Jupiter 8 equal to Jupiter 3?

[goamules]

I bought my daughter a G-1 for Christmas and added a M39 adapter. I've been loving my 50/1.5 Jupiter 3, I decided to try a cheaper 50/2.0 Jupiter 8 for her. Actually I got two of them, a 57 and 61. I had to relube the 61 which had a very rough focus, but now all three work great.

The interesting thing is I put my camera on a tripod, and compared all three lenses. At F5.6 there was no discernible difference. At wide open there was a slight sharpness advantage for the slightly slower Jupiter 8.

The J3s go for over a hundred bucks, but I only have about $14 in both J8s (got a killer deal). I think the J8 is very worthy, and only less than one stop slower.

 

[Ron (Netherlands)]

You know the J3 and J8 are quite different lenses. What is your point?

 

[Thomas78]

...
At wide open there was a slight sharpness advantage for the slightly slower Jupiter 8. At F5.6 there was no discernible difference.
...

Did you compare the J-3 at f/1.5 with the J-8 at f/2.0 or both at f/2.0?

It would not surprise me if a J-8 would render sharper images at f/2.0 than a J-3 at f/1.5.

 

[oftheherd]

If I were trying to decide between a Fujinon 50mm f/1.8 and a Fujinon 50mm f/1.4, I would like to know how they compared in the photos they provided, from actual users, not just advertising. I would very quickly and easily find there was a difference in price and might go for the less expensive if it was giving good quality, and I didn't need the f/1.4 that much.

I appreciate the infor, however, perhaps a little more information from a little more testing would be helpful. I have the f/1.8 and f/2 versions for my Kiev, but haven't personally done any testing to compare them.

 

[goamules]

Let me make my point clearer. At the same apertures the signature and sharpness of the J-3 and the J-8 appear identical. To me. At wide open, you get a tiny, almost immeasurable speed advantage with the J-3, at the expense of less sharpness. I'm thinking the extra portion of a stop is not worth the much higher price for a Jupiter 3, to someone on a budget.

Here they are, two J-8s and one J-3, all at F5.6. Can you tell which is which?

 

[Deejon]

Hin Goamules,
I'm VERY new to this rangefinder stuff and just bought myself a Zorki 3M with a 1955 Jupiter-8.
Since I think I've already caught the GAS bug, I was looking at a Jupiter-3 as a bit of a trade up. So, bottom line, I appreciate your sharing.
So, for what it's worth - and again I'm a newbie and, as yet, untrained of eye - I think picture no. 3 is the Jupiter-3.
Regardless, thanks 🙂

Edit: Now I don't know - I keep going backwards and forwards... ? Maybe I like no. 2 better now?

I'll leave it to the experts. Probably better for me to stick with the jupiter-8 until I know the difference!!!

 

[Ron (Netherlands)]

Hey where did the sugar go?: guess that was picture 3 then made with the J3
would be nice if you did the same comparison at f 2

 

[Paul T.]

Quite different lenses? they are both a Sonnar formula and have certain similarities to me.

I miss my 1951 J-3, it was a terrific lens, but I've had good results from a cheap J8M, they are indeed a steal for the price.

However, f/1.5 to f/2 is roughly three quarters of a stop, not a half . That leap in speed beyond f/1.8 or so always brings a disproportionate price premium, on any system.

Edit: the OP has now changed his original post,, he'd originally stated that the difference between the 1.5 and 2 was half a stop. Either way, I agree with him that the J8 is a bargain, it's fast enough, and you don't have the worries about registration etc that you do with the f/1.5.

 

[goamules]

Hin Goamules,
I'm VERY new to this rangefinder stuff and just bought myself a Zorki 3M with a 1955 Jupiter-8.
Since I think I've already caught the GAS bug, I was looking at a Jupiter-3 as a bit of a trade up. So, bottom line, I appreciate your sharing.
So, for what it's worth - and again I'm a newbie and, as yet, untrained of eye - I think picture no. 3 is the Jupiter-3.
Regardless, thanks 🙂

Edit: Now I don't know - I keep going backwards and forwards... ? Maybe I like no. 2 better now?

I'll leave it to the experts. Probably better for me to stick with the jupiter-8 until I know the difference!!!

Believe me, I've really liked my Jupiter 3, I've had the most fun with it as any 35mm lens, and I've got some pretty good ones. But you've got my point: a lot of lenses are very good, and a lot of people have trouble discerning which is "better" if you don't tell them what lens took what photo. Because, they are often the same.

Good catch on the sugar pack everyone. But that's not the J-3! (I'd at first taken a shot with a J-8 that missed the focus, so I put the sugar in so I wouldn't mix up the versions. So you've narrowed down one J8!

