J-3 for Kiev, first results from the darkroom !

[supermarcel23]

Purchased a '52 Jupiter 3 for Kiev, in great shape, no bubbles, no scratches, no dust, all was OK until I discovered it has to be reshimed in order to focus accuratly on my Kiev IIa, and that I had to put some scotch tape to give it the good diameter for fitting the camera...
Well, three scans of what I had, coming of my darkroom, scan of RC prints, but I have a so poor scan...
Nber J3-1 at 1/125 f8 J3-2 1/30 f1.5 and J3-3 at 1/125 f/5.6 on the same roll of Ilford HP5+...
This lens is much sharper than my Helios at full aperture. I'm waiting a second sample from 1964 to see the differences. I will then post a test between the two.

 

[back alley]

nice work.
i love that second shot.

joe

 

[laurentvenet]

it's good you could post some samples of J3, I'm also waiting for one from 50's. I hope it won t have to be reshimed.

 

[sockeyed]

Bubbles in the glass aren't necessarily a bad thing. In fact, they were often a sign of very high quality optical glass. My jupiter-9 has bubbles, and it's a great lens.

 

[supermarcel23]

Bubbles...

Bubbles...

Well, I've heard a lot of things about bubbles; Bubbles are not a sign of quality, (But for some ebay sellers they are !) the russians tolerances allowed them, that's all. But the effect of bubbles is as minor as can be a little dust, it will not noticeably affect the picture.
The only difference between original Zeiss lenses and russian lenses is that the factory where the german produced their glass was floating ! A part of the factory was floating on a lake, in order to prevent bubbles in the glass. The movement of hot liquid glass was better in the moulding process when the factory was floating. And the quality control of german glasses did not allow any bubbles.
I know it affects only a very little, because I have some in my J-9 and other samples.
But I don't think it is a sign of quality... I saw some russian lenses where you can not see through because there was hundreds of !

 

[lawrence]

I used to own a Hasselblad SWC -- the 38mm Zeiss wide angle had a bubble in it, quite a big one too!

Lawrence

 

[Carburo]

Purchased a '52 Jupiter 3 for Kiev, in great shape, no bubbles, no scratches, no dust, all was OK until I discovered it has to be reshimed in order to focus accuratly on my Kiev IIa, and that I had to put some scotch tape to give it the good diameter for fitting the camera...
Well, three scans of what I had, coming of my darkroom, scan of RC prints, but I have a so poor scan...
Nber J3-1 at 1/125 f8 J3-2 1/30 f1.5 and J3-3 at 1/125 f/5.6 on the same roll of Ilford HP5+...
This lens is much sharper than my Helios at full aperture. I'm waiting a second sample from 1964 to see the differences. I will then post a test between the two.

I love this lens too.
Some random pics taken with J3 on Kiev 4A + Agfapan APX100, no lightmeter:

http://www.carburo.altervista.org/Biennale 04/slides/08.jpg
http://www.carburo.altervista.org/Biennale 04/slides/16.jpg
http://www.carburo.altervista.org/Biennale 04/slides/20.jpg
http://www.carburo.altervista.org/Biennale 04/slides/27.jpg
http://www.carburo.altervista.org/Biennale 04/slides/45.jpg

 

[lawrence]

J3

J3

The photo of the two children has wonderful tones and an almost 3D quality to it. I have purchased an LTM J3 for my Fed 3a and hope to take some photos with it tomorrow.

Lawrence

 

[bioer]

I have a Sonnar 50/2 for Contax RF. There is also a lot of bubbles( more than 10) in it. The performance is still very good too.
I have also do some tests on J-8/3 and J-12.
Watch here.
http://rusrf.biz/modules/xcgal/thumbnails.php?album=22
http://rusrf.biz/modules/xcgal/thumbnails.php?album=23