goamules
Well-known
Here is a comparison by Brian to a Zeiss, and a vintage J-3. Not sure if this was linked to before: http://www.lomography.com/magazine/...-of-the-new-jupiter-3-plus-with-brian-sweeney
Looking at his big version comparisons, the main difference I see is what I always liked about the vintage J-3s, the warmer colors than any other Sonnar type that I've used. The new one otherwise looks very close to the old, and to the Zeiss original. https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/albums/72157664046010901
Looking at his big version comparisons, the main difference I see is what I always liked about the vintage J-3s, the warmer colors than any other Sonnar type that I've used. The new one otherwise looks very close to the old, and to the Zeiss original. https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/albums/72157664046010901
bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
Now THAT'S the kind of info I would have liked to read about in the Lomo booklets with the new J-3+!!! Thanks for posting that link, great reading.goamules
Well-known
I bet the Lomo background with their marketing to starry eyed posers and hipsters was so successful, they didn't realize this J-3 will be for a more serious photographer buyer. It worked for them with their other stuff, including the so-called Petzval, so they don't want to mess with what's working. But they will miss a lot of mature, experienced people in their advertising and box materials.
Huss
Veteran
I don't think so. Mature experienced people can see through the marketing spin. Whether it is from Canikon, Sony, Fuji, Olympus or even Lomo!
The J3 had a justified reputation of being a really decent hunk of glass if you could get a good one. Now with the J3+ all that guess work has been removed.
raid
Dad Photographer
Today at B&H: You Pay: $799.00
Brian Legge
Veteran
The some Summicron 35mm v1s were LTM and included an adapter. Are those less desirable than the native M mount versions? As long as this lens comes with an adapter and it focuses down to 0.7m, why is an LTM native a big deal?
bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
I know the booklets aren't the point of the product, but they are part of the 'scope of delivery'. Plus, the cost of producing the booklets is a component (however small) of the overall price.
It's too bad about the text, because the layout and graphic design of the booklets are quite attractive.
The red booklet ("Lomography / Zenit: the Russian Rebirth") is fun to browse through. It's about 97 pages in length. But the first 79 pages are all filled with Lomo's self-congratulatory artsy silliness. Finally, on page 80 there's a brief history of KMZ that lasts 13 pages.
The grey booklet ("New Jupiter 3+ Manual") is very basic, with common-sense instructions like "do not look at the sun through the lens" and "do not try to disassemble the lens" printed in eleven languages.
The turqouise booklet is the thickest of the three books. As others have mentioned, it's kind of a micro-sized coffee table book showcasing the abilities of the J-3+. Again, it's fun to browse through. There are lots of interesting photos.
On pages 78-79 there is a brief history of the Jupiter-3 -- literally cut-and-pasted from sovietcams.com (they credit the website as a source). Two whole pages! I'm glad they didn't burden the purchaser with a fascinating retrospective of 70 years of KMZ's rich history. Those pages are much better utilized for cross-processed photos of cats, and dreamy pictures of macaroons.
On page 83 there is IMHO a very odd and erroneous reference to the the planet Jupiter: "While it's true the the largest planet in our great Milk Way galaxy can easily be spotted with the naked eye..." Sorry to disappoint you Lomography, but a quick Google search reveals that there are 122 exoplanets (as of 2016) that are larger than Jupiter. Many of them are considerably larger. Later on the text switches 'Milk Way' for 'solar system', leading me to think that the author either was not a native English speaker or he/she has a terribly shallow understanding of the cosmos.
Despite the somewhat sophomoric booklets, I'd say overall I'm happy with the J-3+. Having previously owned the ZM C-Sonnar 50/1.5 (a lens I never warmed up to) I'd choose the J-3+ over the Zeiss. The J-3+ unashamedly embraces its quirky character. Plus, if you're counting shekels, the Zeiss is about twice the price of the new J-3+ (the Zeiss is $1200 USD at B&H as of this writing).
So is it a lens for everyone? Not at all. Many people will still consider the J-3+ to be overpriced for what it is. But as a unique photographic tool, it's well worth considering when compared to other similar offerings.
It's too bad about the text, because the layout and graphic design of the booklets are quite attractive.
The red booklet ("Lomography / Zenit: the Russian Rebirth") is fun to browse through. It's about 97 pages in length. But the first 79 pages are all filled with Lomo's self-congratulatory artsy silliness. Finally, on page 80 there's a brief history of KMZ that lasts 13 pages.
The grey booklet ("New Jupiter 3+ Manual") is very basic, with common-sense instructions like "do not look at the sun through the lens" and "do not try to disassemble the lens" printed in eleven languages.
The turqouise booklet is the thickest of the three books. As others have mentioned, it's kind of a micro-sized coffee table book showcasing the abilities of the J-3+. Again, it's fun to browse through. There are lots of interesting photos.
On pages 78-79 there is a brief history of the Jupiter-3 -- literally cut-and-pasted from sovietcams.com (they credit the website as a source). Two whole pages! I'm glad they didn't burden the purchaser with a fascinating retrospective of 70 years of KMZ's rich history. Those pages are much better utilized for cross-processed photos of cats, and dreamy pictures of macaroons.
On page 83 there is IMHO a very odd and erroneous reference to the the planet Jupiter: "While it's true the the largest planet in our great Milk Way galaxy can easily be spotted with the naked eye..." Sorry to disappoint you Lomography, but a quick Google search reveals that there are 122 exoplanets (as of 2016) that are larger than Jupiter. Many of them are considerably larger. Later on the text switches 'Milk Way' for 'solar system', leading me to think that the author either was not a native English speaker or he/she has a terribly shallow understanding of the cosmos.
Despite the somewhat sophomoric booklets, I'd say overall I'm happy with the J-3+. Having previously owned the ZM C-Sonnar 50/1.5 (a lens I never warmed up to) I'd choose the J-3+ over the Zeiss. The J-3+ unashamedly embraces its quirky character. Plus, if you're counting shekels, the Zeiss is about twice the price of the new J-3+ (the Zeiss is $1200 USD at B&H as of this writing).
So is it a lens for everyone? Not at all. Many people will still consider the J-3+ to be overpriced for what it is. But as a unique photographic tool, it's well worth considering when compared to other similar offerings.
coelacanth
Ride, dive, shoot.
I am not into lomography/toy camera type of stuff at all, but this lens has a very unique combination of things that I think resonates well with some (or many) people on RFF including myself. Sonnar design LTM compatible (of course that means it can be mounted on M and virtually all mirrorless systems out there) 0.7m min focus compact fast lens made of brass with modern coating.
It's easy to dismiss it as a overpriced-hipsta-yuppie-toy for $5 coffee drinkers in SF or NYC or Tokyo, but really? I think you just might be missing something good and yummy by judging it by its cover and label.
It's easy to dismiss it as a overpriced-hipsta-yuppie-toy for $5 coffee drinkers in SF or NYC or Tokyo, but really? I think you just might be missing something good and yummy by judging it by its cover and label.
uhoh7
Veteran
It's apparently right on the money with M9 wide open. It's made of brass, if anything the build should be superior to the Cosina ZM, which is a light construction in comparison: though perfectly fine of course.
"The focus is accurate across range on my M9." Brian, from here:
https://www.leicaplace.com/threads/jupiter-3-lomography.1443/
Another selling point: this lens will close focus to .7 meter.
Huss
Veteran
For the Nokton 1.5
And $1201 for the CV ZM 1.5
Neither of which are a new LTM lens.
If you don't care about LTM then yes, perhaps one would want the Nokton for $150 more, but that depends on the rendering you are going for. modern vs old.
bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
FWIW I did a comparison of 4 fast 50's including the new Jupiter-3+. The images can be found here:
http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2585034#post2585034
I compared the original J-3, the new J-3+, the Opton Sonnar, and the Nokton ASPH.
Not a scientific test by any means but it might be helpful to some people.
http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2585034#post2585034
I compared the original J-3, the new J-3+, the Opton Sonnar, and the Nokton ASPH.
Not a scientific test by any means but it might be helpful to some people.
fer_fdi
Well-known
I think part of FSU lenses is what you get (a lot!) for little money.
If you make them expensive but with the same performance it's not very interesting anymore, imho.
I have a very very good 1955 KMZ Jupiter-8 that was $70, that's great.
Same lens for $300, not so. I'd buy something else for that money, maybe a Voigtlander or a Canon.
For 600 Euro I'd buy an "as new" ZM lens, not the J-3+, sorry.
And for J-3 character, I'd buy an original J-3, which is already expensive for $200, but with patience you may find a good one.
But of course, that's just how I see it.
I understand and respect other's POV
uhoh7
Veteran
Yes, the comparisons in price with the Nokton are silly anyway, because it's a totally different lens, basically a pre-asph 50 Lux, which is wonderful of course, and was the design which supplanted the Sonnars. But the Sonnars look different, and if you can't see that or don't care you don't consider this lens anyway.
And if you live in eastern Europe, you can see many old J3s and test each, plus 600USD is much money there. In America sorting through J3s is a greater pain, and returning the bad ones a nightmare. I don't even buy Russian lenses any more for this reason, I've seen enough copies with clean glass and terrible mechanics.
If the lens was priced at 450USD, they would probably triple sales, no doubt. But a new clean J3 with .7 CF, modern coatings, in brass with good calibration was simply unobtainable two months ago at any price.
raid
Dad Photographer
I have a ltm Nokton 50/1.5 and I have several Sonnar 5cm 1,5 J-3 and Zeiss lenses that Brain adjusted for me in the past.
Alberti
Well-known
Cat in a bag??
Cat in a bag??
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.
Cat in a bag??
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.
DominikDUK
Well-known
If you find a 50mm Sonnar without focus shift I'll be interested of hearing about it, because currently I am unaware of any such beast. Even the C-Sonnar has focus shift and it isn't even a true Sonnar. Also going after images on the LOMOgraphy website is always a bad idea.
Huss
Veteran
Agreed, it is as if they deliberately make them lo-fi/blurry.
The books that came with my Horizon Perfekt and with my Minitar 32 are full of blurry images. But mine taken with the camera, and with that lens, are sharp and 'properly' exposed!
I guess they set the bar low, so the avg user is not disappointed by him/her not knowing how to focus/expose etc (unless that is the look they are going for..)
alexandru_voicu
Established
Why isn't the C-Sonnar a true Sonnar?
ferider
Veteran
Because it's missing an element.
Then again: Sonnar is a Zeiss trademark, they can call anything Sonnar they want.
Roland.
DominikDUK
Well-known
The C-Sonnar is a 6/4 (Ernostar) construction a nice lens but not a Sonnar in fact it predates the Sonnar one could say it is the Sonnars direct predecessor. They are very close though they also share the same designer