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

mcfingon said:
I'd like to see the Zeiss ZM 50/1.5 compared to the new J3+ on an M9, M240, M246 or M262.
Click to expand...

It's likely to see Steve Huff write one or post someone else's comparison, according to his style and previous posts. But I wouldn't rely on it:)
 
There are over 5,100 views so far at this thread, so we can conclude that this new release is of interest to some people here.
 
I agree. Here is what I think in summary. It's a good lens. It's a Sonnar design that doesn't have much competition. It appears to have good quality, and all metal build. It's first few weeks of release the suggested retail price is high, as they are for all brand new offerings.

When the Fuji 23mm 1.4 came out I was ready to buy my first Fuji X mount. Then I saw the price. And I'm waiting. There is a life cycle of buying, from the early purchasers, the middle, and the late. The prices fluctuate downwards over time. Buy one when you are ready.
 
jonmanjiro said:
ehhh? :confused:

The head bartender has the lens for sale on his website with details and a price.

https://shop.cameraquest.com/lomography/lomography-50mm-f/1.5-jupiter-3/
  • 50mm f/1.5 Jupiter 3+ Sonnar
  • Aperture: f/1.5 - f/22
  • Clickless F/stops
  • Perfect round aperture for maximum bokeh
  • Rangefinder coupled 39mm Leica Screw Mount
  • M-Mount Adapter included, Triggering: 50mm Frame Line
  • Lens Barrel Chromed Brass
  • Closest Focusing Distance: 0.7m
  • Focusing Scale in meters
  • Filter Threads 40.5mm
  • Classic Zeiss Sonnar Lens Design: 7 Elements in 3 Groups
  • Easily adaptable to any Mirrorless Camera via a M mount adapter - Sony, FujiX, Panasonic, Olympus etc
  • New version of the soviet Jupiter 3, which was a war prize of a 1930's Zeiss Sonnar design
Click to expand...

OK, but the fact that it had arrived and been tested has not been mentioned here. Only that one was expected in about 10 days time...

So can someone point to some sample images?

Regards, David
 
I should get mine either today or tomorrow and will compare it to my 53 J3 which i just after ordering the 3+ got shimmed.
For color comparison on the A7ii and for B&W on the M246

One thing the old J3 have over the 50 1.4 Nikkor is better contrast wide open. I hope the new J3+ will have even better contrast with better coatings.

I have been a little suspicious about the new J3+, is it possible that the new lenses have been made with old glass found in the basement?

Comparisons to later version of of the old J3 would be interesting to see when the new start to come out in numbers.
 
Nikos72 said:
Check it out here http://shop.lomography.com/en/jupiter-3-plus

For a whopping 599€ one should expect it to be 100% "The results are phenomenal—expect crystal-clear sharpness, natural colors and a beautiful, dreamy bokeh. Don’t miss out on this premium lens—limited quantities are available on a first-come, first served basis."

But it has been proven that their products are not like that. For optical awesomeness would you trust them? (especially when proven awesomeness comes from others for a lot less). And also since we are speaking of J-3s list me the reasons why one would get the original J-3 and why should one buy this that looks like a J-3 but it's not.
Click to expand...

The Jupiter 3 was and still is a knock-off of the old Carl Zeiss Jena 5cm f/1.5 Sonnar. Unlike the modern Carl Zeiss ZM C Sonnar, this new one from Lomo (KMZ) uses the original Sonnar formula.

The ability to buy a brand-new, brass bodied 1930s Sonnar with modern multi-coating and properly calibrated for accurate focus is well worth $650. Brian Sweeney has already received his and done some preliminary tests, and the images look better than his modern C Sonnar and fully equal to the best of the vintage lenses after significant calibration work.

I ordered mine as soon as I saw Brian's results, and can't wait to shoot this alongside my tuned 1963 Jupiter 3 and 1937 CZJ Sonnar.
 
You know what, it's time for a Zorki 4 remake (seriously). Kmz could add a simple light Meter with LEDs outside of the finder a la Bessa L and permanent framelines for 35 and 50. I would buy one.. (Or a Zorki 3... even better).
 
I think that Lomography has a runaway success story with this new Jupiter 3 lens, which is a good thing.
 
santino said:
You know what, it's time for a Zorki 4 remake (seriously). Kmz could add a simple light Meter with LEDs outside of the finder a la Bessa L and permanent framelines for 35 and 50. I would buy one.. (Or a Zorki 3... even better).
Click to expand...

It doesn't sound cheap :), by whoever manufacture it.
 
David Hughes said:
OK, but the fact that it had arrived and been tested has not been mentioned here. Only that one was expected in about 10 days time...

So can someone point to some sample images?

Regards, David
Click to expand...

refresh your page David,
the lenses are in stock.

Stephen
 
goamules said:
I think we know everything there is to know about it.
Click to expand...

LOL really?

I don't even know what it weighs, let alone how it performs stopped down, and at infinity vs close in.

I don't have an idea of the coatings, or the color signature.

But I think those questions will eventually be answered. :)

and I've bought a few lenses without most of them, just to find out!
 
Think about it, before the internet, did you get to analyze all that? Because in the old days you saw a new lens in a magazine ad, read the marketing text, and a few specifications, and decided if you wanted to try it. Sometimes a photo magazine would review the lens, eventually. But most purchases were done by feel, or by believing a salesman and the reputation of a company.

Today, people act like they want a full scientific review and complete white paper before deciding to buy a lens. I don't sweat the small stuff. But I realize this is an expensive lens right now, so I'm not buying one anyway.
 
uhoh7 said:
LOL really?

I don't even know what it weighs, let alone how it performs stopped down, and at infinity vs close in.

I don't have an idea of the coatings, or the color signature.

But I think those questions will eventually be answered. :)

and I've bought a few lenses without most of them, just to find out!
Click to expand...

You can buy the lens and try it out and if it does not meet your expectations then you can always sell it here on the classifieds, for a tiny loss on your investment.
 
David Hughes said:
Hi,

I never knew that the British got Leica...

Many people here were unable to get their hands on new Leicas from about 1940/41 until 1952 or perhaps 1951. The USA got most of them and we went without. And I vaguely recall reading that the USA got/took their pick of Carl Zeiss machinery and staff days before their Allies the USSR went to collect them but I could be wrong. It was an article somewhere on the www linked into a Kiev thread somewhere here.

Regards, David
Click to expand...

Didn't you see the British intelligence report on the Leica facility and capabilities? (Thank you Dante Stella for this). http://www.angelfire.com/biz/Leica/page26.html

By the way, in case there should be some misunderstanding, almost everything the British knew in the way of intelligence (and the capabilities of Leica was evaluated from this perspective) was shared with the Americans :"Close co-operation with the U.S. Scientific Consultant was necessary and it was considered advisable . . ." (from the Report).

The practice of sharing intelligence and intelligence capabilities started during the war and has never really abated. It must go the other way as well. I mean this is up to a point - each state has its own strategic interests, obviously.
 
HI,

Thanks, I read about the Leica episode in the BIOS report but confused it with some others that I had or had borrowed. That's one of the joys of old age...

FWIW, in the 90's I traced and met a few of the people who went to Germany (a retirement project) and did the investigations into various subjects I was interested in but not the Leica group. I did trace one of the Germans involved but didn't get to met him and I traced him as he was a friend of one of the British team...

I hope that your link will lead a lot of other people to read the report. It's very interesting.

Regards, David
 
goamules said:
Think about it, before the internet, did you get to analyze all that? Because in the old days you saw a new lens in a magazine ad, read the marketing text, and a few specifications, and decided if you wanted to try it. Sometimes a photo magazine would review the lens, eventually. But most purchases were done by feel, or by believing a salesman and the reputation of a company.

Today, people act like they want a full scientific review and complete white paper before deciding to buy a lens. I don't sweat the small stuff. But I realize this is an expensive lens right now, so I'm not buying one anyway.
Click to expand...

Hi,

That's not how I remember it and I've copies and originals of the test reports from the 70's onwards; that was when I started to afford them again but had to spend my money wisely.

I do, however, remember a scandal when some US magazines started testing various things properly and discovered what rubbish they'd been boosting. Perhaps they were the ones re-hashing the PR handouts.

As for the internet, any fool can put something on it and other fools rely on it. If anything it adds to the confusion and spreads a lot of half truths. Look at auction sites to see how the rumours and half truths have become facts...

Luckily, thanks to digital, a lot of the film cameras I would have liked to own are now being given away for pennies and I can buy them and play with them. Usually the film costs more than the camera so I've had a lot of fun but I don't think I could have afforded it when they were new and I had a mortgage; especially when the interest rate hit 15% as it did.

Regards, David
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom