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

[valdas]

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.

1) it means no scratches and very minor cleaning marks that will not affect the picture;
2) sure, labor cost in Eastern Europe is still much cheaper, so of course it depends on your location;
3) no, but I get the same "legendary" character that is so much advertised and is the main reason of this hype...

 

[valdas]

I can hardly get a cab for 20 to 30€ where I live.

You are lucky if it is a good repairman, impossible price here, even 25 years ago. With the euro almost at parity with the dollar, maybe when it falls below parity?

Yes, I guess that's one of the advantages of living in Eastern Europe - qualified labor is still not expensive. And this is the best place in Vilnius (or the only left for the analogue cameras). They CLA'ed many of my lenses...

 

[valdas]

Still, 20 euros is a depressing thought, anywhere in Europe.

yes, agree. but based on my experience with them, since they said 20-30 EUR I know I will end up paying 30 if that makes you less depressed...

 

[Archlich]

I find it bizzare that people keep condemning a brand new lens with warranty being more expensive than used ones. Not to mention the shimming, the new brass barrel and 0.7m close focus.

Guess to please the RFFers they really should use another brand other than Lomography, of which the name seems to equal the original sin for some.

 

[rfaspen]

Thanks for the test images Jan. I'm glad you grabbed one of these new lenses. Yes, the series of images are similar from the older 1953 lens and the new one (including the change in contrast from wide open to stopped down), but folks should keep in mind your '53 is a particularly nice example and has been shimmed for optimum focus; and perhaps Brian brought it up to the correct Leica focal length (51.6mm)?

By the way, I have your 1957 J3 and I rather like it. Thanks! Someday, it might be nice to meet up in the Portland area next time I'm up there. I would like to see this new J3+ in person.

I noticed Brian L. grabbed one of these new J3+ lenses and it appears he loves it. The lens is natively the correct focal length for Leica. It has a substantial brass (chromed) mount/barrel. It has new multi-coating with modern coating formulas. And, its built with much higher tolerances and quality than most of the old J3's. If you read what Brian has to say about it (and he is perhaps most qualified to offer opinion on these), the lens is not overpriced and is, in fact, a "quality item".

He suggests we pretend the lens is made and offered by Nikon, Cosina, or Canon. Its of that level of manufacture and even comes with a 2-year warranty. 14-day money back return.

I recommend reading what Brian has to say over at that other Leica-heavy forum. Its a featured post/article. And in fact, Lomography was so concerned about Brian's opinion on these new lenses, they sent him his lens via overnight shipping and asked to interview him to see what his experience/opinions are.

 

[Huss]

1) it means no scratches and very minor cleaning marks that will not affect the picture.

There you have it. A lens with "cleaning marks" is compared to a new one..

FYI cleaning marks are scratches. it's just a nice spin on it.

This is why people buy new lenses.

 

[Huss]

You can do the same with a new lens when just doing the cleaning wrong. The biggest improvement should be the modern coating. So in front light I would like to see an example.
But I keep my point of view: A right price tag for this lens should be around Eur. 400,- not Eur. 600,-

And what should the right price tag be for the Cosina Voigtlander Sonnar 50mm 1.5? In the US it is $1200 vs $649 for the Jupiter.

Just so we have a comparison.

 

[ulrich.von.lich]

Fotohuit, are you sure in Holland you only pay the double (i.e. 4 times the Ukranian price) ? Which would mean 60€ for lenses and 120€ for cameras? That still sounds too cheap. I can't find the tariffs of Will van Manen but I remember the return postage alone costs 60€ or so. In France, a lens CLA costs 150€, recoating costs about 80€ for each element, no idea about collimation but it doesn't sound cheap. Not to mention the fact Photo Suffren, a supposedly good Parisian repair shop, once messed up one lens of mine, and I still had to pay half the price which was 75€, for nothing. Not only I went out of the store forever, I have never sent anything to service ever since.

Like many, I have a strong preference for new lenses. It's simply unfair to compare a used lens, as mint as it could be (which is rarely the case), to a new lens.

By the way, all other options cost more in France. Nokton 50/1.5 sells for 649€ in aluminium, 789€ in brass; Zeiss 50/1.5 sells for 979€ in both colours.

Feel free to verify yourself on the website of one of the best online stores in France :

http://www.lapetiteboutiquephoto.com/boutique/liste_produits.cfm?type=18&code_lg=lg_fr&num=3
http://www.lapetiteboutiquephoto.com/boutique/liste_produits.cfm?type=17&code_lg=lg_fr&num=4

 

[valdas]

There you have it. A lens with "cleaning marks" is compared to a new one..

FYI cleaning marks are scratches. it's just a nice spin on it.

This is why people buy new lenses.

I agree, but those are so faint that I have to inspect really carefully to notice them. And this will never ever affect the image. This is why people buy used lenses...

 

[ForestCap]

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.

Thanks for the real life sample shots! They look very J3ish.

 

[Huss]

So what are we talking about. :angel:

How much do you think the Sonnar 1.5 ZM should cost? In the US it is double that of the Jupiter

ps. In Holland the C.V. lens is even cheaper:
http://www.fotokinolinders.com/product_info.php?cPath=173_275&products_id=2408

Then I withdraw the Dutch 21% VAT: Netto Eur. 495,00. I think a much better deal then Lomography.

If you live in Holland how do you avoid paying the Dutch VAT?

Also, perhaps most importantly that some have conveniently forgotten about, that CV lens, as well as every other new M mount lens, cannot be used on an LTM camera.

The Jupiter is a NEW lens that can be used on an LTM camera as well as M (and any other mirrorless) camera. No-one else offers that option, at any price.

