Ong
Well-known
Would anyone really know the differences between the J-3 against the CV 50 Nokton LTM?
I've currently got the Nokton, but always had that spot for Sonnar lenses so I am tempted to pull the trigger on a J-3 possibly but trying to justify it.
Besides it being a more modern lens? Is there anything with regards to lens character between the two or are they of similar heritage since it's almost impossible to find out much info on the lens design for the LTM version since everyone tends to go for the M-mount.
Thanks.
I've currently got the Nokton, but always had that spot for Sonnar lenses so I am tempted to pull the trigger on a J-3 possibly but trying to justify it.
Besides it being a more modern lens? Is there anything with regards to lens character between the two or are they of similar heritage since it's almost impossible to find out much info on the lens design for the LTM version since everyone tends to go for the M-mount.
Thanks.
sevres_babylone
Veteran
I have both. Although an LTM lens, I would describe the Nokton as having a modern look. I haven't used mine all that much since I got a Planar, and would say the Nokton look is much closer to the Planar than to the Jupiter.
I have 3 Sonnar 50s, the Jupiter, the Canon, and the modern Zeiss. I would say the Jupiter is closer to the Canon Sonnar in look, but wackier (probably not the best choice of words, but very interesting, mostly pleasant bokeh, and a vintage look. It's a very compact lens and fun to use. I wouldn't worry about it duplicating the look of the Nokton.
Caveat. All of my experiences with these lenses are on digital bodies. I had the Zeiss and Canon when I was using an Epson, and bought the Jupiter after I got my M9, I think.
There's a thread somewhere here with lots of Jupiter pics.
I have 3 Sonnar 50s, the Jupiter, the Canon, and the modern Zeiss. I would say the Jupiter is closer to the Canon Sonnar in look, but wackier (probably not the best choice of words, but very interesting, mostly pleasant bokeh, and a vintage look. It's a very compact lens and fun to use. I wouldn't worry about it duplicating the look of the Nokton.
Caveat. All of my experiences with these lenses are on digital bodies. I had the Zeiss and Canon when I was using an Epson, and bought the Jupiter after I got my M9, I think.
There's a thread somewhere here with lots of Jupiter pics.
goamules
Well-known
They are different formulas, so they are going to look different.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Wide open the CV is sharper, and has more modern look.
J3's images have classic sonnar look.
J3 is made of aluminium: incredibly light, but more delicate: can't be dropped!
CV is twice as big and heavy (just an approximation)
I like a lot images and bokeh from both lenses.
Cheers,
Juan
J3's images have classic sonnar look.
J3 is made of aluminium: incredibly light, but more delicate: can't be dropped!
CV is twice as big and heavy (just an approximation)
I like a lot images and bokeh from both lenses.
Cheers,
Juan
Filzkoeter
stray animal
As far as I know the M Nokton and the LTM Nokton are the same 6 elements in 5 groups design.
The Nokton is a Planar design, so its a completly different heritage to a Sonnar type lens.
A nice J3 can have a really nice center sharpness wide open, although of quite low contrast.
The contrast catches up when stopped down, at f2.8/f4.0 it's at least as contrasty as a coated Elmar at f5.6/f8.0.
I once did 2 comparision shots with a friend's Nokton and my J3, both shots were shot wide open + same shutter speed + both scanned together with exactly the same settings.
-> click me <-
As every f1.5 Sonnar the J3 is somehow softer/glowy/lower contrasty wide open together with a good central sharpness and get's 'semi-modern' stopped down.
In image characteristics, sharpness, contrast and resolution all classic Sonnars (Nikkor, Canon, CZJ/J3) are nearly the same. The condition of a lens is way more important then the differences between the manufacturers.
And yes, the Jupiter is really tiny and light, especially next to a Nokton. It's propably the tiniest 50mm f1.5 lens.
+ Jupiters need to be shimmed to focus properly on Leicas!
A good shimmed one is a really capable lens even wide open.
The Nokton is a Planar design, so its a completly different heritage to a Sonnar type lens.
A nice J3 can have a really nice center sharpness wide open, although of quite low contrast.
The contrast catches up when stopped down, at f2.8/f4.0 it's at least as contrasty as a coated Elmar at f5.6/f8.0.
I once did 2 comparision shots with a friend's Nokton and my J3, both shots were shot wide open + same shutter speed + both scanned together with exactly the same settings.
-> click me <-
As every f1.5 Sonnar the J3 is somehow softer/glowy/lower contrasty wide open together with a good central sharpness and get's 'semi-modern' stopped down.
In image characteristics, sharpness, contrast and resolution all classic Sonnars (Nikkor, Canon, CZJ/J3) are nearly the same. The condition of a lens is way more important then the differences between the manufacturers.
And yes, the Jupiter is really tiny and light, especially next to a Nokton. It's propably the tiniest 50mm f1.5 lens.
+ Jupiters need to be shimmed to focus properly on Leicas!
A good shimmed one is a really capable lens even wide open.
goamules
Well-known
I don't know about the Nokton, but I love the Sonnars! I shoot various ones in 50mm most of the time. Here is a comparison between the J3, Canon, and Nikkon fast sonnars: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=129340
Ron (Netherlands)
Well-known
My Ju3 (I had several of them in the past, and kept the latest black one since it is multicoated) renders very nicely. I had a Nokton a short while, but the heavy weight made it more left alone...
Fotohuis
Well-known
What about the new C. V. F/1,5-50mm -M?
Is it a simmilar type design in lens optics? About the weight the Chrome one is much more heavier and expensive compared with the Black one.
Is it a simmilar type design in lens optics? About the weight the Chrome one is much more heavier and expensive compared with the Black one.
santino
FSU gear head
The J-3 is really prone to flare and renders with pretty low contrast. IMO a hood is a must in most situations!
BTW I love how it renders on b&w film, the tonality is something that is worth a try (although I wouldn't use it with low satureted slide film but Velvia).
Last but not least be aware of quality issues, you can get a lemon or a stellar performer (just don't pay too much).
Good luck !
BTW I love how it renders on b&w film, the tonality is something that is worth a try (although I wouldn't use it with low satureted slide film but Velvia).
Last but not least be aware of quality issues, you can get a lemon or a stellar performer (just don't pay too much).
Good luck !
Brian Legge
Veteran
The CV 50 1.5 LTM and M use the same optical formula with different coating to account for different glass. The lenses should render in similar ways. Black and chrome CV 50 1.5s Ms just have bodies made of different materials. The optics are the same.
As others have said, the CV 50 1.5 uses a planar formula and the J3 a sonnar formula. The differences between the formulas (ie different tradeoffs) account for the most significant differences in results.
As others have said, the CV 50 1.5 uses a planar formula and the J3 a sonnar formula. The differences between the formulas (ie different tradeoffs) account for the most significant differences in results.
Fotohuis
Well-known
OK, all clear to me. Thanks!