Jupiter 3 power (glow?)

[santino]

Ok, here are my most recent J3 shots (off course wide open @ 1.5).
I tried to keep it "vintage"
Zorki 4 with '51 J3, Efke KB25 in R09.

What do you guys think? I know it's soft, but that was my intetnion

 

[santino]

three more (the color shot is taken on Ektachrome 100)

 

[Krosya]

What do you guys think? I know it's soft, but that was my intetnion

well, not bad, but I have to address "softness" issue - are you saying that you didnt focus correctly to make it soft on perpose? Or is you lens just that soft when focuses correctly? Cause while having great OOF/bokeh, well working j-3 should much sharper and still have a great shallow DOF and nice bokeh.

 

[FrankS]

The picture of the gentleman certainly shows bokeh that draws attention to itself. (not a good thing) Anyone who doesn't understand bokeh or thinks it is a figment of others' imaginations, should be able to see this.

 

[MarkoKovacevic]

The picture of the gentleman certainly shows bokeh that draws attention to itself. (not a good thing) Anyone who doesn't understand bokeh or thinks it is a figment of others' imaginations, should be able to see this.

I agree, it almost looks as if it was shot with a mirror lens.

 

[Keith]

Regarding the bokeh ... I've never had anything like that from my J-3!

 

[jody36]

yeah thats not normal of the lens.

 

[payasam]

My J-3 behaves perfectly after Kim Coxon fixed it. However, I treat it as an f/2 lens and only rarely use it at f/1.5. I too have never seen the "mirror lens effect".

 

[santino]

well bokeh is "subjective", there is no good or bad bokeh (even Leica magazine says so but indeed it behaves like a mirror lens in the out of focus area, which is good because I have other "normal" behaving lenses, and my J3 is "special"). The lens was focused correctly and yes, it's that soft (PS: Kim Coxon fixed it too, it was the best he could do). The lens is from 1951 (seems to be Zeiss glass, fits all descriptions) and that could be the reason for it's softness (@ 5,6 and up it's razor sharp).

 

[P. Lynn Miller]

I have a 1949 J-3 which is amazingly sharp and according to Brian Sweeney has Zeiss glass...

Clare | Sydney, Australia 2008

Leica M5 | Jupiter-3 5cm f1.5 | Agfapan 25 | Rodinal 1:100 Stand

In this photo the J-3 was still front focusing just a smidgen. But considering this is a crop and exposed at f1,5. It a is a very good lens.

 

[Frank Petronio]

Whi "fixes" J-3s or is there a dealer who sells selected ones?

The Russian lens I bought has such a loose focus and funky aperture detents that I felt bad selling it at a loss (telling the buyer exactly what was wrong with it upfront.)

 

[P. Lynn Miller]

Frank,

Brian Sweeney is the person to see about all things that pertain to Zeiss, Jupiter, Helios and FSU rf lenses in general. Brian currently has a Zeiss 5cm f1,5 Sonnar that he transplanted the optics into a J-3 helical. He knows these lenses inside and out.

Unfortunately, Brian is no longer part of the RFF community... but if you send me a PM, I can tell you how to reach him.

I am sure there are others that work on these lenses, Kim Coxon was mentioned...

I bought my '49 J-3 off the local eBay, it arrived inoperable, Brian walked me through a complete overhaul of the lens including collimation and calibration, simply because I did not have the time to send it half-way around the globe for him to overhaul and send it back.

 

[Pherdinand]

i have a sonnar that has millions of minuscule (VERY minuscule) scratches on the front surface of the front element. Only visible in strong light looking through the lens. Probably sellers would either ignore them or say "cleaning marks".

It produces the same "glow" like you show here.

 

[ishpop]

My J3 is rather sharp and has nice bokeh to boot, plus it looks like it got run over by a truck, so not bad all things considered, lol.

Sharpness:

Bokeh:

 

[funkaoshi]

I love my J3. It's such a strange lens. They are quite soft wide open, but sharpen up fairly quickly when you start stopping them down.

 

[santino]

i have a sonnar that has millions of minuscule (VERY minuscule) scratches on the front surface of the front element. Only visible in strong light looking through the lens. Probably sellers would either ignore them or say "cleaning marks".

It produces the same "glow" like you show here.

thats exactly the point, mine has the same "cleaning marks" in the front element. the strange thing is, that my J8's behave totally different @ 2 but they have no cleaning marks.

 

[santino]

J8 @ 2

seems to be sharper but more vignetting?

 

[Pherdinand]

I also get vignetting when close focusing the J8 or the corresponding Sonnar 50/2. Mostly visible in scenes where the background should be uniform like a sky or snow or such, and of course easier to see on slide film.

 

[fanshaw]

I love my J3. It's such a strange lens. They are quite soft wide open, but sharpen up fairly quickly when you start stopping them down.

When I hear that the Jupiter-3 is 'soft wide open' I wonder whether the lens has any use. If it has to be stopped down to get sharp results why not use a much cheaper Jupiter-8 or Industar-61?

 

[Keith]

When I hear that the Jupiter-3 is 'soft wide open' I wonder whether the lens has any use. If it has to be stopped down to get sharp results why not use a much cheaper Jupiter-8 or Industar-61?

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!