 

[Monochrom]

Wow thanks for posting!!!

Impresive 🙂

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

 

[Huss]

It is very simple, I have a photographic company so all products related to this are free of VAT.

Dood.

You have to admit that your pricing then has nothing to do with the avg customer's pricing. We're talking retail pricing.
And the J3+ would not need to be reshimmed on a decent LTM camera like a Leica Barnack...
😀

 

[Robert Lai]

No lens is for everybody.
I happen to want new, because I've had too many bad experiences with Soviet era lenses. This new one is an excellent lens optically and mechanically. I knew the cost up front, but that's behind me now. I just use it.

If others are happy to reshim and CLA Soviet era lenses, then so be it.

 

[uhoh7]

No lens is for everybody.
I happen to want new, because I've had too many bad experiences with Soviet era lenses. This new one is an excellent lens optically and mechanically. I knew the cost up front, but that's behind me now. I just use it.

If others are happy to reshim and CLA Soviet era lenses, then so be it.

Exactly. It's a wonderful option to have. Why it's controversial I don't have a clue, except possibly some of the acolytes of the J3 are fixated on great super cheap lenses, which once upon a time the J3 was. It's not cheap any more at all since they are 150-200 bucks and there are so many copy issues. Those who really know the lens well and have seen many copies all agree on this, and are happy to see the J3+

The re-issue of this lens in brass with good coatings and calibration is unexpected and something really nice. 🙂

 

[Dante_Stella]

There you have it. A lens with "cleaning marks" is compared to a new one..

FYI cleaning marks are scratches. it's just a nice spin on it.

This is why people buy new lenses.

Which is really funny. Take a 60-year old lens with a couple of marks on the glass that are mainly (or completely of psychosomatic significance). Compare its cosmetic and functional condition to that of the 60-year-old complaining about the marks.

Sure, cleaning marks are scratches. But if they are not severe enough to have a real-world effect, it should not be surprising that some people don't want to pay 4x as much money for a lens without. Some lenses have rough grinds on inside elements right from the time of manufacture. On some lenses, glass defects are inevitable - like the idiopathic pinpoint "nicks" that occur when a pore in the coating (present since the factory) allows moisture to come in, corrode the glass, and cause it to "pop." Or bubbles in optical glass.

Modern coatings are fantastic as far as durability - cleaning marks on a modern lens might be a sign of abuse; marks on a really old one with soft coatings are an artifact of being used. Remember, it was conventional to use tissue paper to clean lenses until relatively recently. Today wood products are verboten for that.

D

 

[bobby_novatron]

Got mine today, I have to say (like others have stated) I'm quite impressed with the build quality. It seems like a very well-made product. The lens is compact but has a definite heft. It feels much more substantial than the original J-3.

The focus throw and aperture ring are velvety smooth when turned. The chrome-plated brass housing is nicely done. The entire lens reminds me of classic lenses of the 1950's and 1960's, an era when lenses were manufactured with dense alloys and fine machining. Small annoyance: the aperture numbers are small and difficult to read in low light.

FWIW the Lomo-designed packaging is OK. The outer hardshell box is nicely done, but the inner packing could be a little better. The lens and accessories sit in different spots on coloured cardstock paper. It doesn't seem substantial enough for a high quality hand-made optical instrument, especially for the price.

Another disappointment: the included booklets are not particularly well-written. Considering the long history of KMZ, I would have liked more background into KMZ and the history of the Sonnar / J-3 ... something more than the watered-down bullet points they cut-and-pasted from "sovietcams.com".

There's a lot of congratulatory text about how the new Jupiter-3+ will open new creative vistas for you, etc. etc., and a lot of blather about "what the hell is Lomography?" My thoughts are "who the hell wrote these books?" I guess even Lomography must hire low-paid and hungry interns to write product inserts.

Back to the lens: the multicoated optics are evident from inspecting the glass -- there are definite differences regarding the coatings on the J-3+ compared to the original. The new J-3+ elements show strong magenta / blue / purple glints, whereas the original J-3 glass was much more subdued. I won't know how this impacts the image quality until I get a chance to shoot some A/B tests with my original J-3 (I still have a 1960's J-3 in Contax/Kiev mount).

I shot a few sample images earlier today. Image quality of the new J3+ is very strongly reminiscent of the original Jupiter-3, although from my cursory test this afternoon I'd say the contrast is a bit higher and the new version is a bit sharper than the old Jupiter-3. Out-of-focus areas have that typical quirky squashed spheroid look that many FSU lenses have. But you definitely can't accuse this lens of not having character!

I'll post some comparison shots between the new J-3+ and the original J-3 soon.

 

[alexandru_voicu]

What about the build quality between the C-Sonnar and the new J-3, did anyone have the chance the compare them side by side? I have the C-Sonnar but, as an admirer Jupiter lenses, I must admit I'm seriously thinking about the new J-3. Does the J-3 exhibit the same focus shift, for what aperture is focus optimized?

Many thanks.

 

[RichardPhoto]

Wow! £500 in the UK!

I remember buying a Lomo LC-A (and also buying into the lomo scene) briefly as a naive youngster in the 90s. I did the whole cross-process cliche (well, probably not a cliche back then) before the camera broke. Sold it for the same over priced sum on eBay to someone was happy to have it as the broken stuff was 'part of the Lomo charm/mystique'. I'm constantly surprised all these years later that Lomo is still making a business churning out over priced hispter snake-oil.

 

[goamules]

Yeah, us too. It's good they finally contracted with an actual experienced lens maker, and offered a serious lens in the J-3. Instead of all that plastic hipster junk.