Great J-3 Versus Great Helios: Your Experience Please

R

ruben

Guest
I think it was Noel that once questioned the justification of paying for a J-3 f/1.5, having so cheap an Helios f/1.8.

Since I have not experienced a J-3, could you tell me please if its overall performance is even better than that of a good Helios ?, I mean, are you paying just for the f/1.5, or do you get an extra ?

Of course, take into account that the real match for both is at the arena of widest aperture and close distance.

And the question becomes more complex as you need to know if Your samples of each, that you are evaluating, have to be great ones both. Thus for example, one of my three Helios, at widest aperture, seems to be consistenly quite crappy in two different Kievs.

The other 2 Helios are very good at widest aperture, but sligthly beaten by a "Sonnar quality" Jupiter 8m from the middle 60's...

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The real question is if you, Ruben, see a difference between Sonnar & Planar type lenses in thier images. If you do and the Sonnar look is important to you, then the J3 premium is justified. If you do not see a difference or do not like the Sonnar look then obviously the Helios is much better buy. Personally at one point I had a Helios & a 50/2 Sonnar for my Kiev 4a. I kept the Sonnar and gave away the Helios - but then I'm well known as a big fan of the Tessar/Sonnar look. YMWV.

William
 
the H-103 has now got the best preformance to price ratio of any lens even surpassing the the I-61 L/d.
 
Hi Will,

I am not forgiving your addressing about the issue of widest aperture and close distance. Kindly speak, because it is here where I am needing them, at their hardest task. And because of it, the look here becomes for me secondary to definition power.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi Ruben,

The Sonnar, like the Tessar before it but smoother, has a tendency to produce images wide open that are knife edge sharp in the center but turn soft in a buttery way the closer you get to the edges. They do not, in anyway shape or form, make a corner to corner sharp image if they are wide open. The bokeh is almost always an intense delight as well.

All Guassian lenses - and the ZI Plannar, Helios 53/1.8 & (for a classicly good "other" example) Canon 50/1.8 are this - do not have this "flaw". They are sharp from edge to edge and do not show the individual variation that the others possess.

Now all of this is simply my subjective opinion. But frankly, if you want to know what a Contax is really able to do you need three lenses:
50/3.5 black collapsible Tessar from the Contax I
50/2 collapsible Sonnar (preferably pre-war & uncoated) This is what 99% of the famous Contax shots were made with.
50/1.5 rigid Sonnar This is the lens everyone else is still, in various ways, trying to match... :eek:

Hope this helps,

William
 
Last edited by a moderator:
50/2 collapsible Sonnar (preferably pre-war & uncoated) This is what 99% of the famous Contax shots were made with.
Click to expand...
I knew one day I would deeply regret selling mine... the day is today :bang:
 
Ok Will, if I follow you correctly, and according to my issue, you tell me:

a) If I have a great Helios then the purchase of a J-3 is of dubitable convenience.

b) If I want a significantly leap forwards at f/1.7 I should look for a 50/1.5 rigid Sonnar.

Right ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ruben,

Firstly I ought to say that I speak from almost total ignorance, but.......

A few months ago I once again discovered an enthusiasm for the Kiev/Contax RF and I began to gather equipment (including Spyderman's beautiful collapsible Sonnar. Just before my recent "incident" I was finally able shoot some test rolls comparing lenses. The J-3 is a remarkable lens with a beautiful look which I gather is characteristic of Sonnars - a very smooth sharpness.

I can't tell if this was due to inaccurate focusing, but very close and at full aperture I noted what may be the effect of focus shift, apparently another characteristic of the Sonnar design - the focus seemed slightly "out", just by a few centimeters. Now, In my case this may have been human error, but I believe Varjag mentioned the same issue with regard to the J-3 (and the Zeiss original), stating that one had to slightly correct the focus from that shown by the RF when up close and at full aperture.

That might be a problem in some circumstances, and I would be generally inclined to use 1.5 only when the subject was a little further away and there was some DOF. The other, F2, sonnars which I tried did not seem to have this issue (presumably thanks to DOF), but were also beautiful lenses.

In such company the 103, although sharp, did not seem particularly distinctive, but the samples I took with it would not have shown any lens to advantage.

Cheers, Ian
 
Last edited:
Ruben, IMHO you have to give J-3 a try. Then it will be obvious if it's worth the premium for you.

Having great samples of both lenses I think J3 is worth it.
 
Hi Ruben,

I viewed the negative shot with both lenses on the same roll of film under a 56x power microscope, and saw the difference. The Helios seems a bit sharper under a 56x microscope, but the J-3 seems to have a higher micro-contrast. The dark is darker, and the light is lighter on details. While the Helios has a more clear cut on edges of small details, contrast is a tiny bit lower. The Helios performs about the same as my Canon FD 50/1.8 and Olympus Zuiko 50/1.8 for reslution and contrast, while J-3 has about the same resolution, the image is a bit different.

Under a 56x power microscope, I wonder if any normal lens could be sharper than an Olympus 50/1.8? What for? I did not test these lenses wide open though.

