thawkins
Well-known
If one had to pick and choose between the Industar 22 and the Jupiter 3 for use on a Zorki "C" or anyother FSU camera, what would the consensus be?
Industar vs. Jupiter
- Thread starter thawkins
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 15
- Views 3K
Brian Legge
Veteran
Probably that they can both be great lenses but are very different with respect to handling, capabilities, etc
Hibbs
R.I.P. Charlie
I'd pick the J3 on FSU...especially if it is in good shape. No worries about shimming. Can render some great images for sure.
My nephew is awaiting a FED1 with an I22. I have a spare J8 and J3 that he can try out and decide which he likes best. The collapsible has great appeal to him.
~ Hibbs
My nephew is awaiting a FED1 with an I22. I have a spare J8 and J3 that he can try out and decide which he likes best. The collapsible has great appeal to him.
~ Hibbs
02Pilot
Malcontent
Really different lenses. The big appeal to me of the I-22 is that it can be collapsed; this makes the camera very pocketable (at least the smaller-bodied ones, like my FED-2). The J-3 offers great rendering and a lot more speed, plus more modern ergonomics, but it also turns the camera into something considerably larger (though not heavier, since it's aluminum-bodied). All depends where your priorities lie - for me, my FED is a camera I take when I want something I can carry unobtrusively, so it wears a FED 50/3.5 collapsible most of the time.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I-22 you could find as low as $20, but I-3 went up to $200 now.
Two completely different lenses. In build and render.
I-22 is good for street photography due to the focus pin.
J-3 has normal front for filters and hood.
If you can't afford J-3, I-22 is good cheap neat alternative.
The only problem with I-22 it doesn't fit on all FEDs and doesn't collapse fully into Bessa.
But it is unique lens on rendering vs I-10 and I-50.
Two completely different lenses. In build and render.
I-22 is good for street photography due to the focus pin.
J-3 has normal front for filters and hood.
If you can't afford J-3, I-22 is good cheap neat alternative.
The only problem with I-22 it doesn't fit on all FEDs and doesn't collapse fully into Bessa.
But it is unique lens on rendering vs I-10 and I-50.
pete hogan
Well-known
I would start with an I-22 and get the camera's methods down. Then add a J-3 or J-8 when more lens is desired. The I-22 will always be good to have for compact uses. The images from my J-8 are really nice. I've considered adding a J-3, though it's really not necessary for me.
I use these lenses on a Zorki 1c. All of this nice equipment came from Fedka in NYC.
I use these lenses on a Zorki 1c. All of this nice equipment came from Fedka in NYC.
Scrambler
Well-known
First the fine print. I haven't owned either of the lenses. But I own or have owned an I-10, I-50, J-8 and a Zeiss Sonnar 1.5 (uncoated).
If you particularly like the Sonnar look and the razor thin focus of a fast 50 then the J-3 is a good option. Remember they don't play nicely with proper Leicas.
The stops past 2.8 are soft-focus territory. In the 1930s when the lens was designed this was perfectly acceptable because the alternative was darkness. Since the 1950s it is not really an option for general photography because any half competent SLR 50 can do f1.4 better than the J-3. Now it is an aesthetic choice. It is still a current aesthetic choice with Zeiss having the C-Sonnar 50/1.5 in their lineup.
The Tessar designs are quite good optically and cheap.
If you want the Sonnar look and don't really need the last stop then the J-8 is a really good performer. It will match the J-3 for output, other than at f1.5.
If you particularly like the Sonnar look and the razor thin focus of a fast 50 then the J-3 is a good option. Remember they don't play nicely with proper Leicas.
The stops past 2.8 are soft-focus territory. In the 1930s when the lens was designed this was perfectly acceptable because the alternative was darkness. Since the 1950s it is not really an option for general photography because any half competent SLR 50 can do f1.4 better than the J-3. Now it is an aesthetic choice. It is still a current aesthetic choice with Zeiss having the C-Sonnar 50/1.5 in their lineup.
The Tessar designs are quite good optically and cheap.
If you want the Sonnar look and don't really need the last stop then the J-8 is a really good performer. It will match the J-3 for output, other than at f1.5.
KnipsOmat
Established
Fortunately, I don't have to pick and choose, but can use them all; from Industar-10, -22, -50, -26M, -61 and -61 L/D to Jupiter-8 and -3.
Personally, I like to have the historically correct lenses on the cameras. On the smaller Zorkis and FEDs -1 and -2 I like the collapsible lenses for their pockatability. On a Zorki-3, 3M, 4 or 4K I prefer an Industar-8 or -3 for their speed.
If I had to pick a single one, it would likely be a Jupiter-8.
Cheeres,
Andreas
Personally, I like to have the historically correct lenses on the cameras. On the smaller Zorkis and FEDs -1 and -2 I like the collapsible lenses for their pockatability. On a Zorki-3, 3M, 4 or 4K I prefer an Industar-8 or -3 for their speed.
If I had to pick a single one, it would likely be a Jupiter-8.
Cheeres,
Andreas
thawkins
Well-known
Well actually I do have both and the J3 does change the characteristics of the camera. The Industar does a great job and frankly I cannot see much difference between the two lens. I am going to get rid of one of the lens and get a Jupiter 35mm lens and I was looking for other users opinions.
Scrambler
Well-known
That's a different question! If you don't see the difference (presumably you don't use the J-3 wide open) then sell the J-3 which will fully fund the J-12, with change. The J-12 is f2.8 so little difference in maximum aperture between it and the I-22. I DO have a copy of the J-12 and I like the rendering, but mine isn't as hot on colour as some.
For my personal use, between I-22 and J-3, I would keep the J-3. I don't use the I-10 or I-50, or the I-61L/D that I also own (but that is now touring Australia and New Zealand). I use the Zeiss Sonnar in J-3 mount, so essentially an uncoated J-3, and a Canon 50/1.4. I like the extra stops.
rbiemer
Unabashed Amateur
Over the years, I have owned and used most of the post WWII FSU 50 mm lenses and I have kept only three: the I-22, a rigid I-50, and a J-8.
I had a well sorted J-3 and just didn't enjoy my results from it as well as I like the photos I made with the J-8. The I-22 works very well on my Zorki 1 but not on my Bessa R--the infinity lock hangs up on the Bessa--but I do like the way the I-22 handles otherwise. And, as has been said, it makes for a compact camera on my Zorki.
I can only agree with Scrambler, if you want a J-12 and don't need the J-3 then that seems a good trade off.
Rob
I had a well sorted J-3 and just didn't enjoy my results from it as well as I like the photos I made with the J-8. The I-22 works very well on my Zorki 1 but not on my Bessa R--the infinity lock hangs up on the Bessa--but I do like the way the I-22 handles otherwise. And, as has been said, it makes for a compact camera on my Zorki.
I can only agree with Scrambler, if you want a J-12 and don't need the J-3 then that seems a good trade off.
Rob
Fotohuis
Well-known
My favorit lenses: J-8, J-12 and the I-61 Zebra. Instead of a J-3 I would buy a C.V. F/1,5-50mm.
Monochrom
Well-known
Two very different lenses, the j3 a fast sonnar clone and the I-22 a collapsible tessar formula clone...
The j3 is small and fast as any sonnar lens and depending on manufacture is really great....the i-22 is slower sharp and small.
Try to get an I-22 with the red "п" which reads like "P" yesterday i tried one sample! Nice lens!
The j3 is small and fast as any sonnar lens and depending on manufacture is really great....the i-22 is slower sharp and small.
Try to get an I-22 with the red "п" which reads like "P" yesterday i tried one sample! Nice lens!
Ron (Netherlands)
Well-known
The I-22 is so low value that I guess every member here can afford to have it together with a J-3. Pure esthetically I vote for the I-22 (or comparable FED lens) on a Barnack leica or Zorki / Fed camera alike. But once a while it is nice if you can put on the J-3. I had seven in the past just to try out all different makes over the years, and only the black one stayed.
Further I would advise to only buy a J-3 if the glass is very near mint condition, since a scratched up one (or one with socalled cleaning marks), won't provide its charms. Further I don't have preference for one of these two lenses.
Here is my Fed lens, just cleaned and serviced, on an early FED2:
FED f3,5 50mm CLA by Ron (Netherlands), on Flickr
FED f3,5 50mm CLA by Ron (Netherlands), on Flickr
Further I would advise to only buy a J-3 if the glass is very near mint condition, since a scratched up one (or one with socalled cleaning marks), won't provide its charms. Further I don't have preference for one of these two lenses.
Here is my Fed lens, just cleaned and serviced, on an early FED2:
FED f3,5 50mm CLA by Ron (Netherlands), on Flickr
FED f3,5 50mm CLA by Ron (Netherlands), on Flickr
pete hogan
Well-known
Why sell a good I-22? Why sell a bad I-22?
tho60
Well-known
my former thread
my former thread
Dear Buddies,
Two years ago I started a thread “Industars, Jupiters and other stuff”. http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=115616 There were many replies but the issue cannot be settled one way or the other. I strongly believe that this is a matter of preference. 🙄
my former thread
Dear Buddies,
Two years ago I started a thread “Industars, Jupiters and other stuff”. http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=115616 There were many replies but the issue cannot be settled one way or the other. I strongly believe that this is a matter of preference. 🙄
Similar threads
