Jupiter 3 vs Jupiter 8

[Marsopa]

I am hesitating between those two lenses, I'm worried about that seems Jupiter 3 will need to be corrected to work properly on a Bessa R.

On the other hand, I think I can buy a Zorki equiped with the Jupiter 8 (fedka has some listed) as the price difference with respect the lens alone is not very big...

Mybe I'm thinking aloud... any comment will be wellcome

Thanks and sorry for the english style

 

[Valkir1987]

The 1.5 is in fact J3 only one stop brighter than the 2.0 J8. Both lenses are good to shoot indoors, the J3 allows a faster shutter speed when using the same film. I don't know if its optically better, I haven't got any experience with the J3 lens. A good J8 however will not dissapoint you, just like the Industar 61.

 

[vicmortelmans]

I have both for use on my Zorki 1 and use the Jupiter 3 more often, because it's not that much bigger or heavier and it indeed allows the extra stop. It also has a very very beautiful bokeh!! And after all, it also looks better on my Zorki than the black J8.

Groeten,
Vic

 

[Richard Black]

I have both and use each about the same. The J8 is black so it looks great on the R, but the J3, silver, does also. I really like the Industar 50, colapsible, on it the best, but don't use it in fear of damaging the internal.

 

[clintock]

The only thing I don't like about one of my J8 is the focus is moved by a small tab, like an old summicron, only the focus travel is so far it's not easy to use like that.
The J3 handles a little better, at least once I got the apeture ring on properly.

 

[raid]

Do both lenses have a design that is similar to a Sonnar design?

 

[FrankS]

Do both lenses have a design that is similar to a Sonnar design?

Yes Raid, they do.

 

[outfitter]

The J-3 is a direct copy of the 50/1.5 Sonnar ans the J-8 is an exact copy of the 50/2 Sonnar. The 50/1.5 is theoretically optically better than the 50/2, but in real life that matters little. With modern films the slight speed advantage of the J-3 is also not significant.

In my experience each individual Sonnar-type lens has its own character and I have 50/2 lenses that I prefer to some of my 50/1.5. My theory is that the "Sonnar look" is the product of aberrations and that slight variations in construction give each lens something of an individual character - which is aside from the collimation issues that Brian addresses which also play a role in the individuality of the Sonnar type lens. The Zeiss lenses, as well as the Jupiter had changes to the lens mount engineering (and the Zeiss at least had minor tweaks to the lens design and coating) as well as the usual manufacturing tolerances all of which could explain my observations.

There is no substitution to using the lens and making up your own mind. I sometimes catch myself talking more about a lens than using it and that is terrible.

Some comments to other points in this thread:

1) the J-8 came with focusing tab as well as plain - indeed there are a number of variations in the mount.
2) I second the praise of the collapsible I-50, mine just bowls me over (BTW I've never been a fan of the I-61 - go figure)
3) my comments above are based on all things being equal. There are reports that the premium price commanded by the J-3 has led some FSU dealers to improperly put together J-3 lenses from junk parts so the chances of getting a good (and cheaper) J-8 are better than getting a good J-3. All I know is that of three J-3 I own one was a junker (in Contax mount) which I had to fix. I have never had a bad J-8 and I must own a dozen or more in LTM and Contax. Don't overlook the J-8M BTW.

Michael

Michael

 

[brachal]

Do both lenses have a design that is similar to a Sonnar design?

I think the J-3 is a 7 element Sonnar, while the J-8 is a 6 element Sonnar. I have an early 60's J-3 and a mid 80's J-8; I use them both. Aside from the extra stop, I think the J-3 is a little better overall. That's purely my personal feeling; I don't have the skill or patience to do a scientific evaluation. Color rendition from the 3 is warmer than the 8; I suspect it's due to different coatings, but don't really know.

Both lenses work very well on my Bessa R without adjustment, but maybe I've just been lucky.

 

[Stanton]

I have both and have had the same experience as brachal in that both work fine on my Bessa R (and anything else I've put them on -- Leicas, Zorkis, FEDs. I don't worry about the number of lines per millimeter, etc. I just think the lenses are sharp enough and the color is fine for me and can be adjusted in Photoshop if I want. I have respect for those who do the real testing, but luckily I have been contented. Dave