santino
FSU gear head
How sharp is sharp though ... and how sharp does a lens need to be at f1.5? This was at f1.5 and I don't think it's too bad for something that cost me $70.00!
imo sharp enough, not a summilux but a nice vintage look, I like it.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
there are three major reasons why many people say the j-3 is "soft wide open".
1: the lens they have was less than perfectly collimated
2: we live in a 3D world, a very thin DOF means most of the stuff will be out of focus on the image
3: people can't focus properly and/or keep a camera steady enough in most situations where f/1.5 aperture is used.
1: the lens they have was less than perfectly collimated
2: we live in a 3D world, a very thin DOF means most of the stuff will be out of focus on the image
3: people can't focus properly and/or keep a camera steady enough in most situations where f/1.5 aperture is used.
Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
I often wonder if there is any advantage/image difference in the considerably more expensive J3 over a good J8?. I have used a J8 for a couple of years, and am pleased with it's performance - it cost me UK £10 !, so for another 1/2 stop, don't think I'll bother, - is it really worth it?
Cheers, Dave.
Cheers, Dave.
40oz
...
f/1.5 gives you shallower depth of field and the ability to take a shot in one stop less light. If you don't care about that, there is no reason to get a J3.
I personally like my J3, but not to the point where my J8's are forgotten. The difference between f/2 and f/1.5 is one stop, not 1/2, BTW. Technically f/1.4 would be one full stop faster, but f/1.5 is close enough for negative film.
I personally like my J3, but not to the point where my J8's are forgotten. The difference between f/2 and f/1.5 is one stop, not 1/2, BTW. Technically f/1.4 would be one full stop faster, but f/1.5 is close enough for negative film.
oftheherd
Veteran
Which certainly seems to be the case of the photo of the man if you look at the top of the head.
Unless of course that is what the OP intended.
40oz
...
The silly thing is that you only use wide open -
A. to isolate your subject with selective focus, in which case your subject is the only thing in focus at all. Or rather, your subject is more in focus than anything else. With the shallow depth of field of a f/1.5 lens, we are talking about eyes only at close range. With a 50mm lens, the eyes are a very small part of the frame, so any judgement about sharpness wide open is based on a very small region that may or may not be absolutely and entirely precisely in the actual plane of focus.
B. because any smaller aperture would require a shutter speed that would certainly cause blur from camera shake. At which point "sharpness wide open" is a non-issue. The same lens at a smaller aperture would be sharper, but you could not use a smaller aperture without a slower shutter, inducing camera shake and/or subject movement. So how sharp the lens is at that point is a lesser factor. A slower lens would certainly be blurred, and sharpness is already compromised by the slow shutter speed. We cannot know that said shot would be sharper with any other lens.
So we have two cases of actual wide open use. In one, we actually desire softness across much of the frame. In the other, we are pleased that *anything* could be sharp at all. I would rather use the lens that delivers a nice look to the images than one that is theoretically sharper wide open.
One aspect about fast lenses that many people forget is the issue of vignetting. If you see vignetting at 2.8 on your regular 50mm, a faster 50mm will produce less or no vignetting at that same aperture. If you shoot a fair number of shots at f/2.8 and regularly see vignetting, a J-3 is a good solution regardless of whether you intend to use it at f/1.5. We all use our J-3's wide open just because we can, but it isn't for sharpness. It's for the narrow DOF and the speed. It's like taking portraits with an 85/2. We don't do it for maximum sharpness, we do it for the effect. You don't need an 85/2 for shooting at f/8, but you can't use an 85/4 to take portraits at f/2.
I drive a RWD car with above average horsepower. I don't do it so I can flat-foot the gas at every light. I do it because I like driving it. The things it lets me do with the car at half-thottle on a whim trump what most people consider when buying a car. I win, IMHO they lose. I don't have to use it to full potential every day to rationalize the cost. And I don't have to justify it the same way the guy with the four-banger Camry does. I consider driving an art. If you consider driving a metric of dollars per mile, you will never understand where I am coming from.
I feel the same way when talking to people who always ask about sharpness wide open - you don't get it, yet
A. to isolate your subject with selective focus, in which case your subject is the only thing in focus at all. Or rather, your subject is more in focus than anything else. With the shallow depth of field of a f/1.5 lens, we are talking about eyes only at close range. With a 50mm lens, the eyes are a very small part of the frame, so any judgement about sharpness wide open is based on a very small region that may or may not be absolutely and entirely precisely in the actual plane of focus.
B. because any smaller aperture would require a shutter speed that would certainly cause blur from camera shake. At which point "sharpness wide open" is a non-issue. The same lens at a smaller aperture would be sharper, but you could not use a smaller aperture without a slower shutter, inducing camera shake and/or subject movement. So how sharp the lens is at that point is a lesser factor. A slower lens would certainly be blurred, and sharpness is already compromised by the slow shutter speed. We cannot know that said shot would be sharper with any other lens.
So we have two cases of actual wide open use. In one, we actually desire softness across much of the frame. In the other, we are pleased that *anything* could be sharp at all. I would rather use the lens that delivers a nice look to the images than one that is theoretically sharper wide open.
One aspect about fast lenses that many people forget is the issue of vignetting. If you see vignetting at 2.8 on your regular 50mm, a faster 50mm will produce less or no vignetting at that same aperture. If you shoot a fair number of shots at f/2.8 and regularly see vignetting, a J-3 is a good solution regardless of whether you intend to use it at f/1.5. We all use our J-3's wide open just because we can, but it isn't for sharpness. It's for the narrow DOF and the speed. It's like taking portraits with an 85/2. We don't do it for maximum sharpness, we do it for the effect. You don't need an 85/2 for shooting at f/8, but you can't use an 85/4 to take portraits at f/2.
I drive a RWD car with above average horsepower. I don't do it so I can flat-foot the gas at every light. I do it because I like driving it. The things it lets me do with the car at half-thottle on a whim trump what most people consider when buying a car. I win, IMHO they lose. I don't have to use it to full potential every day to rationalize the cost. And I don't have to justify it the same way the guy with the four-banger Camry does. I consider driving an art. If you consider driving a metric of dollars per mile, you will never understand where I am coming from.
I feel the same way when talking to people who always ask about sharpness wide open - you don't get it, yet
Last edited:
mirrored
Established
Very strange oof in the middle. (Picture of the OP.)
Svitantti
Well-known
4: Comparing to Zeiss/Leica or even CV - It is probably no wonder that an old Soviet lense could lose a couple lpm's to those.
CCCPcamera
Established
My J3 is absolutely perfect, although it does show some flare around the edges at f1.5. But yes, I agree the "softness" issue is just a depth of field effect as can be demonstrated by taking a picture at f1.5 of some tree branches, only those directly focused on will really be in focus. I just made some prints from a recent roll with it on my bessa and it was truly awesome. Maybe I'll post some of the picks soon. I've had it for a while and never had any trouble.