50/1.5 Jupiter J-3 LTM back in production at Lomo

Nikos72 said:
Don't think so!
Voigtlander M 50mm f/1.5 Nokton Aspherical Lens - Leica M Mount Lens - Black $760 that is 700 euros.
Locally I can have it for 610 New in the box and with warranty.

http://www.amazon.com/Voigtlander-5..._UL160_SR160,160_&refRID=0C6S99VKMTD61AS46B9R

Not to mention that you can get the 40mm 1.4 in M mount for half the price of the Lomo lens.
Click to expand...

Your link shows $760 which is $110 more than the Lomo.
Where can you get it locally for $610?

The 40mm lens is not a 50mm lens so I am not sure what your point is. 😕
 
Nikos72 said:
It seems that you are missing something in here. We are not talking about Lomo (the manufacturer), but for Lomography (go through the thread).




Useless? Really?
Click to expand...

The Mfg of the lens isn't Lomography they don't make anything.
Zenit-BelOMO is the mfg. and they make tactical sights, laser target designators etc... so again military grade tools that require a certain amount of QC.

Useless Really yes if it is an M-Mount lens than it is useless on an ltm camera and the availability of the New J3 lens in LTM is what makes this lens interesting to some people.

The main reason that people don't seem accept the price is not lack of quality (the faux Petzval lens seems to deliver what it promises) but dislike towards the Lomographic society.

Also like a previous poster said it's no cheaper to grind the lenses for an old design than for a new design, quiet the opposite in fact, modern lenses are optimized for economics of production older lens design not so much.
 
Nikos72 said:
The bet is if it is worthy of 599euros for what it gives. Personally I'd rather spend double that amount for a well reputed proven quality lens than buy anything from the masters of plagiarism.
Click to expand...

meh .. we cannot judge quality yet. Maybe that thing is rubbish, maybe not.
I don't see why you are so busy defending your position, it was heard I guess. I'm with you .. I'm not going to buy this thing now, but I'm happy that they make the effort and look forward to see results and if those are good snap one second hand.

Also "masters of plagiarism" isn't true. They got the original design, machinery and even parts for the Contax Sonnars as part of reparations. If anyone then the Japanese camera industry started as the masters of plagiarism (and evolved from there).

I'd also love to rub the Lomography label from it since it's highly connected to loud marketing and toy cameras, but this maybe doesn't mean it's a bad lens.
 
I am just expecting something more for that price. Aside the quality that indeed I cannot judge now, I have been looking more for a soul in these old lenses. Else, I would be buying something like a Japanese all perfect thing with coatings from the future, and blahblah that would work with AF perfectly even on a 20 buck electronic film camera.
Indeed that plagiarism thing is me over-reacting.

Anyway, lets see how it performs and if it really is "phenomenal" as they state.
 
brbo said:
You've found a way to mount Nokton 40/1.4 on a LTM camera?
Click to expand...

Nope! Are you going to buy that lens for your $10 rangefinder? Yes, I have an M Leica.

Bear in mind that you can get the 1.5 Nokton in LTM mount for less than $400 in the used market.
 
Nikos72 said:
Nope! Are you going to buy that lens for your $10 rangefinder? Yes, I have an M Leica.

Bear in mind that you can get the 1.5 Nokton in LTM mount for less than $400 in the used market.
Click to expand...

Yes, if nowadays $10 gets me a good working LTM Leica I'm certainly interested in getting the new J-3.

Bear in mind that you will have trouble finding a LTM Nikkor 50/1.4 in good condition for the price of this new J-3.
 
I think that a part of the controversy is that it's a product that people associate with stuff from the former ussr. Those products were indeed less expensive than "western" gear but also quality was varying from sample to sample.
The price is IMO high and we have to wait if the lens deserves such a price.
 
The sample photos look great (both digital and analog). I admit, I am interested in this lens.

However, my only curiosity is. Does that aperture ring have click stops. Or is it free turning like a Jupiter-8. (Can't speak for the original J-3 since I've never used one)
 
Original j3s don't have click stops. Only the Industar 61 in soviet l39 world.

Click stops are a must have. I also wonder about the 40.5 filter thread.. 39 filters are easier to get.
 
Archlich said:
I find it bizarre that people condemns a new lens being more expensive than used ones...
Click to expand...

If the original J-3 in LTM did not exist in quantity and selling for between 90 to 300 dollars in the last 15 years, then no one would complain about the new one.

A good J-3 is not inferior to any Zeiss f1.5 Sonnar or its Japanese derviatives.

The new J-3 looks to be superior to the original J-3 construction wise, and a new fast 50mm in LTM selling for $650 is not outrageous in this day and age.

In 1951 the Nikkor 5cm f1.4 in LTM sold for around 200 dollars which would be around 1800 dollars today.

The new J-3 would cost 71.30 in 1951 dollars, a real bargain then.
 
Nikos72 said:
The bet is if it is worthy of 599euros for what it gives. Personally I'd rather spend double that amount for a well reputed proven quality lens than buy anything from the masters of plagiarism.
Click to expand...

haha, yes how dare those Russians steal anything from the country which invaded them! Twice!

Funny I don't hear the same critique of the American Space program, also "stolen" from Germany!

The only comparable CV lens is 760USD, and it is not brass, which is more expensive for sure. As you know, Leica eliminated the brass top plate on the 262.

I think it's fine to think "i don't want to spent the money", on any lens. I don't want to spend the money on a 50 APO. But I don't trash Leica for making the thing. 🙂

Why do people dislike Lomography?
 
It's great they're doing this - good luck to them. And of course that's a competitive price for a well-calibrated lens, which you can surely return if it doesn't work properly.

I know many of us, myself more than many, are committed bottom-feeders who focus on used gear, but even the most dimwitted should surely understand that new gear has to be produced, if we're to buy it used!
 
I had the ZM 50/1.5, I loved that lens. One of the main reasons I sold it was because of the 1m minimum focusing distance. If I were in the market for a fast 50, this would probably be it - if (and thats a for sure "if" as of right now) it performs close to the ZM I think its worth it as its brand new. I just hope there are enough made to show up on the used market at some point.
 
I think they've made a good choice in the next re issue lens. The Petzval was just a lot of hype, and isn't even a Petzval design, they basically lie a lot in their ads. On this new J-3, one reads, "First developed in Soviet Russia in the late 1940’s, the original Jupiter lens was crafted by the optical pioneers at the Zenit factory." No, it wasn't developed by the Soviets at all, it was manufactured using the Zeiss blueprints, glass, and factory tooling. And it wasn't Zenit back then, it was KMZ. But I bet they're making a fine J-3 this go round.

http://www.cryptomuseum.com/manuf/kmz/index.htm

On pricing, remember that when things are first released, they are very expensive. The seller cashes in on the hype and those that must have new. Then the price comes down incrementally the next few years. Witness Fuji X-Pros and lenses, the Lomo Petzval (which started at $750 and now sells for about $400), etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom