Ron (Netherlands)
Well-known
Indeed Johan, correct shimming doesn't need drilling, however Sweeney did drill these lenses inorder to get correct alignment of the figures - and that is what I'm opposed to.
Mr_Flibble
In Tabulas Argenteas Refero
The M39 J-3 used to be my favorite lens on my Epson R-D1. It didn't focus so well on one of my Leica bodies, BUT it did fine on a 'leaky' Zorki 1.
Boris Stupak
Well-known
The black J-3's were actually considerably cheapened, with a rotating front barrel and very poor lens element centering. They were made while the Soviet optics industry was in a drastic state of decline.
Ron (Netherlands)
Well-known
I think that is a quite ungrounded statement. My own experience is that the black onces are better made and better corrected or at least have better multicoated lenses whereas the silver ones are single coated... the black ones are also more constrasty
further I guess you didn't have one in your hand, since they are not front rotating at all - the barrel is exactly build like the post 1958 silver ones, albeit nicer/better finished!
btw since the black ones are rarer they normally fetch somewhat higher prices - it took me a very long time to get one, whereas the silver ones are easily obtainable
raid
Dad Photographer
There usually is no need for shimming for Canon lenses.
apostasiometritis
Established
My best Jupi 3s were always black.
They do feel less solid than the silver ones but the glass seems to be better, the coating as well.
I have 2no. of these, one made in '87, one in '85. The '87 one focuses spot on on a Leica but not on a Zorki, the '85 one backfocuses by 5cm on a Leica and is spot on on my Zorki.
They are both considerably sharper than a Jupi 8 at f2, but the '85 one is sharp even at 1.5.
There seems to be enough sample variation amongst them.
In the end, I, too do not find shimming necessary. At close range, on a Leica, simply approach from the left; i.e. make your way from minimum distance to said distance and then go back by say 2mm on the rangefinder patch - that is for a Leica, and for close distances only. Not really necessary far out.
Works everytime, for me anyway.
I did have some of my FSUs shimmed at a point, but because I lacked a digital M which makes it relatively easy, I followed the following practical process (please understand that this is my way, a simple, agricultural but easyish method):
1) Shoot at a measuring tape at say 1m and see where the actual focus point in the print, basically establish how much the lens backfocus is.
2) Aim at 1m distance, see how much the lens distance scale is off. Usually, this is 5cm (i.e. the lens scale shows 1.05m), at least it has been for most of my FSU lenses.
3) Apply electical tape to back of the focusing cam (where it connects with camera roller), one layer will do. Note this works with cameras that have rollers only, FSU bodies will tear the tape as they have another method of following the focusing cam.
4) Aim at same 1m distance and note distance on lens scale. I have found out that 1 layer of electrical tape will add 3-4cm to the distance scale. So basically, you add 3-4 cm backfocus to the rangefinder, so next time you shoot your rangefinder will aim further back, thus catching up with the lens inherent backfocus. I hope that made sense.
5) Shoot with said measuring tape, see how it goes with backfocusing.
6) Add second layer of tape if not happy with 1st attempt. If it gets too far to the front it means the layers are too thick, maybe try other tape (sellotape etc).
You now have 2 options:
a) You keep the layer(s) of tape on the cam. It does throw infinity aim off (i.e. the image will not coincide at infinity as the distance you added by the layers corresponds to 10+ meters when the lens is nearing infinity). You effectively are adding backward travel to the lens to adjust for the backfocus. The rangefinder arm gets pushed back more thus catching up with backfocus. Bloody hell I am having real trouble explaining this.
b) Remove tape from back of lens, open front part of lens and apply said layers of tape on the shim. Use a scalpel and the shim to cut patterns. Note aperture alignment and add new dot on lens barrel to make up for the deviation.
In the end, I found that all this fuss is not worth it. Just find out how much your lens backfocuses and next time apply suitable correction. 1 roll and it becomes second nature.
There are so many lenses out there that have focus shift, just treat it like you would a 35/1.4 nokton etc.
goamules
Well-known
The 1950s J-3 lenses are fantastic and have a huge following. If the OP read "tentative" reports it's because of threads where people are sweating the shimming. Which, if you worried about that, you would so for ALL Soviet LTM lenses; Industars, Feds, Jupiters, etc. The J-3 is a faster lens, so has a narrower depth of field wide open. So even as Sweeny said, you won't notice the problem unless you are shooting very close, and wide open. And you won't have a problem if your example is like mine.
Maybe I'm just lucky, but my 1963 J-3 (nor any of my J-8s) needed no adjustment, and takes close ups wide open fine. The color of these sonnars is warmer than other designs, the out of focus areas fantastic and smoother than some of the other sonars, and they are very sharp. It is my favorite lens for portraits, and I have the Canon 1.5 and 1.2.
I would not let a little hand wringing about "shims" prevent you from trying one. Check the "Jupiters Rule" Flickr group, or some of the other J-3 threads where people are actually shooting them. They are killer lenses, and that's why their prices have gone from $50 a few years ago, to $100 last year, and now $200.
Maybe I'm just lucky, but my 1963 J-3 (nor any of my J-8s) needed no adjustment, and takes close ups wide open fine. The color of these sonnars is warmer than other designs, the out of focus areas fantastic and smoother than some of the other sonars, and they are very sharp. It is my favorite lens for portraits, and I have the Canon 1.5 and 1.2.
I would not let a little hand wringing about "shims" prevent you from trying one. Check the "Jupiters Rule" Flickr group, or some of the other J-3 threads where people are actually shooting them. They are killer lenses, and that's why their prices have gone from $50 a few years ago, to $100 last year, and now $200.
goamules
Well-known
with J-3 on Velvia and Canon IVSB. I shoot it on a Canon P and Tower 5L too with no adjustment needed.
goamules
Well-known
Here is a comparison with a J-3 (first pic) and a Canon 1.5, both at F2.8:
raid
Dad Photographer
I try to get J3 lenses from 1955 or earlier.
If you have an Amedeo Contax to M adapter, you have more options sice many J3 are in Contax mount. They are also less costly. There is now a J3 for sale for over $650. I asked the seller if the M8 shown in his ad comes with the lens.
If you have an Amedeo Contax to M adapter, you have more options sice many J3 are in Contax mount. They are also less costly. There is now a J3 for sale for over $650. I asked the seller if the M8 shown in his ad comes with the lens.
apostasiometritis
Established
That seller (it can be only one, I don't even have to look it up) is quite frankly an idiot (apologies for the language) selling at over 200% going prices. Problem is his numerous listings make people think they are sitting on treasure or something. I think he has single-handedly managed to increase prices in the UK by a considerable amount.
raid
Dad Photographer
That UK seller wrote me back: "SURE!! A camera worth over $2000 comes with it, the wooden logs, my dog and stones from my garden in the images as well"
There are also two listings for $399. Someone is pushing up the J3 prices above $300.
There are also two listings for $399. Someone is pushing up the J3 prices above $300.
Ron (Netherlands)
Well-known
I once asked him about his affairs: he stated that he had paid too much in the past for all his stuff and therefore couldn't reduce to 'regular' prices
goamules
Well-known
The market will decide. When there are several with Buy it Nows around $195, who would buy one for double that? A fool that thinks a higher price represents better condition maybe.
I've noticed with ebay that when there is a cult lens that is teetering at the top of it's price range, all of a sudden a lot more are set as Buy it Nows, versus auctions. And if there are more than one, and they're not selling, then they just established the "too high" price. Just watch for the ones on auction, and try to get it for less. But you'll have to bail out if it becomes a bidding war, when two people "must have it...NOW!"
I've noticed with ebay that when there is a cult lens that is teetering at the top of it's price range, all of a sudden a lot more are set as Buy it Nows, versus auctions. And if there are more than one, and they're not selling, then they just established the "too high" price. Just watch for the ones on auction, and try to get it for less. But you'll have to bail out if it becomes a bidding war, when two people "must have it...NOW!"
bwidjaja
Warung Photo
Tim, these are amazing portraits, especially the first one. Would you mind sharing which camera you use and what Aperture you use? I am learning how to use it on Fuji X-E1. Quick snap using f1.5 and 6400 is a bit disappointing (indoor at night).
thejameskendall
Established
does anyone know if anyone shims these lenses for money in the UK and how much they charge. i have 1958 J-3 (and a 1970s J-8 and a J-9) that i'd like the piece of mind of knowing that it was spot on. i don't have a digital rangefinder to test and am 'practically challenged'.
apostasiometritis
Established
Please note that shimming disturbs long range aiming.
A 5cm movement at close range corresponds to 15m+ when near infinity, so you will have to stop down to at least f2 for longer shots and hope that the focusing error is covered by the depth of field. Though, to be fair, this hinges on how much shimming had to be done originally.
That is why I think that the best way of doing it is to just make up for the error at close range. How many times do you actually take a picture of someone at such a close distance.
Also note, the Jupi 3 is a sonnar design, focus shift is inherent to the formula/design. Even the modern incarnation has it.
thejameskendall
Established
yeah, i thought about that and decided that as i rarely shoot the j-3 at infinity wide open and frequently shoot close wide open it'd be a sacrifice worth making if i had to. i used it mainly for portraits.
of course my lens might already be perfect.
of course my lens might already be perfect.
