goamules
Well-known
On the comment that the aperture scale get's closer together as you stop down, lots of lenses do. The Canon 50/1.8, Nikkor 50/1.4 and many others. It's the way the iris is put together, and probably a function of how many blades. But I can't wrap my mind around why right now.
goamules
Well-known
1. Can you explain the "flaws" a vintage J-3 has, but the new J-3 doesn't? Because I see both have the distinctive look of a Sonnar.
2. Can you identify the lack of character a Sonnar has, compared to the more common, ubiquitous double Gauss? Because your argument that a Sonnar doesn't have character, yet doesn't give a cellphone perfect image is a paradox. An optically perfect lens has no character.
3. Can you rationalize why your definition of "far better IQ" is what everyone else needs to adhere to? Because many people like shooting something with a unique design (and yes, a unique look on film or sensor).
nukecoke
⚛Yashica
It's easy to have round aperture opening, just use a lot of blades, as a lot of cheap Chinese C-mount lenses do, since it's a must-do to make bokehlicious people happy. However, with those many blades, the shape of them needs to be designed nicely to avoid the "aperture scale get's closer together". Just my observation as a camera user, I'm no engineer.
goamules
Well-known
Yeah, it seems the number of blades forces the scale issue.
uhoh7
Veteran
For you. For others being able to buy a brand new copy of an iconic classic which was the best lens in the world for 35mm for nearly 20 years and makes a very distinctive look is a nice opportunity. Build and calibration are great it seems.
Have you looked at the prices of 8 element 35 crons?
650 is fine, obviously. They will sell a bunch if the thread count is any measure.
Hmmm I don't see how the number of blades would make much, if any, difference, tbh. My Elmar-M 50/2.8 only has six aperture blades and its aperture scale does the same thing. My guess is that the closer spacing when stopped down is a result of the shape of the aperture blades in relation to the movement of the aperture ring.
I once had a W-Nikkor 3.5cm F1.8 lens with an aperture opening that looked like about f8 when set to f16. After much head scratching I removed the aperture blades and discovered they were L-shaped with one side slightly longer than the other and had been installed the wrong way around. Once they were put back in correctly the aperture opening was spot on.
goamules
Well-known
Well let's think about this a little. Each stop halves the amount of light, right? Mostly wide open, going from F2 to F2.8 the iris has to close enough to cut the light in half. That's about 1/4 of the total glass diameter. The pins on each leaf need to move around the barrel quite a bit.
At F2.8 the amount of glass being "used" is smaller, and so the amount to cut the hole size in half (still about 1/4 of the total area) for F4 is less. The rotation and pin/leaf movement is less. By the time you get to F16, the hole is tiny. The amount of rotation to move the pins the tiny amount to close the hole that tiny bit.....is small. The aperture lines on the outside are therefore closer together.
I just looked at my F2 Summicron (10 leaves, equal scale distance), and F2 Jupiter 8 (9 leaves, decreasing scale distance). So it's not the number of leaves, it must be something else, like leaf shape. Looking closer, the leaves of the Summicron have a complex curve on their edges. Each edge is curved in one radius, then it has a "bump" and changes to another radius. That must be it. The J-8 leaves have a continuous curve.
At F2.8 the amount of glass being "used" is smaller, and so the amount to cut the hole size in half (still about 1/4 of the total area) for F4 is less. The rotation and pin/leaf movement is less. By the time you get to F16, the hole is tiny. The amount of rotation to move the pins the tiny amount to close the hole that tiny bit.....is small. The aperture lines on the outside are therefore closer together.
I just looked at my F2 Summicron (10 leaves, equal scale distance), and F2 Jupiter 8 (9 leaves, decreasing scale distance). So it's not the number of leaves, it must be something else, like leaf shape. Looking closer, the leaves of the Summicron have a complex curve on their edges. Each edge is curved in one radius, then it has a "bump" and changes to another radius. That must be it. The J-8 leaves have a continuous curve.
asiafish
Established
They can be calibrated, and Brian has done many.
My 1963 Zomz Jupit 3 was calibrated by Brian and is fully the equal of my 1937 CZJ, also calibrated by Brian. Focus is accurate at f/2 from MFD to infinity, and is accurate at f/1.5 from MFD to about 10 meters. Not bad at all.
asiafish
Established
I bought my J3 from Brian for $250 a few years ago. It is better than th Canon f/1.5 and Nikkor f/1.4 I tried, and equal (or slightly better) than my 1937 CZJ, also tuned by Brian.
paradoxbox
Well-known
Jupiter 3's can be calibrated. The issue being discussed here seems to be focus shift.
It is not a really big problem.
The important thing is that when you (or someone) calibrates the lens, you must calibrate it to the distance you intending to photograph at. For example, I had 2 Jupiter lenses, one I used for portraiture so I calibrated it to "front focus" when focused at 1.5m, the closest focus range for my camera.
The other lens was for things farther than 1.5 m away and so I shimmed it to be as close to the middle of the focus plane as possible.
It's not rocket science really, twist open a J3 and put aluminum foil in it and test it until you've got it perfect. If you want to make the aperture marks line up correctly afterward it becomes more of a chore involving drills and screws.
There are certain issues where the front and rear element modules did not match well - this was a manufacturing problem. The thing Brian was doing was collecting lots of J3 elements and replacing / matching the parts with the best optical fit, in addition to shimming. This is the best possible solution to the J3 QC problem but not practical for most people on a limited budget or who don't run a repair shop. Not all J3's need this treatment either. Only ones that have poor resolution even with shims. My particular copies from the mid 50's were perfect.
It is not a really big problem.
The important thing is that when you (or someone) calibrates the lens, you must calibrate it to the distance you intending to photograph at. For example, I had 2 Jupiter lenses, one I used for portraiture so I calibrated it to "front focus" when focused at 1.5m, the closest focus range for my camera.
The other lens was for things farther than 1.5 m away and so I shimmed it to be as close to the middle of the focus plane as possible.
It's not rocket science really, twist open a J3 and put aluminum foil in it and test it until you've got it perfect. If you want to make the aperture marks line up correctly afterward it becomes more of a chore involving drills and screws.
There are certain issues where the front and rear element modules did not match well - this was a manufacturing problem. The thing Brian was doing was collecting lots of J3 elements and replacing / matching the parts with the best optical fit, in addition to shimming. This is the best possible solution to the J3 QC problem but not practical for most people on a limited budget or who don't run a repair shop. Not all J3's need this treatment either. Only ones that have poor resolution even with shims. My particular copies from the mid 50's were perfect.
Jan Pedersen
Well-known
Too busy at work this week to do anything worthwhile with the new J3+ but, my loyal Owl was sitting there at my patio so I thought I should upload a few from the M246.
Shot in DNG and converted to Jpeg in Lightroom and resized in Photoshop. No other manipulation.
First at f1.5 then f2.0, f2.8, f4 and f5.6
If light and weather permits I will run another quick test and compare my 53 J3 sometime this weekend.
L1002389 by JLP1954, on Flickr
L1002390 by JLP1954, on Flickr
L1002391 by JLP1954, on Flickr
L1002392 by JLP1954, on Flickr
L1002393 by JLP1954, on Flickr
Shot in DNG and converted to Jpeg in Lightroom and resized in Photoshop. No other manipulation.
First at f1.5 then f2.0, f2.8, f4 and f5.6
If light and weather permits I will run another quick test and compare my 53 J3 sometime this weekend.
L1002389 by JLP1954, on Flickr
L1002390 by JLP1954, on Flickr
L1002391 by JLP1954, on Flickr
L1002392 by JLP1954, on Flickr
L1002393 by JLP1954, on Flickr
fer_fdi
Well-known
thanks for the test!
I'd like to know what's the size of the owl and the shooting distance please.
Thanks again
I'd like to know what's the size of the owl and the shooting distance please.
Thanks again
sweathog
Well-known
Nice to see some people have pulled the trigger, and I always enjoy reading people's thoughts on kit (got to be one of the main reasons I love RFF).
raid
Dad Photographer
The background stayed out of focus in all images, with a gradual sharpening of the trees, Maybe this was a close-focus shot?
Jan Pedersen
Well-known
Sorry about the late response, i missed the thread.
Object distance was real close to min focus distance for the lens, maybe 0.85m
The Owl is about 13 - 14" tall.
Contrast pretty low and not much different than the original J3 but i still need to do a direct comparison.
Object distance was real close to min focus distance for the lens, maybe 0.85m
The Owl is about 13 - 14" tall.
Contrast pretty low and not much different than the original J3 but i still need to do a direct comparison.
fer_fdi
Well-known
Nice lens from Lomography however it is not a realistic price. For Eur. 600,- I can get a C.V. F/1,5-50mm-M or a Zeiss F/1,5-50mm-M which are overal better in preformance. Like that Russar they should offer these (art) lenses for about Eur. 400,- to be more realistic in their sellings.
Nevertheless if you have enough money you can be happy with it.
That's my opinion also. J-3+ should cost $450 max imo
fer_fdi
Well-known
to my eyes, images look exactly like the original, to the point that they could be refurbished units
A nice J-3 costs $200, add a good CLA to it and what's the total?
I think $650 is waaaay too much.
A nice J-3 costs $200, add a good CLA to it and what's the total?
I think $650 is waaaay too much.
Huss
Veteran
That CLA for $100 will not include a lens colimation or shimming to get it to focus correctly, as most of them are off. So the CLA price actually is about double that.
Then add the fact that the old lenses are made out of a light weight alloy, instead of brass. And they will have wear on the glass as well as body that a CLA will not remove.
$649 is a deal when all that is taken into account.
Then add the fact that the old lenses are made out of a light weight alloy, instead of brass. And they will have wear on the glass as well as body that a CLA will not remove.
$649 is a deal when all that is taken into account.
valdas
Veteran
I bought J3 a week ago and paid 120€. Glass is very nice, only focusing is stiff. So I asked for CLA and collimation to fit my M cameras. It will cost me 20-30€. That is in Lithuania. So 150€ in total. I don't see any reason why I would ever pay 600€.
Huss
Veteran
1/ "Glass is very nice". What exactly does that mean? Perfect like new, or only a few scratches?
2/ No place in the US where we can get service like that for that little money!
3/ You still are not getting the same lens, no matter how nice a used one is. The build is different as is the coatings on the glass.