Jupiter 8 equal to Jupiter 3?

[goamules]

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner! They are:

1961 J8
1963 J3
1957 J8

 

[batterytypehah!]

I stand by what I said above (and unlike some other participants, will not go back and edit previous posts): The J-3 is very nearly a full stop faster. All else being equal, that is significant. The faster film argument falls flat -- you can always say that, but in reality it means you can still shoot with a 1.5 lens when it's too dark for the 2.0. Simple as that.

Now, if you test more than one sample on more than one shot, you might well find that the Sonnar 1.5/J-3 is actually a slightly better lens all around. That's generally its reputation (particularly in Contax mount, where the Leica/FSU focus mismatch doesn't complicate things) and makes it somewhat of an oddity, since there's almost always a trade-off for speed, but not in this case.

 

[Paul T.]

I stand by what I said above (and unlike some other participants, will not go back and edit previous posts): The J-3 is very nearly a full stop faster. All else being equal, that is significant. The faster film argument falls flat -- you can always say that, but in reality it means you can still shoot with a 1.5 lens when it's too dark for the 2.0. Simple as that.

Now, if you test more than one sample on more than one shot, you might well find that the Sonnar 1.5/J-3 is actually a slightly better lens all around. That's generally its reputation (particularly in Contax mount, where the Leica/FSU focus mismatch doesn't complicate things) and makes it somewhat of an oddity, since there's almost always a trade-off for speed, but not in this case.

Yes, it's nearly a full stop faster. Three quarters is indeed nearly one. But as far as I can see, no-one other than the OP has altered posts to revise their case, and it might be worth working on your diplomacy - "do me a favor" etc - as well as your math.

 

[goamules]

Exactly..... I changed my post so errors don't live "forever" in internet land. And I started this thread so that we could have a civil discussion about what I find amazing; that the two lenses are remarkably similar. I certainly don't care to respond to parsing how much of a fraction a partial stop is, nor do I want to play baiting games. My goal was to help people decide on which lens might be for them. I'm not sure what the goal of some of the other posts are.

 

[batterytypehah!]

OK, now for the third time: There is a significant speed advantage. That's why one lens costs more than the other.

This whole thread was started based on the premise that 1.5 versus 2.0 doesn't really matter because it's "only half a stop" and why pay for that?

For pointing out that this is simply wrong, I'm now being vilified.

 

[Deejon]

Like many things, there are diminishing returns here and it's quite normal to pay 3 - 4 times for the next step in performance.
Seems to me that people have already nailed it: If you don't need/want the extra speed, the jupiter-8 is a fine performer in its class.

Along the same lines as this test, can anyone point me to a similar one comparing directly a standard Jupiter 8 with a CZJ Sonnar that's been re-housed in a Jupiter mount? (or even a genuine LTM one for that matter).
I did look for examples but it's difficult now that many shots have dead links since Mr. Sweeney left.
Cheers.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

The speed difference between both is quite important: we can shoot under low light using a whole stop faster shutter speed, and we can also isolate subjects a lot better... None of these optical facts make any photographer a better one, but no good photographer can do with a J8 the things a J3 can do... The photographs CAN BE better in lots of situations, because they can communicate more: in a clearer way... And the amazing low weight of a J3 is priceless... It may not be as tough as a Lux, but if it doesn't fall on concrete, it can make great images... And from a totally objective point of view, I don't drop cameras, but I carry them all the time... 😉

Cheers,

Juan

 

[StillKicking]

OK, now for the third time: There is a significant speed advantage. That's why one lens costs more than the other.

This whole thread was started based on the premise that 1.5 versus 2.0 doesn't really matter because it's "only half a stop" and why pay for that?

For pointing out that this is simply wrong, I'm now being vilified.

I own both lenses and have to agree. The extra stop is important and the two lenes are quite different. They are both good (particularly for the money). I believe the J8 is a generally under valued lens.. but that's just my opinion. Wide open the the J3 is pleasingly soft and has a nice glow to it.

 

[Brian Legge]

Agreed - both lenses can be are fantastic. Using a J8 and wanting something faster for lower light situations is what convinced me to put down the money for a J3. If you can live with f/2, stick with a J8 if you are happy with it.

 

[uhoh7]

J8s are best deal going at 50mm.

J3s are legend.

A good J3 is harder to find than a good czj 50/1.5, and will sell for more than a czj in contax mount, often times.

You are talking about the best 50mm 135 lens for over a decade (the czj sonnar and iterations).

Leica could not touch this lens untill? Late 50s?

Takes in nearly twice the light as an f/2.

No comparison in value.

