2 is the ability to take a picture at one stop faster shutter. And my pictures with my j-3's, while perhaps lacking in content, certainly satisfy in rendition.

Here's one that I rather like, even if this scan of the negative does rather poor justice:
TimelessExchange.jpg

the arrogance of man :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom