David Hughes
David Hughes
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.
Hi,
We also have sayings about cats in bags. F'instance, letting the cat out of the bag is discovering or revealing something about a deception. And buying a pig in a poke means buying something unchecked. You buy a pig it's put in the poke and you get home and find it's a cat. Although, the word 'poke' for bag seems only to be used in Scotland and the north of England.
The other joke is being asked in shops if you'd like a poke. It's ambiguous and also suggests your about to be hit or punched... Usually the joke is played on us foreigners.
Regards, David
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
There is no Ernostar with a triple rear group. You're just splitting hairs to differentiate the Judaean People's Front from the People's Front of Judaea (to quote the Life of Brian).
Sonnar is a trade name owned by Zeiss, and that imprimatur is the beginning and end of what is a "Sonnar." The C-Sonnar is a Sonnar. You can gripe about the replacement of a low power element with multi coated airspace, but it does not change things one bit. It is a modern update of the Opton, revised to reflect what modern glass can do. And the modern glass you can get.
Nikkors, Canons/Serenars, and Jupiters are not "Sonnars" writ large. They are close copies of one 1931 lens sold as a Contax Sonnar. All of their computations vary from the original.
Dante
DominikDUK
Well-known
Zeiss is the culprit as is Cosina constantly recycling lens names that have little to do with the construction. The C-Sonnar is the closest we have come to a true classic Sonnar since the 1960's but it isn't 100% identical, the C-Sonnar is sometimes refered to as Ernostar/Sonnar Hybrid and as you said Zeiss owns the Trademark and can do with it what it wants.
nukecoke
⚛Yashica
To me, in the case of triplet/ernostar/sonnar categorization, the rear group does not matter, it's the element(s) they insert between the first and second element of triplet that matters. I'm a layman and this is just my observation.
Anyway, according to Zenit, the new superstar http://www.zenitcamera.com/archive/lenses/jupiter-3.html:
On the page it says the C Sonnar originates from some experimental lens "number 33" of Zeiss back in 1939. I wonder how did they call such formula back then? Not sure if there's more persuasive German pages out there, if they had backup documents not taken by the Soviets.
BTW: I like that Zenit added the J3+ to their archive page despite there's not old fashioned information like center/edge resolution and so on
Anyway, according to Zenit, the new superstar http://www.zenitcamera.com/archive/lenses/jupiter-3.html:
On the page it says the C Sonnar originates from some experimental lens "number 33" of Zeiss back in 1939. I wonder how did they call such formula back then? Not sure if there's more persuasive German pages out there, if they had backup documents not taken by the Soviets.
BTW: I like that Zenit added the J3+ to their archive page despite there's not old fashioned information like center/edge resolution and so on
alexandru_voicu
Established
Well, after a few days of deliberation, I did what my irrational part of me dictated to. I bought the J3+ this evening. A few observations:
1. Very compact, good looking.
2. Not impressively well built. Side by side, my C-Sonnar ZM looks better. The J3+, however, looks a tad less delicate, which is nice.
3. The machining is rather disappointing. I disassembled many J-8s and I can tell they were better machined, including the later ones. For instance, the edges of the cam feel a little hoarse. Also, I've seen much smoother focus.
4. The M adapter is on the cheap side, looking exactly as the Chinese copies you can find on ebay for several bucks. It is not even close to my Voigtlander adapter.
5. The boxing is fine, but still on the cheap side.
6. I hate the fact that they wrote on the front ring "New Jupiter 3+". What's with that "new"? It makes the lens sound cheap. It's not a detergent. And it's wrong from a logical point of view. Is there an old "Jupiter 3+"? No.
I already shot a film and it is now hanging to dry. Let's hope that the optics will not disappoint.
1. Very compact, good looking.
2. Not impressively well built. Side by side, my C-Sonnar ZM looks better. The J3+, however, looks a tad less delicate, which is nice.
3. The machining is rather disappointing. I disassembled many J-8s and I can tell they were better machined, including the later ones. For instance, the edges of the cam feel a little hoarse. Also, I've seen much smoother focus.
4. The M adapter is on the cheap side, looking exactly as the Chinese copies you can find on ebay for several bucks. It is not even close to my Voigtlander adapter.
