nzeeman
Well-known
and here are the results of test
helios 103 50/1.8
jupiter 8 50/2 (1951)
carl zeiss sonnar collapsible 50/2
jupiter 8m 50/2
congratulations to rpinchbeck he really have great kiev/contax knowledge.
helios 103 50/1.8
jupiter 8 50/2 (1951)
carl zeiss sonnar collapsible 50/2
jupiter 8m 50/2
congratulations to rpinchbeck he really have great kiev/contax knowledge.
R
ruben
Guest
nzeeman said:
Hi nzeeman,
Is this list the order of the pics ? I mean has the first shown pic taken with an Helios and so forth ?
Cheers,
Ruben
PS
Perhaps I can escape from purchasing an 1.5
nzeeman
Well-known
ruben said:
yes it is in that order
1st pic---> helios 103 50/1.8
2nd pic--->jupiter 8 50/2 (1951)
3rd pic--->carl zeiss sonnar collapsible 50/2
4th pic--->jupiter 8m 50/2
i was also thinking about 1.5 lens - but i dont know is that difference between 1.8 and 1.5 big enough to spend money.
R
ruben
Guest
So far as for your evidence, nzeeman, I stay with J-8M
Spider67
Well-known
sadly it's still the rule that you have to test newlx bought FSU equipment to see if there's something to repair. In most cases it's the camera but (at least for me) often enough also the lens.....
"3. Most of this "this lens vs that lens" talk is bull--it. "
But I understand waht you mean as with the invention of Bokeh the opportunities of B-s-ing have multiplied beyond measure on the other hand why should the art of producing verbose cotton candy be left to wine specialist (doesn't bouquet and bokeh sond disturbingly similar?)
"3. Most of this "this lens vs that lens" talk is bull--it. "
But I understand waht you mean as with the invention of Bokeh the opportunities of B-s-ing have multiplied beyond measure on the other hand why should the art of producing verbose cotton candy be left to wine specialist (doesn't bouquet and bokeh sond disturbingly similar?)
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Spider67 said:
Hmm, I find some lens comparison discussions interesting, this thread for instance, some of us successfully identified lenses based on different "bokeh" characteristic. Ironically
zhang xk
Well-known
nzeeman said:
I did a brief test many years ago with J-3, J-8M, and Helios-103, and viewed the negative with a 50x microscope. IIRC, the J-8m and Helios-103 are very similar, but the J-3 had a higher micro-contrast than the other two. J-3 seemd to have a bit lower resoluion under the microscope.
I also tested a Zuiko 50/1.8 and a Canon FD 50/1.8 at the same time. They look similar to J-8M and H-103 with very high resolving power, but J-3's flavour is a little different.
R
ruben
Guest
Spider67 said:
I performed a test including 3 Zuiko lenses and got plenty of surprises within the Zuikos too. A J-8 rivaled the Zuiko macro, my Zuiko 1.4 showed plainly crappy along my Helios, and my Zuiko 1.8 upheld his known status as one of the best standard lenses.
Upon this, the only ' bull--it' I can find is not testing your gear, out of blind assumptions, whaterver brand it may be.
Cheers,
Ruben
zhang xk
Well-known
ruben said:
I read an article many years ago that said Zuiko 50/1.8 and Canon FD 50/1.8 are the equal of Summicron as far as resolving power is concerned and some Japanese normal lenses could perform even better. Unless someone must have a status to justify the high prices, a cheap Kiev 4 with a J-8M could perform equally well as any other expensive cameras IMHO. Rangefinder cameras are old type P/S, a steady hand could affect the image qulaity more than a few lines resolution.
Some Russian gears enjoyed good reputation among old Chinese professionals back in the 1960-70's.
Cheers,
Zhang
Spider67
Well-known
to be or not bokeh!
to be or not bokeh!
That's a point where I have to stand back: I agree that there are experts who can recognize a lenses by a having a look at a a photograph and I met a man who could see that my lense had cleaning marks on it without seeing the camera.
I was referring to Rick Olesons great site where he had an example of both good and bad bokeh taken from one picture!
I must admit when I first read of bokeh I started looking for it (I discovererd oval bokeh!). But it didn't work for me as I realized that I was looking less for the other things like composition. Besides now that I have strted to use again most of my Soviets and see shutter-, framing- and parallax problems bokeh is a low priority for me.
Keep the lens comparisons coming. As for me this comparison has a lcear message: Dont bother to invest much time and much money when you get comparable results with a cheaper lens from the USSR. Alas if you don't prefer a particular kind of bokeh!
The greatest B-S in discussing P-equipment are judegements like:
"It's bad because it's Russian" and in the eighties it was quite common to say in Austria : "It's bad because it's not Japanese!"
to be or not bokeh!
shadowfox said:Hmm, I find some lens comparison discussions interesting, this thread for instance, some of us successfully identified lenses based on different "bokeh" characteristic. Ironically
That's a point where I have to stand back: I agree that there are experts who can recognize a lenses by a having a look at a a photograph and I met a man who could see that my lense had cleaning marks on it without seeing the camera.
I was referring to Rick Olesons great site where he had an example of both good and bad bokeh taken from one picture!
I must admit when I first read of bokeh I started looking for it (I discovererd oval bokeh!). But it didn't work for me as I realized that I was looking less for the other things like composition. Besides now that I have strted to use again most of my Soviets and see shutter-, framing- and parallax problems bokeh is a low priority for me.
Keep the lens comparisons coming. As for me this comparison has a lcear message: Dont bother to invest much time and much money when you get comparable results with a cheaper lens from the USSR. Alas if you don't prefer a particular kind of bokeh!
The greatest B-S in discussing P-equipment are judegements like:
"It's bad because it's Russian" and in the eighties it was quite common to say in Austria : "It's bad because it's not Japanese!"
Last edited:
outfitter
Well-known
I think a postwar West German Sonnar would have had the edge (particularly in contrast) IMO. Still you can easily see that an inexpensive J-8 or J-3 in LTM is equal or better to any wartime genuine LTM Sonnars or the humps put together from parts during the turbulent immediate postwar years - and these lenses bring $250+. I like my J-3 LTM on my Canon 7 better than the Canon 50/1.8.
zhang xk
Well-known
ruben said:
In order to have an un-biased result, I tested those lenses with the same roll of film under the same conditions, and viewd the negative(to avoid enlarging errors) under a 56x microscope(about the size of a 2 meters print). I used a fine grain ASA 64 b/w film, and almost all lenses have resoluions exceeding the limit of the film. You can see grains clearly under such a magnification. So Zuiko 50/1.8, Canon FD 50/1.8, Helios-103, and J-8M are all good lenses. Maybe the very top Leica optics still have an edge with ASA 25 slide film, but the price! Do we always shoot a Leica mounted on a steady tripod with a cable release at faster than 1/250 at F8 or smaller on a ASA 25 slide film?
R
ruben
Guest
ruben said:
Now I would like to be crystal clear. Both the Zuiko 1.4 and the Helios 1.8 are well known as high quality lenses. I was just refering to the samples I have and not making any generalization. Btw in that test took part alongside the Helios and Zuikos some 5 Jupiters, from which the J-8 showed the best of all.
Cheers,
Ruben
Last edited by a moderator: