Carburo
Rangefinding Architect
HI!
Did you ever made an exhaustive comparison between these normal lenses:
Jupiter 8
Jupiter 3
Helios-103
I have them all for my Kiev, and I'm thinking about a test: I've used them a lot (mostly Jup3) but never compared them rigorously (Tripod, proper subject, some E6 films, from wide open to minimum).
I've not so much time for do this, but it's in my programs.
If someone did it, I will not repeat twice the same work!
Did you ever made an exhaustive comparison between these normal lenses:
Jupiter 8
Jupiter 3
Helios-103
I have them all for my Kiev, and I'm thinking about a test: I've used them a lot (mostly Jup3) but never compared them rigorously (Tripod, proper subject, some E6 films, from wide open to minimum).
I've not so much time for do this, but it's in my programs.
If someone did it, I will not repeat twice the same work!
I do not have all 3 lenses in question, and have not seen much on the Jupiter-3. I had the Helios-103 and have an 8m. Both are excellent. The J3 has a bad rep, maybe you could set it straight.
FrankS
Registered User
Especially with the Russian lenses, there is a great deal of variation between examples of the same lens, so you should really do this test using your own lenses. Then tell us what you found out!
I'll be doing this soon (before Christmas) with an Industar 61, a J8, and maybe a Japanese 50mm lens.
I'll be doing this soon (before Christmas) with an Industar 61, a J8, and maybe a Japanese 50mm lens.
Carburo
Rangefinding Architect
FrankS said:
Good idea.
I will compare them with my other 50s (Nikkor 1,4 - Zeiss planar 1,7).
I think it's only to have a reference, because results are probably obvious. But... maybe...
Than, as soon as possible, an exhaustive report here!
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
The Jupiter 3 is the 50mm f/1.5, right? I think it's due to the very wide aperture, that the tolerance for misalignment etc is much smaller than in other cases (when tested wide open,of course).