Wulfthari
Well-known
Maybe I should just give my Jupiter-3 some love and sent it in for a service, have it adjusted properly and have the missing screws added? I do like that lens, but it makes me worry while out shooting sometimes...
The answer is yes, the J-3 is a very good lens and its quotation are becoming ridiculous (almost like a Summarit 1.5), you shouldn't need to shim it to work on the Canon (the supposed incompatibility is overrated, all my soviet glass works on Leicas) but if it misses some screws the problem is a little more serious, I would recommend to post some pics on the FSU, there people can help you.
For the focus shift, that's typical of Sonnar designs: even the new Sonnar and the Canon 1.5 (which is a Sonnar design as well) are affected by it.
I checked out on CV's website, the Nokton is a peculiar lens, given that they haven't changed it much in the transition from LTM to M mount here it's how it looks:
Definitely NOt a double Gauss.
This is the Canon 1.5:
This is of course the Jupiter 3:
The Canon 1.8:
In short if you want a Sonnar you either can repair the Jupiter 3, get a Canon 1.5 (shouldn't be too different from the Jupiter, probably better built) or if you are wealthy try to get a L39 Sonnetar.
dee
Well-known
I have j3 gifted and rebuilt into a Contax mount by Brian Sweeney .
It appears to have been the remains of a Sonnar mounted to Leica screw and register.
It's my fave lens mounted on the adapted M8.
However,with Brian's expertise and judgement it's obviously just about as good as a J3 can get and suits me perfectly.
dee
It appears to have been the remains of a Sonnar mounted to Leica screw and register.
It's my fave lens mounted on the adapted M8.
However,with Brian's expertise and judgement it's obviously just about as good as a J3 can get and suits me perfectly.
dee
nukecoke
⚛Yashica
I agree with Wulfthari about the overrated incompatibility.
J-3(silver) is not very hard to be tinkered around at home. It has a double-helicoid design similar to early silver J-8 (PT3030, a nightmare to re-assemble) but much easier to disassemble/re-assemble. You can actually adjust a lot of things on it.
If the screws on the focus ring are missing, you may steal some screws from a cheaper silver Jupiter-8 (or other) lenses. They share the same screws. That would be how I do it since there is absolutely no place to buy such small screws near where I live.
Sharpness wise, my Jupiter-3 is on par with all my four J-8 at f/2, and sharper at f/2.8. It has better flare resistance than two of my J-8, and better than all of my collapsible Industar-22s and 50s. So I gave it more love and it stays on my Canon-7 most of the time. I don't have any Canon lenses to compare with.
J-3(silver) is not very hard to be tinkered around at home. It has a double-helicoid design similar to early silver J-8 (PT3030, a nightmare to re-assemble) but much easier to disassemble/re-assemble. You can actually adjust a lot of things on it.
If the screws on the focus ring are missing, you may steal some screws from a cheaper silver Jupiter-8 (or other) lenses. They share the same screws. That would be how I do it since there is absolutely no place to buy such small screws near where I live.
Sharpness wise, my Jupiter-3 is on par with all my four J-8 at f/2, and sharper at f/2.8. It has better flare resistance than two of my J-8, and better than all of my collapsible Industar-22s and 50s. So I gave it more love and it stays on my Canon-7 most of the time. I don't have any Canon lenses to compare with.
Applet
Member
Yes, I'll be servicing my Jupiter-3 and take care of it. I have a feeling I've been getting more shots with missed focus with the Jupiter-3 than some other lenses tho. But that can just be my imagination (or simply me focusing worse) in combination with the shallow DOF at 1.5. I have a Jupiter-8 I can take the screws from (that one is also missing screws... so it'll be unusable then).
It showed up a Canon 50 1.4 at a local auction site, so I'll be bidding on that as well. Hopefully I can get both (Ebay prices are a bit to high in my opinion).
Thanks for all the input!
It showed up a Canon 50 1.4 at a local auction site, so I'll be bidding on that as well. Hopefully I can get both (Ebay prices are a bit to high in my opinion).
Thanks for all the input!
Wulfthari
Well-known
Yes, I'll be servicing my Jupiter-3 and take care of it. I have a feeling I've been getting more shots with missed focus with the Jupiter-3 than some other lenses tho. But that can just be my imagination (or simply me focusing worse) in combination with the shallow DOF at 1.5. I have a Jupiter-8 I can take the screws from (that one is also missing screws... so it'll be unusable then).
It showed up a Canon 50 1.4 at a local auction site, so I'll be bidding on that as well. Hopefully I can get both (Ebay prices are a bit to high in my opinion).
Thanks for all the input!
Do you use the J-3 with your Canon only or you also have a Soviet RF like a Zorki4 or 6? If you also miss shots with the Soviet machine, then the lens has some problems, for instance my J-9 was out of focus badly after got hit.
However...I finally won a J-3 at a decent price and I'll test this mythical lens against my Nokton M classic and the Canon 1.8 I'm about to receive, I assume it's not as sharp as the Nokton but it should be comparable to the Canon.
uhoh7
Veteran
Just be sure to shine a light through your new Canon Lens right away. So many have haze, and it takes a huge toll on contrast and makes flare really easy.
