Kindly Rate My New J-3

[ruben]

Picture No-8 -LAST ONE- Extreme cropping and Full Frame

 

[xayraa33]

after a while you might like your Helios 103 better than this lens Ruben.

 

[Roberto]

Hi Ruben,
How does it react in backlight? is it prone to flare? Do you also have a J8 or J8M? Would you mind posting some comparison shots? I love the J8M and I was wondering whether this extra stop is really for free or the J3 quality is worst..

Thanks,
Rob.

 

[Dave Wilkinson]

The pictures are fine, - though a little soft at wide aperture, as would be expected from Russian (and many other !) lenses. There does'nt seem to be anything wrong with it, so I would be surprised if the seller accepts a return because you expect it to be more than what it is - an fsu lens ....if you like the results....enjoy!

Dave.

 

[brachal]

Ruben,

Seems to me that you've tested the lens under the conditions you're likely to be using it in, and the results are fine. I think if you're shooting at a moving target, at f/1.5, and the image is a little soft ... that's probably to be expected -- not enough DOF to compensate for even a minor movement toward or away from the camera. Given the age and nature of the J-3's design, I would expect a little bit of softness shooting a bowl of fruit at f/1.5 ...

I think you've got a keeper.

 

[mike goldberg]

Hi Ruben,
I voted "Good," the middle choice. I had a J3, and found that I liked my J8's better.

Consider the following: On the plus side, your J3 is in a Contax mount, and you've got the great, wide RF base of the Kiev. On the minus side [possibly; I'm not sure]... you're an eyeglasses wearer, and when you focus, the lens of your spectacles is up close to a tiny, rear RF window.

Thus, is your close focusing, with lens wide open, absolutely accurate? Finally, the J3 gives you, yes, one extra stop, more weight, and apparently NO more sharpness than the J8m. Good luck with your decision; if you paid over $100- you must be happy with your lens.

Tchau, Mike

 

[ruben]

Hi Ruben,
How does it react in backlight? is it prone to flare? Do you also have a J8 or J8M? Would you mind posting some comparison shots? I love the J8M and I was wondering whether this extra stop is really for free or the J3 quality is worst..

Thanks,
Rob.

Hi Roberto,
Along the years I have assembled a kiev fleet, with a dozen standard lenses of all the types.

Although I am not an expert, and far from that, I have the feeling that besides a really crappy lens, all others may show between good and superb according to the specific Kiev camera they are mounted on.

The test of full apperture and close distance is very difficult to perform with extreme accuracy, if you want to test all of them on the same camera/roll of film. I have done it in fact, and will continue whenever I will change the Kiev in actual use.

But the results cannot be but approximate. The DOF is miserable. Then you have the problem of ensuring that all lenses will be tested at the same point in the distance scale, and related to that, mounting and dismounting standards on a Kiev is perhaps unpossible to do without mooving the tripod by a tiny bit. But every tiny bit counts in this field, in which you are spliting hairs.

Therefore in this complex situation, as in other Kiev accuracy related, like rangefinder accuracy, I go by the path of the acceptable and avoid going crazy. I do my best within what is sensible logical.

I am using now two Kievs 4AM, which by an educated guess we can assume are not the most accurately built also in terms of mount to film plane distance. Therefore I did my all lenses tests and found that the best was a 64 J-8M, followed by 2 Helios. I am aware that by more severe testing I may have arrived to somewhat different conclusions. But I want to make pictures, and gossip at RFF as much as possible and not go crazy.

In a previous test, some years ago, on behalf of a Kiev IIA, a J-8 surpassed on the same film my Zuiko macro 3,5.

I think that owning a 1,5 lens is worth for the 1,5 aperture first of all. In my opinion this half stop extra over the Helios, is somewhat psychological and sometimes usefull. Sometimes you find yourself scratching light, so to speak as to illustrate the need of maximum possible apperture.

In my case it is somewhat more accute as I am not sure I can obtain a sharp shot with a standard at 1/25, This is due both to my hands and to the fact that I am still a newbie in the streets, becoming tensioned when the opportunity appears.

But in terms of manipulation I prefer the smoother and double scaled Helios, and then the J-8M for its double scale. J-8 and J-3, witout clicks, and single scaled, are not the most comfortable for me.

As for flare, I have never used any lens of any type for any camera without a hood, and this pictures here are just my first roll with this J-3.

As for this specific J-3, upon the reactions of the members, and taking into consideration the shots were at f/1.5 on an overdeveloped film - I think I have bordered the possible worst, and if this is within the acceptable to me, then further shots will be only better.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[ruben]

after a while you might like your Helios 103 better than this lens Ruben.

This lesson too is worth over $100.

Cheers,
Ruben


BTW, we all complain about our GAS. And there is much truth in our complains. But it is also true that I cannot really know about a piece of gear unless I buy it and use it. Many times I have found I have made a mistake, or half a mistake, so? I don't know a smarter way than practice and experience.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Ruben, I like the pictures and think you got a good, well-collimated lens for the Kiev.

What I would like to see to "Evaluate" the focus would be "more boring, controlled" pictures. I always have to explain to Nina why we have such a well-photographed fence post. And I get an "OOhhhh....", but also get in-focus pictures when using the camera/lens.

My "BORING Test Shots" of a J-3 made from a 1959 lens with a 1986 front element, collimated for the Leica:

Wide-Open, Full-frame

http://flickr.com/photos/oldcamerapictures/sets/72157602481458663/


I love your shot #2, a real flare-test and great shot.

And congratulations to the family with the new Baby!

 

[Roberto]

Hi Ruben,
Thanks for your answer... I agree with you n the Helios, it's probably better than the J8/J8M, the only drawback for it is the fact that cannot be mounted on a screw mount camera :-( other than that it'll probably beat also a much more expensive lense like a Summicron (I know.. I know.. no one else will agree with me on this.. ;-) )
Cheers,
Rob.

 

[shadowfox]

Hi Ruben,
Thanks for your answer... I agree with you n the Helios, it's probably better than the J8/J8M, the only drawback for it is the fact that cannot be mounted on a screw mount camera :-( other than that it'll probably beat also a much more expensive lense like a Summicron (I know.. I know.. no one else will agree with me on this.. ;-) )
Cheers,
Rob.

I would disagree that Helios is "better" than J8. It depends on your definition. It has a bit more contrast, and sharper at the corners, being a newer lens, but as far as bokeh (or OOF rendering for those who are alergic to that word) and sharpness, I find the pictures from the J8 to be more pleasing to see.

 

[Roberto]

Yup, seems like you got the point, Sonnars (like J8) have very nice bokeh, Guass designs like Helios, seems to have a less fashinating bokeh..
Rob.

 

[Gumby]

So instead of participating in the poll you could tell me: a) Keep the lens b) Return the lens, or c) The pictures provided here are not enough to judge even a) or b)

I didn't vote in the poll because I don't think this is really a "poll-able" question. It really comes down to your personal opinion, Ruben... are you happy with the results and the quality?

But that being said, I vote "C" with the following caveats: the pics tend to be soft and the contrast isn't what I'd find acceptable. I'm also a bit concerned about the haloing of the background highlights (#4 and 5, especially).

But if it meets your needs... then congratulations on a new pice of equipment!

 

[gb hill]

I rated your j-3 as good. To me it's a bit soft. If you like the softness of the lens then thats good.I like a soft lens. I love the bokeh. Not all photos have to be sharp. The lens looks to focus nicely. Mine is off on my bessa r and needs a thinner shim acording to Brian S. I know he is right BTW. So I guess the contax mount versions don't suffer from the same faults as the m-39 screwmount copies. I like your photos and the lens is certainly a keeper.

 

[Didier]

Ruben,
Assuming that you focused precisely, I have the impression that your J-3, like mine, does not focus 100% accurately because even wide open it's able to be sharper than on your pics. I tinkered around with mine (which is already the second one, btw.) and could get the close focus accurate by adding paper shims, but then it was off at infinity. Adjusting both is not possible with adding/dropping shim rings only, as explained in Brian Sweeney's Tutorial (PDF) but needs a real collimation service. I'm not shure if I will do it, as I'm a bit tired of tinkering russian stuff. Probably I'll raise funds for a pre-asph Summicron 50 or a ZM Sonnar 50...
Didier

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Ruben's lens is a Kiev Mount J-3, used on his Kiev. The Kiev is calibrated for the Contax standard. But- the "Sonnar" focus shift can also get you.

Ruben- I've got my Kiev-Mount J-3 on my Contax IIIa, and loaded up! Checked the focus at the film-gate. I am expecting good images from it. The Zeiss-Opton 50mm F1.5 that was on it is going to an RFF enthusiast.( I have a second Zeiss Opton 50/1.5 that I'll use for a comparison shot, use it on the custom-shimmed Nikon S2.)

The Helios/Menopta do show "Summarit Swirlies" from Astigmatism. Some like it, others hate it.

 

[varjag]

I still think that making a proper test (i.e. tripod-mounted or fast shutter speed, static subject), would be advantageous.

I understand the point about typical shooting conditions, but the heading reads "Rate My New J-3", and we don't really know how much of it is J-3 or your shooting technique.

 

[giovatony]

They all loook good enough to me.
John