Great J-3 Versus Great Helios: Your Experience Please

Then I heard that J-3s made by different factories, and in different years are not the same. I havn't tried mine from 3 factories, but My J-9s are not the same. I prefer the early M39 coated ones. My later M42 J-9 either MC coated or uncoated are less contrasty.
 
Mael said:
I had several J-3 and Helios.

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.
Click to expand...

Jupiter-3 were never been made by Lytkarino factory (LZOS)

J-3 were made by:

- KMZ, both versions: LTM and Kontax (1955- late 50s)
- ZOMZ (c. 1956 - late 70s) - factory in Zagorsk
- VOMZ (70s - late 80s) - factory on Valdai

Worst J-3s are.... I do not know. Every factory made brilliant samples and very `strange` ones.

On Kiev/Contax you should have both Helios-103 and Jupiter-3. Both lenses are great.
 
40oz said:
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....
.
Click to expand...


Hi 40oz,
You sound a tiny bit bitter, and with the addition of a slight splash of making generalizations, which we all need as a starting point. Yet I am not clear whom or what are you discussing with.

Anyway the conclusion is fine to me.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
ruben said:
Hi 40oz,
You sound a tiny bit bitter, and with the addition of a slight splash of making generalizations, which we all need as a starting point. Yet I am not clear whom or what are you discussing with.

Anyway the conclusion is fine to me.

Cheers,
Ruben
Click to expand...

I'm not bitter, Ruben :) I'm sorry if I wasn't clear - it's hard to convey nuance in text. You are asking if a J-3 is worth buying. I say it is. I'm not saying everyone needs one, but anyone interested in finding out why the J-3 has numerous fans owes it to themselves to try one.

In my opinion, the J-8 is a fine lens. The J-3 is better, if only because the look at 1.5 is a look the J-8 cannot deliver. And as has been said, the kind of image you get from a Helios wide open is not the same as what you get from a J-3. Whether you find that better or worse is a personal decision, but I'd be surprised if you didn't like it.

I'm sorry if my earlier digression was off topic, but a man can't bite his tongue forever :angel: ;)
 
40oz said:
I'm not bitter, Ruben :) ..... And as has been said, the kind of image you get from a Helios wide open is not the same as what you get from a J-3....
Click to expand...

Thanks 40oz, i am wavering about this issue in general, as for my first time I am studying a prospective purchase before acting out of GAS.

Now, concerning my above quotation of a part from your last post, could you indicate who has stated it clear-cut here in the thread? Perhaps I am reading too much selectively, but so far my conclusion is that at widest aperture a great Helios can outperform a poor J-3 sample.

Btw, it seems to be the inference of your post #19 too.

Thanks,
Ruben
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi Ruben, over various times I have owned a Helios, Zeiss Opton 50/1.5 and Zeiss 50/2. I still own a Jupiter 8 and fairly recently acquired an excellent 1951 J-3 via this board.

Personally I think it's all about price. If, as I did, you can find a good early J-3 for well under $100 it's worth it. Beyond that, stick with the Helios which, like the J-8, is a terrific lens. Once prices for the J-3 get high, you might as well look for the Zeiss.

I think we're all generally caught up in a tendency to look out for better lenses in the hope they will make better photos, which is not the case.
 
Assuming that we have both good samples of Helios-103 and Jupiter-3, and then testing them both wide open, once again we`ll have `Planar vs Sonnar` fight...

Helios-103 has higher contrast on 1.8 than J3 on 1.5, also due to DG design - Helios will have enough sharpness from center to corners, while J3`s corners will be soft till 2.8

So once again - lenses are differ, tastes are differ as well.

BTW. Kontax mount J3s are quite rare. Even in Russia.
 
There was a thread here in Soviet RF with invention of such acronym. 2-3 weeks ago.

origin of Helios-103 to be `Russian Summicron copy` is unproved hypothesis. The exact copy of cron 50/2 was Orchid-1 lens.

Still Helios looks like 1st Summicron version wide open.

Conformably to lens names sometimes I call lens in Russan tradition of names.

For example. My full name is Vadim Borisovich Kuznetsov
Vadim - my name
Borisovich - patronymic (name)
Kuznetsov - surname/family

So Jupiter-8 will be: Jupiter Zeissovich Sonnarov (Jupiter the son of Zeiss of Sonnars lens family)

ZM Biogon will be then: Biogon Zeissovich Cosinov (Biogon the son of Zeiss of Cosina origin)

It is TOO clumsy in English, still - quite useful in Russian language.
 
Vadim, I remember hearing somewhere that the name "Jupiter" as applied to lenses is not the latin name for the fifth planet, but an unrelated, similar sounding, Russian word. Is that true? and if so, could you kindly tell us what it means?

All the best, Ian
 
Isn't Kuznetzov a famous Russian navy adimiral IIRC? :D I would be more interested to find out the difference between Helicron and early Summicron.:D

salute!
 
Jocko said:
Vadim, I remember hearing somewhere that the name "Jupiter" as applied to lenses is not the latin name for the fifth planet, but an unrelated, similar sounding, Russian word. Is that true? and if so, could you kindly tell us what it means?

All the best, Ian
Click to expand...

No. Jupiter = Юпитер = the 5th planet = Rome Name for Zeus God, all the same in russian as in other languages.

Why fast Sonnar copies were named Jupiters - there many versions, one of them is that `Zeiss` name was spelled incorrectly in russian as `Seis` [zeis] similar to `Zeus` name.
 
zhang xk said:
Isn't Kuznetzov a famous Russian navy adimiral IIRC? :D I would be more interested to find out the difference between Helicron and early Summicron.:D

salute!
Click to expand...

Yes, he is. As well as famous American Economist - Simon Kuznets was Kuznetsov actually.

But Kuznetsov derives from `kuznets` word = `blacksmith` simply. So it`s of one of most common russian surnames pretty same with western Mr./Ms. Smith

I consult with my rangafinder photog mates and we think that the only way to find the differense is to take Helios-103 and hack-saw and... look inside
icon_crazy.gif
 
Last edited:
This is interesting information. Thanks.

By the way, is the Helios any different from a Menopta?
 
raid said:
This is interesting information. Thanks.

By the way, is the Helios any different from a Menopta?
Click to expand...

From what I've read, the Menopta is a rebadged Helios-94. the 94 was originally for the Kiev 5, but seems to have been available in regular Kiev mount as well. I don't know what the differences between the 94 and the 103 might be, the basic specifications seem the same.
 
I did not know that the Menopta is like the Helios 94. I have read online that it was similar/identical to the Helios 103.
 
raid said:
I did not know that the Menopta is like the Helios 94. I have read online that it was similar/identical to the Helios 103.
Click to expand...

Raid,
They may be. I've only seen pictures of the 94, but it looks almost exactly like the 103. My information if from Princelle's book, but he doesn't devote much space to it.
 
Hello,

A couple of months ago I have asked M Princelle himself about the rare Menopta. He was positive, the lens is a rebadged Helios 94.

Hope this helps,

Jean
 
Last edited:
Jean said:
Hello,

A couple of months ago I have asked M Princelle himself about the rare Menopta. He was positive, the lens is a rebadged Helios 94.

Hope this helps,

Jean
Click to expand...

I have a H103 and a Menopta, both bought as "new-old-stock". Both were made around 1994. Aside from the ring bezel surrounding the lens (the name), they look absolutely identical. ( not tried any meaningful photo comparisons yet, though)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom