Should a J3 be coated?

J

jamiewakeham

Long time lurker
Local time
7:27 PM
Joined
Jan 6, 2005
Messages
362
So, I'm feeling the Need for Speed (tm). And whilst I'm saving up for a nice Nokton, I figured that a J3 would keep me happy for the time being.

I've used DVDtechnik before, and found them to be reliable. They have a J3 up for $95 here - http://www.dvdtechnik.com/?p=res&pn=1&p_t=view&id=107&mid=207&cur=usd - which seems reasonable enough (if it is indeed a good 'un). But they state it's not coated.

I thought all post-war soviet lenses were coated, near as dammit. Have they just got it wrong?

Cheers
Jamie
 
Should a J3 be coated? Probably yes, but even at 120%, $95.00 is robbery. I think you can do better price-wise by shopping around a bit. I've bought more than one FSU camera, plus lens (50mm), for a lot less than that.

I might suggest Fedka in NYC. Yuri is tops, probably, for customer satisfaction, and although his prices may run a bit more than evil-bay, you will not be sorry you bought from him.
 
Ah - the bit where they say "MC covering - NO" is just wrong, then.

Thanks, guys. I'm off to give in to the GAS...

Jamie

ps what is it in the picture that tells you it's coated? The different colours in the glass itself?
 
yes, the different colors.
it's theoreticaly not wrong what they say, they say it has no mc covering (multi coated). it's not multi coated, just coated.
 
Thanks, Santino - makes sense.

I did look at places like Fedka, but they're out of J3s at the moment. Also, I always seem to have customs problems with USA sellers, but goods from the FSU just sail straight through. No idea of why.

You're right - $95 is steep - but having dealt with them in the past I trust DVDTechnik as much as you trust fedka. My life is too busy for dodgy lenses!

Cheers
Jamie
 
jamiewakeham said:
Thanks, Santino - makes sense.
I did look at places like Fedka, but they're out of J3s at the moment. Also, I always seem to have customs problems with USA sellers, but goods from the FSU just sail straight through. No idea of why.
You're right - $95 is steep - but having dealt with them in the past I trust DVDTechnik as much as you trust fedka. My life is too busy for dodgy lenses!
Cheers
Jamie
Click to expand...

Jamie,
I agree. That kind of confidence is worth a bit of a premium, I think!
DVD seem to have a decent selection usually. Good to "hear" good reports about them.
And the J-3 is a lens I've not had good luck with; bought one and it's mal-adjusted. Bought a camera with one on it--the seller decided the RF of the camera was off(and, in fact, it might be a little) but the major problem is, surprise!, the J-3. Might need to go see what other J-3s DVD have.
Let us know how yours works out, please!
Rob
 
Will do, Rob. I've nought but praise for DVD - the Zorki 1 they sold me is absolutely lovely.

In fact, DVD have three LTM J3s up at the moment, at $60, $70 and $95. The cheapest looks a bit beat-up, but the middle one looks ok. I almost wonder if the fact that the most expensive one is both oldest and least-used is ominous... maybe I'll take the $70 one instead!

Jamie
 
I'm not going to be buying for a while yet, Jamie; you'll have a clear field!
And my preference is always optics and mechanics over appearance in any event.
Of the two I now have, the prettier one is more mis-adjusted. If I mount either of them on a known good camera, one focuses on my outstretched fingers at 1 meter and the other at about 2.5 meters! I'm all of 5' 8" Tall so I don't think I have either 36" or 90" arms! :D
Ultimately, I don't think $95 is a ton of money for a good lens. Especially considering what the alternatives cost!
Rob
 
The J3 showed in the picture has made by KMZ, and it seems to be quite new. But i own an older one, cirillic version, made by Zagorsk, with the old ZOMZ logo: this is clearly uncoated. I checked carefully the single glasses, and there is absolutely no coloured reflection.

By the way, this is my first post! I am very happy to be here to share my passion with all of you people! Greetings to everyone! :)
 
Glauke said:
The J3 showed in the picture has made by KMZ, and it seems to be quite new. But i own an older one, cirillic version, made by Zagorsk, with the old ZOMZ logo: this is clearly uncoated. I checked carefully the single glasses, and there is absolutely no coloured reflection.
Click to expand...
Look at the glass with oblique angle to light source, you might see blue-tinted reflexes.

Some lenses have neutral hue coatings, but still are coated. If you have any uncoated lens around just compare two hand in hand, the look of uncoated lens is very recognizable.

By 1950s even cheap triplets on Lubitels were coated, let alone high end expensive products like J-3s.
 
Hi Jamie

This is KMZ Jupiter-3 made in 1952. It is single-coated - do not worry. On the front side of lens there is red russian letter analogue of latin 'P'. This means that lens is coated or in russian 'Proswetlenny'.

Since circa 1960-1961 this letter leaved from optics because 100% of lenses were made coated,

Concerning ZOMZ lenses - sometimes coating on glass was not recognizable actually, and glass looked like - it is uncoated one, but after a couple of shots in color - everything were ok. No flares, no wrong colors.
 
Ok! i will check better my J3 (it needs CLA, so it is just a question of seconds..)
Two things made me think of an uncoated lens: first, the RLDB reports an uncoated J3, made by KMZ. I just thought to own a similar version made by ZOMZ. Second, it is know that russians factories still produce high quality uncoated eyepieces for astronomical use...yes, this sounds strange, but if eyepieces yes, why not lenses?
 
Uncoated J-3s and other lenses were made by KMZ but unlike lenses with Red Russian 'P' they were unmarked.
And by the way, i got one uncoated Industar 50/3.5 from pre-War FED-1 - that lens was clearly uncoated, Firstly it was hard to see diaphragm blades inside lens due to reflexes, secondly impression was that lens are made from window glass =))))) Same feeling i got from uncoated pre-war Elmar 35/3.5
 
QUAsit said:
Hi Jamie

This is KMZ Jupiter-3 made in 1952. It is single-coated - do not worry. .....<SNIP>
- sometimes coating on glass was not recognizable actually, and glass looked like - it is uncoated one, but after a couple of shots in color - everything were ok. No flares, no wrong colors.
Click to expand...

Hi

I agree that the 1950s lenses are really excellent. I noticed though, that these lenses tend to have colour biases going towards yellow-green. My Jupiter, Industar, and even Helios from the 1950s with blue-coloured glass consistently produce this cast. Among these, the J-9 and Helios make the strongest yellow cast, with the Industar the least.

This yellow cast was not easy to spot when I was shooting with these lenses on colour negative film. The printing process took away the casts. However, when I started using these lenses (first with digital SLR, then lately, with digital rangefinder), the colour casts were readily seen. Post processing largely removes the casts.

Shots with 1950s Russian lenses stand out readily stand out - even from other shots made with later Russian lenses- because of the yellow colour.

Another odd quality I noticed is that the older Industar lenses tend to make really brilliant reds. This was very evident on shots made on colour negatives; on digital, it's even more. Perhaps so that red banners photograph better? :D

And by the way, i got one uncoated Industar 50/3.5 from pre-War FED-1 - that lens was clearly uncoated, Firstly it was hard to see diaphragm blades inside lens due to reflexes, secondly impression was that lens are made from window glass =))))) Same feeling i got from uncoated pre-war Elmar 35/3.5
Click to expand...

I love using uncoated lenses. I have several FED-1 uncoated lenses, mostly pre-WWII and perhaps a couple of postwar (ca 1948). They make lovely BWs.
Too bad it's impossible to fit these lenses on later cameras. Ancient objectives on digital sensors make an interesting pair!

Jay
 
After checked again my J3, I realized what was wrong: coating layer is present, but it seems to be "decoloured", maybe due to alteration or unperfect coating work. I have exactly the same problem on the meniscus of a MTO1000: half of the frontal surface has the right purple reflection, other half has a strange green reflection. It seems that one of the coating layers has just partially covered the glass.
Anyway, i was wrong: old J-3s are coated
 
I've seen one J-3 that had a green coating. I believe it was coated for use in Infrared. It is the sharpest J-3 I've ever seen, originally had Government markings on the well-worn lens mount. I transplanted the perfect glass to a nicer mount, an RFF member now has it.

If the green coating looks intact, this could be some special use lens. You never know where that lens has been over the last 50 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom