Jupiter 3 prices

[lrochfort]

Hello all,

I'm a huge fan of the Jupiter 8 and Industar 61.

Now I have a hankering for the Jupiter 3, but in FSU terms I may as well need a mortgage to afford one!

Subjectively I think they're wonderful; I love the bokeh and super shallow DoF. As to how objectively good they are I'm certainly not qualified, or interested enough, to say 🙂

On eBay they seem to go for around £150 and up. Do people think that's excessive or justified given the lens quality?

Cheers,
Laurence.

 

[apostasiometritis]

Hello all,

I'm a huge fan of the Jupiter 8 and Industar 61.

Now I have a hankering for the Jupiter 3, but in FSU terms I may as well need a mortgage to afford one!

Subjectively I think they're wonderful; I love the bokeh and super shallow DoF. As to how objectively good they are I'm certainly not qualified, or interested enough, to say 🙂

On eBay they seem to go for around £150 and up. Do people think that's excessive or justified given the lens quality?

Cheers,
Laurence.

I personally think that it is too much at the moment, especially with the wild sample variation. It looks like that if you want to get a decent one it has to be over £150 at the moment, especially black ones. Personally, the only way I would be paying more than £120 for a J3 would be buying from a very good, honest seller with a proven track record. That way I can justify the premium. But from one of the those run-of-the-mill FSU sellers with 95% feedback, probably not.


All that said, I've found that the shallow DoF is not that much shalower than an f2 lens and the speed advantage, although real, is not that great imho. Normally if I can pull an f1.5 shot I can do an f2 shot as well.

I do have a J3 and I love it, but most of the times I use one of my J8s because they are simpy too good lenses for the money.

 

[maclaine]

I think the price is a little inflated, particularly on eBay, but you can still find deals on them there. I got one from the 'bay for $80 a couple years ago. They pop up in the classifieds here with a bit of regularity. I think they're generally less than what you'd see them go for on eBay, and a better deal, as they are often already CLA'd or shimmed for Leica or what have you.

 

[oftheherd]

I guess I would have to say I think it excessive and unjustified given I havn't bought one yet. Especially since my only FSU, a Kiev 4am, isn't an every-day-carry camera.

 

[zenit55]

The current going J3 price on ebay is currently the same as Zeiss Sonnar which it is a copy of.

Why buy the copy if original is available for similar $$?

 

[lrochfort]

The current going J3 price on ebay is currently the same as Zeiss Sonnar which it is a copy of.

Why buy the copy if original is available for similar $$?

That is unexpected. It didn't even occur to me to look.

 

[lrochfort]

I personally think that it is too much at the moment, especially with the wild sample variation. It looks like that if you want to get a decent one it has to be over £150 at the moment, especially black ones. Personally, the only way I would be paying more than £120 for a J3 would be buying from a very good, honest seller with a proven track record. That way I can justify the premium. But from one of the those run-of-the-mill FSU sellers with 95% feedback, probably not.

All that said, I've found that the shallow DoF is not that much shalower than an f2 lens and the speed advantage, although real, is not that great imho. Normally if I can pull an f1.5 shot I can do an f2 shot as well.

I do have a J3 and I love it, but most of the times I use one of my J8s because they are simpy too good lenses for the money.

That's interesting re the DoF. I think the lenses are still suitably different in their rendering to warrant having both an 8 and a 3 🙂

Are the black lenses generally better or is it just cosmetic?

 

[zenit55]

That is unexpected. It didn't even occur to me to look.

the only complication that I didnt think of is that Sonnar is in Contax mount, while J3 in LTM, which may command higher price. I use both LTM and Contax mount lenses on digital, so the mount is irrelevant for me.

 

[apostasiometritis]

That's interesting re the DoF. I think the lenses are still suitably different in their rendering to warrant having both an 8 and a 3 🙂

Are the black lenses generally better or is it just cosmetic?

My personal opinion is that the newer (black) ones have better glass but worse metal (barels). The newer ones also seem to be prone to oily aperture blades. The good thing about black lenses is that you stand a very good chance of getting a "virgin" lens with no modifications ever done to it. Not always the case with silver ones I'm afraid...

Both silver and black ones may be quite soft at full aperture if you get a lemon. It seems that the black ones may need adjustments more often than the earlier versions. I did not have the misfortune of getting a lemon yet, but I have met a lot of people that have. That said, even the bad ones sharpen up by f2 and are really sharp at 2.8.

Generally speaking, I've found FSU glass to be virtually indestructible, very resilient glass & coatings on par with the best out there. But man, if the barel is bad, it is really bad. Not a complaint, these were cheap mass produced lenses, keep things in perspective.

Also, finding an original Sonnar in LTM at this point in time is really hard. Chances are that you will end up with lots of Jupiter 3 parts in it (lol), so people try and avoid that route and go for a j3 anyway, that way they may avoid franken-lenses and butcher jobs.