5. The boxing is fine, but still on the cheap side.
6. I hate the fact that they wrote on the front ring "New Jupiter 3+". What's with that "new"? It makes the lens sound cheap. It's not a detergent. And it's wrong from a logical point of view. Is there an old "Jupiter 3+"? No.
I already shot a film and it is now hanging to dry. Let's hope that the optics will not disappoint.
alexandru_voicu
Established
I scanned the test film and the results are not encouraging. At 0.7m, wide open, the lens back focuses by 2.5 cm on my recently adjusted Zeiss ikon. Being a sonnar, it should have actually front focused a bit. For me, this was the last drop. I have to return it.
fer_fdi
Well-known
thank you very much for your realistic review Alexandru!
That's why I said it was way too expensive
it would be good to see a couple of test pictures
That's why I said it was way too expensive
it would be good to see a couple of test pictures
alexandru_voicu
Established
I'm glad you find my "observations" useful, thank you. The glass itself is not bad. Actually, I find it quite sharp wide open and with less focus shift than my C-Sonnar. Surely, the focus does move backwards while you close down, but to a lesser degree. I shall try to post a couple of photos later on.
fad gadget
Established
On both my Monochrom M246 and my M240, I find wide open from .7 totally across the entire focusing range to be spot on, no back, nor front focusing issues.
There is some very slight focus shift between f2.8/4, far less than my ZM Sonnar and I prefer the look of the J3+.
I prefer the craftsmanship of the J3+ as well, I don't think I'll encounter the famous wobble on this one.
There is some very slight focus shift between f2.8/4, far less than my ZM Sonnar and I prefer the look of the J3+.
I prefer the craftsmanship of the J3+ as well, I don't think I'll encounter the famous wobble on this one.
coelacanth
Ride, dive, shoot.
Interesting observations from alexandru_voicu and fad gadget.
I had mine for a few days and the experience was closer to what alexandru_voicu said. Mine had
• Slight play in focusing ring
• Not "wobble" level but the front part of the lens could shift tiny bit
• Focusing was better than old Russian lens I once had, but rather inconsistent smoothness and I could fee some rougher spots here and there.
• Had several black specks of dust and a couple of fibers in elements.
• Aperture ring was drier feeling in action. My Contax Option Sonnar 50/2 has a lot smoother action.
• Back focusing a bit (was expecting some shift due to Sonnar design so I wasn't really put off by it tho)
I think it is definitely far far better than the old Jupiter for overall construction and the brass barrel looked great. Focus shifting (whichever way it should go) was expected and it is a character lens I was OK with it, but I ended up returning it as the overall quality was not what I was expecting from the price point and some early reports I've read (at least my copy was no where near "velvet smooth" or "super smooth"). I wasn't super disappointed and had hard time deciding, but in the end the combination of overall construction quality and the price point wasn't working for me.
I did like the pictures I got from my limited time with the lens. I wanted to shoot more, but I needed to decide quick so the lens remained returnable.
Smashing hair you got there by Suguru Nishioka, on Flickr
Shot with New Jupiter 3+ on M4-P. Neopan 400 at 640.
Again, I LOVE the Sonnar look, and I could imagine myself giving it another try in the future (maybe send it off to Don or someone to really perfect it, then keep for good) I ever regretted selling the Nikkor SC 50/2. I wanted this lens to be IT, but I'm opting to use my Contax Sonnar 50/2 (already had it, part of Contax IIa kit I got for $150) with the latest Amedeo adapter ($200).
I had mine for a few days and the experience was closer to what alexandru_voicu said. Mine had
• Slight play in focusing ring
• Not "wobble" level but the front part of the lens could shift tiny bit
• Focusing was better than old Russian lens I once had, but rather inconsistent smoothness and I could fee some rougher spots here and there.
• Had several black specks of dust and a couple of fibers in elements.
• Aperture ring was drier feeling in action. My Contax Option Sonnar 50/2 has a lot smoother action.
• Back focusing a bit (was expecting some shift due to Sonnar design so I wasn't really put off by it tho)
I think it is definitely far far better than the old Jupiter for overall construction and the brass barrel looked great. Focus shifting (whichever way it should go) was expected and it is a character lens I was OK with it, but I ended up returning it as the overall quality was not what I was expecting from the price point and some early reports I've read (at least my copy was no where near "velvet smooth" or "super smooth"). I wasn't super disappointed and had hard time deciding, but in the end the combination of overall construction quality and the price point wasn't working for me.
I did like the pictures I got from my limited time with the lens. I wanted to shoot more, but I needed to decide quick so the lens remained returnable.
Smashing hair you got there by Suguru Nishioka, on Flickr
Shot with New Jupiter 3+ on M4-P. Neopan 400 at 640.
Again, I LOVE the Sonnar look, and I could imagine myself giving it another try in the future (maybe send it off to Don or someone to really perfect it, then keep for good) I ever regretted selling the Nikkor SC 50/2. I wanted this lens to be IT, but I'm opting to use my Contax Sonnar 50/2 (already had it, part of Contax IIa kit I got for $150) with the latest Amedeo adapter ($200).
alexandru_voicu
Established
As for the focus shift, yes, these are my findings, too. But with regards on the colimation, I guess that you, sir, are lucky.
Or maybe I'm unlucky. My Zeiss Ikon was recently adjusted in Oberkochen, together with all my ZM lenses. The J3+ does not reach infinity on my rangefinder by quite a large margin, nor on its adapter, nor or my Voigtlander adapter. So it has the be the lens itself. I truly wanted it to work out and I would have preferred it to my C-Sonnar, which is larger, more prone to focus shift and more delicate in appearance. Unfortunately, it doesn't.See attached one frame from the roll of Tri-x I shot last evening. I focused on the left eye, the focus is on the right. Even so, nice contrast, nice rendering.
Attachments
Jan Pedersen
Well-known
As with the old J3's, there's obviously also some sample variations on the new J3+
My example, focus is spot on with the M246. Is has a slight play in the focus but nothing I would call a wobble. Focus is evenly smooth in the whole range.
My example, focus is spot on with the M246. Is has a slight play in the focus but nothing I would call a wobble. Focus is evenly smooth in the whole range.
fad gadget
Established
As for the focus shift, yes, these are my findings, too. But with regards on the colimation, I guess that you, sir, are lucky.
See attached one frame from the roll of Tri-x I shot last evening. I focused on the left eye, the focus is on the right. Even so, nice contrast, nice rendering.
That's unfortunate, have you tried it on another body other than ZI?
Mine has no problem on any of my M's. digital, or film.
I just tried it on my lllF as well after reading your post, no problem with infinity focus there either.
I can definitely see it in your photo, but it seems to be taken on an angle, which would move the opposite eye out of the plane of focus.
However, that will not account for the focusing issue at infinity.
cheers/ken.
alexandru_voicu
Established
Hi Ken,
Thank you for your input. I actually did try it on a Bessa R3A body, which, unfortunately, is slightly misaligned at infinity, both vertically and horizontally. Even so, I found that the "misalignment" got worse with the J3+. Moreover, as I wanted to rule out my ZI and ZM lenses, I borrowed a Nokton 50/1.5 and it focused fine on the ZI body. In other words, six lenses (five that I own plus the one I borrowed) are focusing fine on the ZI, except the J3+. I think it is "beyond reasonable doubt" that the J3+ is the culprit. Which is such a pity, as I am convinced it has great glass.
Alex
fad gadget
Established
Hi Alex,
That's a drag, sounds like you've found the culprit.
I'd exchange it for another one, I'm convinced it's a great piece of glass.
Brian Sweeney just posted some comparison shots against a early 50's Sonnar on Leica Place, the resemblance is amazing!
I'm sure it was modelled after it, always loved that lens!
cheers/ken.
jcb4718
Well-known
I echo the praise of the Zeiss Opton. I have one with the Amedeo adapter. It's a superb lens. It's at its best (or should I say displays its characteristics best) when stopped down a little (say f4). The aperture is unusual. The blades have a weird shape (in fact it looks like there are two sets of blades, when viewed from the back). This makes the aperture circumference 'wavy' rather than circular. So f4 is some kind of weighted average of, say, f3.8-f4.2 or something like that. In optical terms this has the effect of blurring the edges of out-of-focus areas e.g. out-of-focus discs. Foliage is the give away, in my view. Lenses with 'sharp' out-of-focus discs tend to 'mince' foliage but with the Opton it's wonderfully 'blurry'. Nice contrast, too. A really great lens.
alexandru_voicu
Established
Hi Ken,
I actually bought a second one (I returned the first) and, unfortunately, the back focus in still there. In addition, I also noticed a speck between the internal elements. It is really a shame.
Alex