I agree the Canon 1.8 is good, and probably the single best value in a 5cm prime.
I agree the Canon 1.8 is good, and probably the single best value in a 5cm prime.
Applet
Member
Unfortunately I don't have any LTM FSU rangefinder at the moment and I only use the lens with my Canon P (my, for the foreseeable future, only LTM rangefinder). If it focused fine on a FSU, I'd still need it to be calibrated for leica-standard. And if it missed focus, I'd still not be sure if it's only me or the lens
(not completely sure about the logic here).Yes, that seems like a common problem with the Canon lenses (especially the later f1.8?). The lens is described as having only slight haze on the front element. I have looked at guides, and it does not seem very hard to clean. What do you guys think? If it's not bad haze I can just leave it for the time being, and later send if of for CLA? Or is it crucial not to let it get worse?
Wulfthari
Well-known
Try to get a nice soviet RF as backup for the P, as long as you use it for 50mm they are nice, the most popular are the Fed2, Zorki 6 (limited amount of shutter speeds, very little can go wrong), the Zorki 4 (I prefer the K version, but for slow speeds you have to remember to cock the trigger before changing the shutter speed) or a more rare Zorki 5...they all come for cheap and if set up properly they are fun to use.
bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
Applet -- about the Canon 50/1.8 you are talking about.
The "haze" problem could be a major problem -- or not. It depends on the vendor.
I bought a Konica lens on eBay recently. The vendor said the lens condition was 9/10, and they said the front element had 'haze'. When I received the lens, I could find absolutely nothing wrong. Maybe I was lucky.
Good luck with your search!
The "haze" problem could be a major problem -- or not. It depends on the vendor.
I bought a Konica lens on eBay recently. The vendor said the lens condition was 9/10, and they said the front element had 'haze'. When I received the lens, I could find absolutely nothing wrong. Maybe I was lucky.
Good luck with your search!
Bingley
Veteran
Scrambler
Well-known
I've never owned a J3 but currently have an uncoated Sonnar in J3 mount, previously a J8 (coated) and I have a Canon 50/1.4. I have a few other RF and SLR lenses from the last 50 years as comparisons as well.
If you like the Sonnar rendering then why make a change? All Sonnars exhibit the same broad characteristics, though some are optimised in particular ways. Don't get a Canon 50/1.4 for a dreamy look wide open (not that the "bokeh" is particularly unpleasant).
To me the fast Sonnars are two lenses in one: a quite well corrected lens at small apertures and wide open there is a lot of spherical aberration giving a soft-focus effect and particularly pleasant rendering of distant out-of-focus highlights (bokeh). The upshot is that at wide apertures they are NOT sharp, at all.
The Canon 50/1.4 is, by most standards, an acceptably sharp lens wide open. A couple of stops down and it will rival most modern lenses. It prefers a hood but has quite good coatings and little flare. The tradoff is that out-of-focus highlights are well-corrected disks not fuzzy balls.
If you like the Sonnar rendering then why make a change? All Sonnars exhibit the same broad characteristics, though some are optimised in particular ways. Don't get a Canon 50/1.4 for a dreamy look wide open (not that the "bokeh" is particularly unpleasant).
To me the fast Sonnars are two lenses in one: a quite well corrected lens at small apertures and wide open there is a lot of spherical aberration giving a soft-focus effect and particularly pleasant rendering of distant out-of-focus highlights (bokeh). The upshot is that at wide apertures they are NOT sharp, at all.
The Canon 50/1.4 is, by most standards, an acceptably sharp lens wide open. A couple of stops down and it will rival most modern lenses. It prefers a hood but has quite good coatings and little flare. The tradoff is that out-of-focus highlights are well-corrected disks not fuzzy balls.
philcycles
Established
I use a 50/1.4 on my M3 with great results.
I have a 50/1.8 black on my P and a chrome one on my VT Delux.
They all take fine pictures.
I have a 50/1.8 black on my P and a chrome one on my VT Delux.
They all take fine pictures.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Don't know much about the Russian or Canon lenses. I have had the Nokton 50/1.5 ASPH (LTM) for four years now and I'm delighted with it, using it on M9, M-P, and M4-2 bodies. The rendering it provides reminds me most of the mid-1970s Summilux 50 I had once upon a time, which I liked a lot.
G
G
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
Applet, I second the recommendation to get an FSU body for second body. You will be glad someday. The Zorki-6 is well liked, and for good reason. I have one too and I think its the best fit for you considering your current primary shooter is a P. I really, strongly second the recommendation to get a second FSU body. I think you'll find plenty of ways to appreciate it too.
I have J-3, J-8, Canon 50/1.4, Canon 50/1.8, and quite a few other 50's, but no Nokton. Here's what I can say...