 

[Dez]

the only complication that I didnt think of is that Sonnar is in Contax mount, while J3 in LTM, which may command higher price. I use both LTM and Contax mount lenses on digital, so the mount is irrelevant for me.

I think while you will find somewhat similar pricing for Contax mount Jupiters and Sonnars, the same can't be said for the LTM versions, where the Sonnars seem to be priced as if they were made of myrrh.

Cheers,
Dez

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

My 2d worth is just to add that those f/1-point-something=tiny lenses are all very well in theory but the shallow DoF when wide open means they are only suitable for still life or slow moving things. Even on portraits I've had the subject move back out of the DoF and then the shot ruined. And on still life I don't really like the softness you get with even the best I've got wide open.

Regards, David

PS And at f/2 and say a half second you ought to be able to do most things and hand-held too.

 

[goamules]

I think the prices you were quoting were for Kiev mount J-3s. The LTM ones are going for $200 to $250 now, sometimes more. My J-3 is a favorite but the J-8s for 1/4 of the price are the best value for your money right now. Here are some comparison shots: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=114426

The truth is the F1.5 versions of Sonnars always go for more than the F2.0, be they Jupiter, Zeiss, Canon, or Nikkor. That little bit of speed comes at a premium.

 

[raid]

The J-3 are in LTM, and they are newer made than the old Sonnar Zeiss lenses. They are good lenses that are reasonably priced around $200-$250 these days if they are clean and without any problems. How much would you expect to pay for a very sharp 50/1.5 or 50/1.4 lens?

 

[Ron (Netherlands)]

With J-3's prices depend largely on the quality of the glass, less the barrel. If you are going to look for mint / near mint glass - prices go easily beyond USD 250. Why should you look for mint / near mint glass; since you buy theses lenses to use them (also) at open aperture. The lenses with cleaning marks and other blemishes won't show what this lens is capable of.


....and yes I also prefer the black ones... they are more easily to be found with mint glass, undisturbed barrels, and IMHO have the better coatings

shot with the above black Ju 3 (on a Leica M8.2):

 

[paradoxbox]

I agree that the actual Sonnar from the 40's / 50's is a better deal with current prices.

But, I don't think that cleaning marks make much of a difference on these lenses.

I have two copies that I shimmed perfectly, they are both equally as sharp. But, one has heavy cleaning marks in the front element, the other is basically free of them.

The ONLY time there is a difference is when there are bright point light sources in the frame - the heavily marked lens sometimes gets small halos around them, for example street lamps. In practice though it usually makes the photos look better than the same ones taken with the clean lens! The marked lens may also get some flare which could be more of an issue if you dislike flare in your photos. I like flare so don't mind when it happens. The halos would probably disappear if used at a narrow aperture on a tripod.

There's always the amadeo adapter option too..!

The short version; in my opinion a J3 with moderate cleaning marks will show almost no difference in images compared to one with perfect glass, so buy it without fear if you like the overall lens condition and price.

Halos on a lens with cleaning marks / Leica M3 / J-3 at F1.5

 

[Filzkoeter]

You have to keep your eyes open. You can get them for less then 100€/£/$
Paid 70€ for mine (nice glass with very minor marks on the front element, you can only see them if you look through the lens against some light source) on eBay some months ago... got a broken Zorki 4 "rear cap" with it 😉

Those are wonderful lenses, but they often require some work (but they're easy to work on)... my J3 had a too short focal lenght (that's uncommon), I had to unscrew the rear triplet slightly to lengthen the FL.

A perfectly adjusted one is maybe worth like 150 - 200... but IMO not the common "russian roulette" ones

 

[ray*j*gun]

IMO I don't think J3's are worth the current market. Even when the glass is perfect (hard to find) the bodies are often flimsy. I just bought a perfect Canon 1,8 LTM for about what a J3 is bringing. I'll stick with my J8 and I61 for FSU lenses.

 

[tbarker13]

I love the J-3. I would argue that good ones are worth well over $150. Assuming you get a good one. But that's the issue with these lenses.
When I was shopping for mine, someone who knows a lot more about J-3s than me suggested the best models were the ones made in the early 1950s. The suggestion was that these were constructed with German glass.
That led me to a 1953 version, which I would never sell because the market prices never match it is worth to me.

 

[john341]

J3 thumbs up

J3 thumbs up

I took one on a Leica look-alike for my last holiday. I bought the J3 from a dealer on the 'bay and it was a knockout! For a 1961 lens, I was amazed at the results it delivered (always with a lens hood). I have a similar one for my Kiev 2 from around the same era, but have yet to try it. I don't know how much one would pay for them now, ... the first one I bought I sold for $60 :bang: but I was luck to use the funds toward a better sample. Good luck hunting!