Jupiter-8 vs. Jupiter-3

[undercharged]

Which one of these two is better?

I have them both, early production. Can't decide yet, which one I like better. J3's got it's light power. I take it with me often just in case there isn't enough light for J8.

Though many Russian RF enthusiasts prefer J8, they say it is sharper, less prone to flair, bokeh is nicer, yada yada. Mine is a pleasure to use, has a knobby bit (or how you call it?) making it easier to focus quickly.

Your ideas? Examples?

 

[Brian Legge]

Unfortunately there is enough variation between individual lenses of the same type that all you can really do is test your lenses yourself and make a decision. The quality variation within these lines is greater than any absolute difference between the types.

 

[undercharged]

The quality variation within these lines is greater than any absolute difference between the types.

True. J3 is somewhat rare, compared to J8. So, it is harder to find a good copy. Earlier specimen are believed to perform better.

They also differ by production plant. J3 were produced since 1955 in Krasnogorsk initially, you can distinguish them by one of these variants of a sign:

Shortly after that production moved to Zagorsk (Sergiev Posad), with such sign:

or

And in late 70-s to Valday, with tiny little logo like this:

J8 come mostly from Krasnogorsk, and sometimes from Arsenal plant in Kiev, with the following logo:

 

[CCCPcamera]

In my experience the J3 is much better at intermediate apertures. And that's why I'm selling my J8! According to the above post, it's a Krasnogorsk model.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/pho...27/title/reduced-bessa-2c-skopar-2c-j8/cat/13

 

[goamules]

I've used both a lot, and did a little test here: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=114426

I like the J-3 better, but there's really nothing wrong with the J-8 either.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

You MUST judge any particular lens and decide which to keep only after you take several rolls of film with each in different situations.
With FSU lenses it is double MUST.

In my particular situation I've had in my possession "new" black J8, which I gave away later. And I purchased old "prestige", "white" J8 with focusing tab and sold it after year of use.
Both lenses were spotless in condition, but nothing to write about in terms of images they rendered.

Sharp enough for me, with few properly aligned copies I have seen from couple of J8 users what are very sharp. Bokeh is nothing special, very neutral.

Sure many will adore J8, one of the big reason why so many is due to the very low price of J8. It is very, very good lens for under $100 price.

After letting go of two J8, I was on the fence for fast 50mm prime to use with M4-2. My choice was narrowed to J3 and Nokton 50 1.5 LTM.

J3 was the winner for me, because of its unique character in image rendering.

I was never saying "wow" after looking at my J8, taken with, images. Don't get me wrong, I have some of them printed and at the walls and not only in our house.
But J3 images gives something J8 aren't capable to give.

And last thing I care about J3 is "light power", it shines even more at f5.6-8.

 

[goamules]

Yep, my J-3 is a favorite I'll never sell. For sonars, only the Nikor slighly wins, because of the close focus ability, and finer quality control. But I have the Jupiter 3 on my camera a lot.

 

[raid]

Both lenses are excellent copies of their Zeiss counterparts.

 

[Fred2]

Hey, I made a comparison recently.
personaly I prefer the J 3 over the 8, mostly because I'm a f2 shooter when Its about portraiture. At that point the J8 has a very busy bokeh and tends to flare very much. At least my copy.
Actually I'm not shure if my J8 is right in focus in the shots, because I remember it beeing very similar to the J3 at 2.8... Anyway, you can see the point.

chears

 

[goamules]

Good shots. I prefer the J-3 too. Here is another comparison:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=114426

 

[undercharged]

I didn't realize Jupiter-3 was so much creamier when stopped down just a bit. Thanks, Fred2!

 

[Fred2]

I didn't realize Jupiter-3 was so much creamier when stopped down just a bit. Thanks, Fred2!

You're welcome undercharged, in my experience almost all vintage Lenses behave like this. The older they are, the harsher the bokeh is fully open, and the bigger is the difference when stopped down just a little bit. The Sonnar is a pretty perfekt example to this, especially due to its nice round aperture... 🙄

 

[Elmar Lang]

Hello,

I've always liked both the J-8 and J-3 for their own qualities.

The J-8 (when well assembled/checked) is the perfect lens for general purposes, thanks to its contrast/sharpness; the J-3 (made in Zagorsk, 1960) is perfect when taking pictures in available light only, or with low-speed films.

I use them indifferently, with their Carl Zeiss counterparts, on my Kiev/Contax outfit.

A 39x1 Zagorsk-made piece from 1958, although apparently very well finished (belonging to a Leningrad outfit, but used on a Leica IIIg, mostly), doesn't give the expected results.

E.L.

P.S. to Undercharged: I find curiously interesting, the illustration of the two Jupiters on a page from Trainspotting!...

 

[Dez]

Unfortunately there is enough variation between individual lenses of the same type that all you can really do is test your lenses yourself and make a decision. The quality variation within these lines is greater than any absolute difference between the types.

Brian is absolutely correct here. The extremely varied opinions one hears about Soviet lenses is primarily due to this variation. If you get a really good one, it's a joy; a really bad one- it's a blur.

One thing for sure though, the J3 is guaranteed to produce better results at f1.5 if and when you need it!

Cheers,
Dez