Jupiter 8 equal to Jupiter 3?

[gb hill]

I have both a J8 & J3. Both are sharp & perform good to my eye. That is when I'm able to focus my eye.😉 I hate wearing glasses. I use the J3 more not because it's faster but because the J8 is so darn quirky to read the markings compared to the ease of the J3 markings.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

My 2d worth is to point out that all these lenses will be second-hand and that will introduce a lot of variations on an individual basis. Really there's no such thing as a 100% true answer to the question. And, to some extent, you take pot-luck when you buy one of them. Luckily they can be easy checked and adjusted back to the original spec'n.

Regards, David

 

[Ron (Netherlands)]

A stitch of two negs to get the below Dutch landscape, shot with a J3 on a Zorki 6:

Although in rendering they come very near each other, I prefer the J3 much over my Canon 1.4 since the J3 is much more portable

 

[Fotohuis]

Comparing my J-8 (on a Zorki 4K) and my Summicron 2,0/50mm (on a M7), scanning on a flat bed and put on the web gives a result that you can not see the differences anymore.
Fortunately I am printing in the dark room and my second test with high resolution ATP1,1 film was more convincing.

 

[Fotohuis]

 

[Roger Hicks]

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.

Indisputable. Also, in the real world, there are differences between nominal and actual apertures, and between f/stops and T/stops, to say nothing of how flare can 'fill' the shadows and make a lens seem faster than it is. On top of all this, 1/6 stop (the approximate difference between f/1.4 and f/1.5) is unlikely to be perceptible.

From my own experience, and that of my friends, the chances of finding a good Jupiter-3 are a good deal slenderer than the chances of finding a good Jupiter-8, partly because there are so many more Jupiter-8s around and partly, as rxmd pointed out, because people tend to hang on to the good ones and sell the bad ones.

As someone who bought his first Zorkii-4 maybe 40 years ago, I find it quite amusing how cameras and lenses that were regarded at that time as pretty indifferent (and which were a lot newer and usually in much better condition at the time) are now praised extravagantly.

Finally, anyone who thinks that a Soviet copy of a pre-war Sonnar (optimized for contrast in the days before lenses were coated) can compare in resolution with a Summicron (coated from the start, optimized for resolution) has presumably never tested good samples of either against one another.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sid836]

A significant advantage would be of a a faster lens with being of some quality when used wide open. J3 does not fall in that class. It is just ridiculously overpriced with an image quality at wide apertures that does not justify the price.
It could be a deal for the years it was made, but now if you want quality film photos with lots of sharpness over f/2, you can get it on newer lenses at a far better prices.

 

[raid]

Once a J3 has been correctly matched with a camera, it becomes a first class fast Sonnar lens. Spend $175-$200 on a clean lens, then add $75 for shimming. Which 50/1.5 Sonnar can be bought at $275 that is better than a J3?

 

[Dez]

A significant advantage would be of a a faster lens with being of some quality when used wide open. J3 does not fall in that class. It is just ridiculously overpriced with an image quality at wide apertures that does not justify the price.
It could be a deal for the years it was made, but now if you want quality film photos with lots of sharpness over f/2, you can get it on newer lenses at a far better prices.

If you try hard, you can find a decent J3 for under $150. What newer faster-than-f2 lens can deliver better image quality at anywhere near that price, let alone a "far better" one? The cheapest fast 50mm RF lens that I know of is the CV Nokton, and you're lucky to find one used for under $500. Leitz has fast optical masterpieces, but they have too many digits in their price.

Cheers,
Dez

 

[kaiwasoyokaze]

Jupiter 3 lens are actually quite easy to work with, as I learned from Mr. Sweeney. So you could bid for one that needs work and get it up to par to work with your Leica body.

 

[Scrambler]

I like the Sonnar look, and I've gone for the real deal uncoated prewar but in J3 mount. Much as I love using it wide open I consider it a "special effect" setting.

The fast LTM 50 at a good price that can deliver normal appearance that I can vouch for is the Canon 1.4. You could get one around $350. And based on the J3 + recalibration costs quoted above, that's a good price. Compared to a manual SLR Canon 1.4 it's daylight robbery.

 

[dee]

I am fortunate to have a Brian Sweeney 1959 J3 in a genuine 30s Contax mount gifted to me . It is almost permanently attached to the M8 via Amadeo adapter , which in itself is superbly engineered . It's the best lens I have for the M8 , but I also like the contrast and sharpness of a £25 Helios . The adapter negates the focus errors of screw thread lenses , and the Kiev mount J8s seem better engineered on the whole [ I have several for my Kiev/Kontax collection ].
I really don't get into which is 'best' because I simply love the opportunity to use these lenses digitally .
dee

 

[valdas]

I have just done a quick non scientific test with my J3 and J8 (on X-E1). Maybe I have pretty poor J8 copy, because J3 wide open (at 1.5) is similar or slightly better (softness wise) than J8 at 2.0. At 2.0 J3 wins vs J8. At 2.8 both are similar, but J3 is still slightly sharper.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I have just done a quick non scientific test with my J3 and J8 (on X-E1). Maybe I have pretty poor J8 copy, because J3 wide open (at 1.5) is similar or slightly better (softness wise) than J8 at 2.0. At 2.0 J3 wins vs J8. At 2.8 both are similar, but J3 is still slightly sharper.

Almost certainly sample variation.

Cheers,

R.

 

[valdas]

Almost certainly sample variation.

Cheers,

R.

Yes, it must be. The J8 copy I owned before (and sold here) was surely sharper (in my memory at least)...

 

[ForestCap]

I have just done a quick non scientific test with my J3 and J8 (on X-E1). Maybe I have pretty poor J8 copy, because J3 wide open (at 1.5) is similar or slightly better (softness wise) than J8 at 2.0. At 2.0 J3 wins vs J8. At 2.8 both are similar, but J3 is still slightly sharper.

Both at f/2, my J3 is sliiiightly sharper than my best J8. Can't tell difference from f/2.8 and on. I use the J8 more because it has almost "colourless" coating, which is good for shooting colour.

 

[seany65]

I decided to vote pic 1 as the J3 as the two others were closer in sharpness on the barcode on the white thing in the glass. Although this could be down to the individual lenses.

I can't see any difference in the wide open shots. But I also don't know the focus points in these shots.

I know this isn't quite 'on topic', but I've had 3 black J8's and when I turned the aperture reing there was a little movement in the focusing ring.

I've been told this is 'a thing' with black J8's and it doesn't happen with chrome J8's because of the slightly different design.

Is this true?