Since I have no proper scientic instrument to measure the results, this observation is purely subjective.

Cheers,

Zhang
 
I had several J-3 and Helios.

The main trouble is that it is very expensive to find a Jupiter 3 that is in good condition. Once you have found a good one, there is a major probability that the lens was badly build. The best J-3 are the first one, made by KMZ in the fifties. There is antireflective paint inside, and around every element. The worst I have ever seen are the Lytkarno build. At this point, you spent approx. 300 bucks to have a decent J-3, buying 3 to get only a good one. So my advice is if you do not want to be frustrated with J-3 is to buy an original Zeiss Sonnar.

It seems the Helios were made in better days, with more accurate factory tolerances. Having purchased 3 of them, all were mint, and all were focusing accurately on my Kiev (Please note that my kiev were rebuild according Zeiss factory tolerances, especially regarding the lens to flange distance). This lens is cheap and good.

Considering the performance, I am not a person that spends its day taking picture of resolution charts. All lenses are good to me, from uncoated doublets to multicoated Gauss type. If the results are not what the photographer was waiting for, it is only the photographer's fault... he was not sufficiently inspired to take the best from this lens, whatever the lens it is.
 
Last edited:
Hi Mael,
You have awakened me to something quite known already, but because of all the hurras for the J-3 it went lost: you say there are variations in J-3 quality and I would like to see if any dweller of the neighbourhood dares to challenge it.

Because one thing is to collect a dozen of J-8, J-8M, or/and Helios - and another thing is to start trying J-3s at a starting price of $120 a piece. However we have a fellow known as Fedka, whose optic products have been till today first class.

According to my experience, most standards will look quite the same from f/2.8 or f/4 onwards. But is is at f/2 and 1meter when the differences among them become very evident.

Hence two inferences:
a) The lower price make the J-8s and Helios quite easy to collect and compare, but the contrary happens with the Jupiters-3 (and Sonnars too, btw).

b) being the differences among the J-3 themselves less easy to detect, due to the price factor blocking their easy collection and comparizon - while the average J-3 may be better than the average Helios or J-8(m), an outstanding Helios or J-8(m) may surpass an average J-3 at widest aperture.

BTW, Comrade Zhang, in a medium rigurous test I performed a couple of years ago, 2 jupiters outperformed my Zuiko f1/8 and equalled the Zuiko Macro f/3.5 at 1 meter and widest aperture each !



Cheers,
Ruben
 
Last edited by a moderator:
fidget said:
Hi Ruben, a "new" Helios is so cheap that surely you should have one?
Click to expand...

Hi fidget,
Perhaps I lack the necessary humour, but your post is absolutely unclear to me.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Please excuse my English, I'll rephrase it:...

The Helios can be bought very cheaply, as "new-old-stock" from sellers on the bay. So cheap, in fact that they are good to just try and see if you like them.
As a Kiev enthusiast, (surely) you should have one, even if you do get a J3 eventually.

Dave....
 
Now I follow you, fidget. As I said at my opening post besides several J-8(M)'s, I own too three Helios. One crappy, the other two among the best of my whole fleet.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Hi Ruben, can't help but to chime in.

This is strictly personal to me, in a kit, I only want exactly one wideangle, one standard, and one tele.

Therefore, I am done Jupiter-wise with J12, J8, and J9. :)

Helios is cool, but I like the bokeh from the J8 better. Thinking about it, I've yet to put a roll through the Kiev 4A with the J9 :eek:
 
they are two different lenses. If you have no desire to own a J-3, don't. But because you are asking the question, you do.

As far as "build quality," or "best years," it's silly to me that people will go on about which years are best, then add a caveat about sample variation which renders any speculation about "best years" to be meaningless.

Face facts, people - we are buying the lenses people don't want, especially via ebay from the FSU republics. And who really is unaware that lenses from companies like Zeiss and Leica require work after all these years? Why hold Jupiters to a different standard? It's not like people are running off in the Leica forums about how spotty Leica work is, despite the frequency of fogged lenses from the fifties.

You buy a cheap J-3 from a no-name seller over the internet, shipped from half a world away, and somehow think what you get represents the best possible sample precisely as it was from the factory? Reality, people. It's decade upon decade of use and age for most of these lenses, and anything not needing work is going to be sold or traded locally for a fair price, if the photog even is willing to get rid of it. Anything showing up on ebay is not saleable locally - the dregs.

Bottom line - buy a J-3 from a reputable dealer that will stand behind the product and repair/adjust the lens if required. Yes, this costs more, but a Jupiter-3 is not a cheap lens. The results are worth the price. If you wish to gamble, don't blame the nebulous "FSU system" when you lose - the very word "gamble" indicates there is a risk that isn't in your favor.
 
Last edited:
I own an adjusted J-3 by Brian, and I also have a Menopta, which is the export version of a Helios. Both are fine lenses, but I prefer the old CZJ 5cm/2 over these two lenses. There is more snap to the photos. Maybe it is just a feeling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom