Did I choose correctly? Canon 50mm 1.8 vs. Jupiter 3

[CliveC]

Went to a camera show today and I came across two lenses: a black, mid-1980s Jupiter 3 LTM lens and a Canon 50mm LTM 1.8, non-chrome. The Canon is mint, the Jupiter had a few specks, but seemed in good condition.

The Canon was $30 more than the Jupiter. Both were a little below eBay value.

I read the general negative reviews of late-Jupiter 3 lenses, with most people saying a pre 1960 chrome one is the way to go. As with most Russian glass, uneven quality control is a problem. Also, I hear FSU glass may need shimming on non-FSU cameras. Despite this, the rendering characteristics are lauded.

The Canon 50mm 1.8 seemed to be the "safe" bet. I chose it.

People who own, or have owned, both, should I have gotten the Jupiter 3 instead? Or maybe add it to my collection down the line?

 

[Robert Lai]

I've never had any luck with Russian glass.
You're always safer choosing Canon.

 

[Maiku]

Good buy! The Canon 50/1.8 is a great lens. Small, compact. Good bang for the buck. Lucky dog!

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

You only read negative reviews when people write them and no one bothers to write and say they took 35 to 40 photo's with a Jupiter lens and they all came out because it's common place.

If you want to read all the negative reviews just go through the M's threads and the screw thread threads. Like all mechanical devices that are 30, 40, 50 or 60 years old the mileage and owners will affect them but all of them can be sorted out because they are robust and sound designs. I'll make an exception for the Summar, the only lens I've abandoned because it was too far gone.

Regards, David

 

[awbphotog]

The canon 50 1.8 is a stellar lens. I've had mine for around 3 years now and it consistently gets chosen for use over my Summarit 50 1.5, my Jupiter 8, and my Industar 22. It's my favorite 50mm lens for sure. Great choice!

 

[Bingley]

The Canon 50/1.8 is a terrific lens and a superb bargain. If your sample is truly mint, you got a good deal. No need to second guess your choice.

 

[redisburning]

you bought the better lens at a good price, seems like a win-win to me.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Jupiter 3 has its name on the pictures. Canon 50 1.8 seems to be closer to "no name".
The problem with J-3 is to find one which is OK. Black ones are way too overpriced on e-bay, despite reports to be softer comparing to white ones.
So, it was good decision at the end with Canon.

 

[rbiemer]

My primary 50mm is a mid-1950s J-8 and I've considered it so for the last 7 or 8 years. The one lens that I want to own again that might change that would be a similar vintage and condition Canon.
That said, were I choosing between a mid 80s J-3 and a Canon, the Canon would be my choice.
Rob

 

[agfa100]

You will not go wrong with a Canon 50mm 1.8, BUT you missed a great lens with the Jupiter 3. Now most of them need to be adjusted to work properly on a Leica rf but once that is done you will have a fun lens for people pictures....

wbill

 

[Dez]

The only thing to watch with the black Canon 1.8 is fog. Cleaning these lenses is very easy, but this particular model tends to develop non-removable fog on the glass surfaces adjacent to the aperture. Whatever outgasses from the lube eats the coating of the lens. If your lens is free of fog, you have a real winner.

Cheers,
Dez

 

[xayraa33]

Both are nice lenses, ideally it would be nice to own both lenses.

 

[redisburning]

Both are nice lenses, ideally it would be nice to own both lenses.

I think the main difference is most Canons are nice, but only some jupiters are nice. of course in a perfect world we could have every lens we might conceivably wish to use and the best example of each.

 

[rfaspen]

I have em both, although they're both chrome versions. The Canon 50/1.8 is really a safe lens for all around goodness. I've had more than one person compare it favorably with the summicron of similar vintage. Mine seems to be one of those. The haze issue is the only possible detraction of the Canon. If you don't have haze, you're in great shape. Enjoy that lens.

The J-3 is nice, at least mine is, but if I had to acquire these two lenses in order, it would be the Canon first and the J-3 down the road. In fact, that's how it went for me. My J-3 is shimmed and it seems to be a worthwhile modification. That's just more to think about with that lens -- with the Canon you're off to the races without any fuss.

 

[goamules]

The Canon 1.8 is a modern looking, rendering Planar type lens. The J-3 is a very different Sonnar type. Both can be very sharp wide open, but I like the warmer colors and bokeh of the J-3 better. Now that you have the Canon, and the Jupiters are falling off their high in prices, you can look for a cheap J-3. Most from the mid 1960s back are fine. Both at F2.8, J-3 first, then Canon 1.8:

 

[CliveC]

Thanks for the feedback guys. I should probably mention that I also have a Jupiter 8, but the focusing action is a little grindy. I love the glowy nature of it though. Also already have a Jupiter 12 in great condition.

I'll probably be keeping an eye out for an earlier Jupiter 3 in the meanwhile.

Goamules: The rendition on the Jupiter 3 is quite lovely. Seems to expose more than the Canon on the same aperture though?