Canon 50/1.4 is a really nice lens. Works great on my film and digital bodies. My copy has some stiffness to the focus and its a long-throw so I sometimes choose another lens, but that's silly. Will fix it someday soon. I've made some real nice images with this lens.
Canon 50/1.8: A sleeper? You bet! My copy is clean and well-behaved. I remove the inifinity lock from the Canon lenses to improve handling (for me), but you might like it. Regardless, the praise you see for the 50/1.8 is well founded. I've made some real nice images with this lens too. I should use it more often, but I have so many 50's to choose from and the summicron or summilux are at the front of the lens cabinet...BTW, the Canon 50/1.8 is competitive with the cron performance-wise, especially on film.
For all Canon LTM lenses (particularly the 50/1.8), haze can be a much bigger issue than it should be. For some reason, these lenses are quite prone to haze. Usually that just means cleaning. But, the haze in the Canon 50's, especially the 50/1.8 is sometimes a permanent type. It can't be cleaned no matter what. And if you somehow did manage to scrape away the haze, the lens would be ruined. Now, not all haze in Canon lenses is the permanent type, but you have no way of knowing when you consider buying one. So, I would be really cautious and probably not buy any Canon lenses that have haze....and if I did, it would only be from a trusted source, such as certain people here at RFF. Even if the lens is advertised as free of haze, I'd like to see proof. I'm not trying to scare you from a Canon lens. The opposite actually, but trying to help assure you're thrilled with the lens you do get.
I like my 1957 J-3 too. It's not built like any Canon lens. However, it is a quick handling lens and for that reason (and the Sonnar look) it gets used from time to time. By all means have it serviced. I didn't see anyone mention Oleg in Ukraine, but he's supposed to be very good with FSU service. However, I have no direct experience with that.
I'd say last, that I wouldn't dismiss the Canon 50/1.8 from your consideration because it's 1.8 and not 1.4. Yes, the difference in speed is enough to be a factor, but if you're primary lens is 1.5, and the Canon is supposed to be a reliable backup, its less of an issue. Although I think you might find the Canon lens becomes more of a primary lens after you shoot with it a while. It has a nice look too, and the sharpness/contrast, etc. will impress you.
Nokton gets lots of love. Price is higher than the other considerations, but the LTM version has really become "inexpensive". Regardless of what you might have heard concerning build quality. I expect its just as good as a Canon, maybe better. And the performance can be seen around and about. Search RFF for Nokton 50/1.5 images, you'll see.
Good luck!
I have J-3, J-8, Canon 50/1.4, Canon 50/1.8, and quite a few other 50's, but no Nokton. Here's what I can say...
Canon 50/1.4 is a really nice lens. Works great on my film and digital bodies. My copy has some stiffness to the focus and its a long-throw so I sometimes choose another lens, but that's silly. Will fix it someday soon. I've made some real nice images with this lens.
Canon 50/1.8: A sleeper? You bet! My copy is clean and well-behaved. I remove the inifinity lock from the Canon lenses to improve handling (for me), but you might like it. Regardless, the praise you see for the 50/1.8 is well founded. I've made some real nice images with this lens too. I should use it more often, but I have so many 50's to choose from and the summicron or summilux are at the front of the lens cabinet...BTW, the Canon 50/1.8 is competitive with the cron performance-wise, especially on film.
For all Canon LTM lenses (particularly the 50/1.8), haze can be a much bigger issue than it should be. For some reason, these lenses are quite prone to haze. Usually that just means cleaning. But, the haze in the Canon 50's, especially the 50/1.8 is sometimes a permanent type. It can't be cleaned no matter what. And if you somehow did manage to scrape away the haze, the lens would be ruined. Now, not all haze in Canon lenses is the permanent type, but you have no way of knowing when you consider buying one. So, I would be really cautious and probably not buy any Canon lenses that have haze....and if I did, it would only be from a trusted source, such as certain people here at RFF. Even if the lens is advertised as free of haze, I'd like to see proof. I'm not trying to scare you from a Canon lens. The opposite actually, but trying to help assure you're thrilled with the lens you do get.
I like my 1957 J-3 too. It's not built like any Canon lens. However, it is a quick handling lens and for that reason (and the Sonnar look) it gets used from time to time. By all means have it serviced. I didn't see anyone mention Oleg in Ukraine, but he's supposed to be very good with FSU service. However, I have no direct experience with that.
I'd say last, that I wouldn't dismiss the Canon 50/1.8 from your consideration because it's 1.8 and not 1.4. Yes, the difference in speed is enough to be a factor, but if you're primary lens is 1.5, and the Canon is supposed to be a reliable backup, its less of an issue. Although I think you might find the Canon lens becomes more of a primary lens after you shoot with it a while. It has a nice look too, and the sharpness/contrast, etc. will impress you.
Nokton gets lots of love. Price is higher than the other considerations, but the LTM version has really become "inexpensive". Regardless of what you might have heard concerning build quality. I expect its just as good as a Canon, maybe better. And the performance can be seen around and about. Search RFF for Nokton 50/1.5 images, you'll see.
Good luck!