 

[batterytypehah!]

Sorry Paul and Garrett, but you're both wrong. It's not half a stop and not three quarters of a stop, it's very nearly one full stop between f/1.5 and 2.0. (Factor of 1.33, whereas a full stop is sqrt 2 = 1.41, so it's 94.3% of a stop.) That was and is indeed significant.

The reason why the Sonnar 5cm/1.5 and its copy, the J-3, are sought after is precisely what you are finding: The speed advantage does not come at a price in terms of sharpness at the same aperture.

 

[fanshaw]

Sorry Paul and Garrett, but you're both wrong. It's not half a stop and not three quarters of a stop, it's very nearly one full stop between f/1.5 and 2.0. (Factor of 1.33, whereas a full stop is sqrt 2 = 1.41, so it's 94.3% of a stop.) That was and is indeed significant.

The reason why the Sonnar 5cm/1.5 and its copy, the J-3, are sought after is precisely what you are finding: The speed advantage does not come at a price in terms of sharpness at the same aperture.

It seems to me that unless you need to shoot at f/1.5 often then you may as well buy a J8 at a fraction of the price, especially it is often possible to get extra speed by using a different film or developer. Another factor in favour of the J8 is that many J3s seem to need shimming in order to focus correctly. Of course some people prefer the images produced by the J3 whether or not this has any objective reality.

 

[goamules]

It seems to me that unless you need to shoot at f/1.5 often then you may as well buy a J8 at a fraction of the price, especially it is often possible to get extra speed by using a different film or developer. Another factor in favour of the J8 is that many J3s seem to need shimming in order to focus correctly. Of course some people prefer the images produced by the J3 whether or not this has any objective reality.

That's what I was trying to say, I concur. I've found that with most of my super speed lenses (Canon 50/1.2, Angenieux 25/0.95) I don't shoot them wide open very often, due to fringing, too wild bokeh, and super short depth of field. One stop down or so and they look great. I guess shooting in low light and with the old films of 25 ASA it makes/made a difference.

 

[Deejon]

But you've got my point:

Yes I do! Having an extra stop isn't going to make me a better photographer - I'm better spending that money on film and developing or a CLA if it turns out my new 3M/J-8 needs it. Thanks again 🙂

 

[sevo]

Sorry Paul and Garrett, but you're both wrong. It's not half a stop and not three quarters of a stop, it's very nearly one full stop between f/1.5 and 2.0. (Factor of 1.33, whereas a full stop is sqrt 2 = 1.41, so it's 94.3% of a stop.)

Well, no. While it is rather more than exactly three quarters (a 3/4 stop up from f/2 is f/1.54), it would be right in between a 4/5 (f/1.51) and 5/6 (f/1.49) stop - rather a far cry off 95% regardless of whatever way you convert that to fractions...

 

[Doug]

To my eye, the first shot is a little lower contrast and slightly less sharp than the other two... examine the numbers under the pen's barcode. So my guess is that #1 is the J3.

 

[goamules]

Excellent discussion! OK, now I'll make it easy to pick, in the same order as the F5.6 shots, there are two J-8 and one J3 below, wide open. I'll reveal which next.

 

[Paul T.]

Well, no. While it is rather more than exactly three quarters (a 3/4 stop up from f/2 is f/1.54), it would be right in between a 4/5 (f/1.51) and 5/6 (f/1.49) stop - rather a far cry off 95% regardless of whatever way you convert that to fractions...

Exactly. I was saying three quarters, because the finest increment most people use is a quarter.

Without getting into angels-crowding-on-a-pin, my point was the difference between f/1.5 and f/2.0 was much more than half a stop, which it indeed it is, likewise it's more than 2/3 of a stop. But not 19 20ths!

@batterytype - it's not linear!

 

[batterytypehah!]

Well, no. While it is rather more than exactly three quarters (a 3/4 stop up from f/2 is f/1.54), it would be right in between a 4/5 (f/1.51) and 5/6 (f/1.49) stop - rather a far cry off 95% regardless of whatever way you convert that to fractions...

Do me a favor and divide 1.33 by 1.41. What do you get? 94.33

I never said 95, that's your invention.

 

[Thomas78]

Do me a favor and divide 1.33 by 1.41. What do you get? 94.33

I never said 95, that's your invention.

2.0 / 1.5 = 1. 33 is right, but you have to calculate

log (1.33) / log (1.41) = 0.83 (this ist the same as logarithm of 1.33 to the base of 1.41)

 

[pagpow]

I, too was going to choose #1 from the first set, but after the second set, choose #2, for the wider OOF circles in the background.

Right? or bunk?

Giorgio