1937 50/1.5

both @1.5

 

[rxmd]

I wonder why you people get so worked up about this.
Arguing whether it's really three quarters, 80 or 90% of a stop gets pointless rather quickly. More so on the basis of engraved f-stop numbers that are approximations to begin with. People who want to argue this seriously should start by measuring what the speed of their lens actually is.

If you do need the extra stop, you'll need the faster lens and all the included tradeoffs.
If you don't need the extra stop, use a J-8 or whatever slower lens and be happy.
But if you don't need the extra stop, it seems questionable to tell others that they don't need it either, or that it's overrated to begin with. Maybe these others have a clearer idea of why they need it than you do.

I for one do like the extra stop from 2.0 to 1.5 and prefer a J-3 over a J-8, simply because I got lucky with a very good J-3 and do end up shooting at f/1.5 quite a bit. Faster film doesn't cut it for me. When I have 100 ASA film in my camera I can't just pop it out and pop in a 200 ASA roll when it's dark, and in other cases there may not even be a faster replacement.

 

[goamules]

I agree with what's being said, my post title was an exaggeration, but it generated great discussion. Thanks for that. I'll carry the J-8 for a while, and see how many times I think, "darn, I wish wide open was just a little faster". I do love the J-3, I got a good one. One thing people didn't pick up on or comment was color rendering. I notice a difference, with the J-3 being warmer. But I picked it for that out of 3 of them. So coatings and years on both may make a difference.

But again, for a cheaper, almost as good lens, the J-8 is looking pretty good.

J8 last night, NOT wide open!

 

[goamules]

...But if you don't need the extra stop, it seems questionable to tell others that they don't need it either, or that it's overrated to begin with. Maybe these others have a clearer idea of why they need it than you do...

Who ever said people don't need it or it's overrated? You are reading something into it. I never said anything like that. My title is "Jupiter 8 equal to Jupiter 3?" and I said, "I think the J8 is very worthy, and only less than one stop slower."

 

[rxmd]

Who ever said people don't need it or it's overrated? You are reading something into it. I never said anything like that. My title is "Jupiter 8 equal to Jupiter 3?" and I said, "I think the J8 is very worthy, and only less than one stop slower."

You're right, "overrated" wasn't your wording... Your wording was instead about a "tiny, almost immeasurable speed advantage" that you thought "wasn't worth the much higher price", so I don't think my comment was that much off the mark 🙂

 

[goamules]

... Your wording was instead about a "tiny, almost immeasurable speed advantage" that you thought "wasn't worth the much higher price", ...

...to someone on a budget" was the rest of my sentence. Just trying to get some good discussion going, and help those on tight budget. But there are sure some people ready to parse words and pick fights on this thread. Are all the threads that way? No matter, I'll go off and shoot some photos today, like I do almost every day. And leave this for those who want to argue about every comment. Out.

 

[Paul T.]

this has been a pretty bad-tempered thread! But the OP's point does stand - the J-8 is a bargain.

I like to think such thoughts, it stops me from missing my J-3. Much.

 

[gb hill]

I have both a J3 & a J8. Both are good lenses & for the cost you can't beat a J8. When shooting in low light there is a difference. The J3 wins. I too am on a budget and looking from the cost of a J3 compared to what Canon LTM & Leica glass cost are, then the over $100.00 cost of the J3 isn't so bad. BTW I paid $85.00 for my J3 including shipping from Ukrane & ten dollars for the J8 from a local seller. That was around 3 years ago. Cost have gone up thanks to threads like this. 😀 JK

 

[gb hill]

most J3's wide open are a bit soft, but not this one. I put in new shims & set the rear glass closer to the film plane. I can shoot this lens all over the aperture mode & get good results. If only my eyesight was as good.😀

 

[fanshaw]

Those of us who are not so adept at shimming and moving the rear glass might wonder whether it is worth risking $100 for a J3!
I have never heard anyone do this to a J8. It is surprising how many people seem to need the extra 3/4 stop of the J3. Very few cameras have been made with lenses faster than f/1.7 and that gives you less than half a stop advantage over an f/2.

 

[gb hill]

Those of us who are not so adept at shimming and moving the rear glass might wonder whether it is worth risking $100 for a J3!
I have never heard anyone do this to a J8. It is surprising how many people seem to need the extra 3/4 stop of the J3. Very few cameras have been made with lenses faster than f/1.7 and that gives you less than half a stop advantage over an f/2.

It's very easy to reshim these lenses. I've never done it before. Just read Kim coxons pdf & some simple advice from Brian Sweeny & it was all good. My J8 came to me already reshimmed & he used it on a Bessa R like I do so all I had to do was screw it on & shoot. A good J3 is worth a hundred bucks IMO. & like I stated above in low light you can tell a difference.