Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Bad news for some, good for others, and probably no news for the most.
I made direct comparisons between a zeiss sonnar 50/1.5, a sonnar 50/2 and a jupiter 8. All coated postwar versions.
This is no statistics - i used only one of each lenses.
There is no difference between the three at all, not at f/2 and not at f/8. None. No matter if i looked on the print or if i checked the film with a microscope. (I used reala 100.)
At f/1.5, of coourse, the sonnar1.5 was a little bit softer and a little bit less contrasty than the other two at f/2 (or the same lens at f/2).
At f/8 they all improved the same way.
I think i will have some "for sale" items soon.
PSD: no photos attached. It makes no sense to attach three completely identical photos to prove something that does not exist.
I made direct comparisons between a zeiss sonnar 50/1.5, a sonnar 50/2 and a jupiter 8. All coated postwar versions.
This is no statistics - i used only one of each lenses.
There is no difference between the three at all, not at f/2 and not at f/8. None. No matter if i looked on the print or if i checked the film with a microscope. (I used reala 100.)
At f/1.5, of coourse, the sonnar1.5 was a little bit softer and a little bit less contrasty than the other two at f/2 (or the same lens at f/2).
At f/8 they all improved the same way.
I think i will have some "for sale" items soon.
PSD: no photos attached. It makes no sense to attach three completely identical photos to prove something that does not exist.
taffer
void
Pherdinand said:
Hmm, ok, but I think the correct order is to put things for sale first and to tell us this later
Flyfisher Tom
Well-known
yes, but one of the lenses still does something that the other two can't do
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
) you're right Oscar, i am a terrible businessman.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Wel, strictly speaking, all 3 can do something that the other 2 cannot.
The f/1.5 does f/1.5; the f/2 lenses do f/22 as smallest, unlike the f/16 of the other; and the jupiter can do click at f/stops.
Hmm...so what special can the sonnar f/2 do? Dunno but i can figure out something if you wish.
The f/1.5 does f/1.5; the f/2 lenses do f/22 as smallest, unlike the f/16 of the other; and the jupiter can do click at f/stops.
Hmm...so what special can the sonnar f/2 do? Dunno but i can figure out something if you wish.
planetjoe
Just some guy, you know?
Pherdinand, can your J-8 actually do click-stops? I'm pretty sure I have a sample that cannot; in fact, I'd been under the impression that the I-61 was the only FSU lens that could. I certainly wouldn't mind having a J-8 that "clicked".
Thanks for your test, by the way. It's a good thing you didn't include a J-3 in there, or a lot of folks would be pulling their hair out...it's a great lens @1.5, IMHO.
Cheers,
--joe.
Thanks for your test, by the way. It's a good thing you didn't include a J-3 in there, or a lot of folks would be pulling their hair out...it's a great lens @1.5, IMHO.
Cheers,
--joe.
John
Well-known
At least one of these is a collectible and likely to appreciate in value over the years. I have things on the shelf that I couldn't afford to buy now. For example, a Rolex watch and a Timex.
ampguy
Veteran
cool
cool
remind me if I ever get an M8 to do the dots up on my J8 with M adapter to the Sonnar!
cool
remind me if I ever get an M8 to do the dots up on my J8 with M adapter to the Sonnar!
Pherdinand said:
telenous
Well-known
Pherdinand, thanks for your testing. I have never used any of these lenses although perhaps I should, given the glowing reviews they receive from members here. You will forgive me to say though that a bench performance test is the first step in the discussion of the differences of these lenses. Curiously, and very interestingly I think, there is also a "metaphysical", or speculative if you will, aspect in the investigation of their differences. This aspect is best exemplified by questions like "If lens A is constructed with optical formula X in place P and lens B is constructed with optical formula X in place Q, could we say they are the same (kind of) lens?"
Quite cautiously most people will agree that they belong in the same (optical) family. That allows enough room to say both that they are very, very similar and that they are different in some respects. What are the respects they are different then? And here I speculate so correct me if I am wrong: first there will be differences in the appearance (cosmetics, heft, handling, etc.); second, and more importantly, there may be (as we know in this case that there are) differences in quality control, i.e. difference in the percentage of lenses that comply with the optical and mechanical stringencies required by the optical designer and the mechanical engineer.
For this reason, I wouldn't be surprised if a good specimen (the emphasis is on "good") of the Russian lens performed equivalently with the German original. Why shouldn't it? There's nothing magical in the German glass, as far as I understand. But it is perhaps more likely that the Russian lens will fall short of the ideal performance due to well-documented problems in the Russian QC. And I suggest that that's the kind of difference that some people are prepared to pay a bit (or a lot) more for.
Again, thanks for the test. I, for one, always enjoy these comparisons (although admittedly I am not very good at telling differences in the empirical level).
Quite cautiously most people will agree that they belong in the same (optical) family. That allows enough room to say both that they are very, very similar and that they are different in some respects. What are the respects they are different then? And here I speculate so correct me if I am wrong: first there will be differences in the appearance (cosmetics, heft, handling, etc.); second, and more importantly, there may be (as we know in this case that there are) differences in quality control, i.e. difference in the percentage of lenses that comply with the optical and mechanical stringencies required by the optical designer and the mechanical engineer.
For this reason, I wouldn't be surprised if a good specimen (the emphasis is on "good") of the Russian lens performed equivalently with the German original. Why shouldn't it? There's nothing magical in the German glass, as far as I understand. But it is perhaps more likely that the Russian lens will fall short of the ideal performance due to well-documented problems in the Russian QC. And I suggest that that's the kind of difference that some people are prepared to pay a bit (or a lot) more for.
Again, thanks for the test. I, for one, always enjoy these comparisons (although admittedly I am not very good at telling differences in the empirical level).
vrgard
Well-known
planetjoe said:
I'm no expert on FSU glass, but I'm fairly certain that my Helios 103 has click stops.
-Randy
planetjoe
Just some guy, you know?
Randy:
I hadn't known that. Maybe I'm remembering "...one of the only LTM FSU lenses"; isn't the Helios-103 only Kiev/Contax mount? I could be wrong about that one, too.
Cheers,
--joe.
I hadn't known that. Maybe I'm remembering "...one of the only LTM FSU lenses"; isn't the Helios-103 only Kiev/Contax mount? I could be wrong about that one, too.
Cheers,
--joe.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
It does click stop.
Well, probably i got lucky with this Jupiter, because it is absolutely identically performing as the Sonnars.
Or i got two crappy sonnars
The f/1.5 sonnar has a dented filter ring so i doubt it has any collector value.
I bought it cheap (relatively) exactly because of this problem.
I have also figured, that f/1.5 is not too often an advantage against f/2.
Well, probably i got lucky with this Jupiter, because it is absolutely identically performing as the Sonnars.
Or i got two crappy sonnars
The f/1.5 sonnar has a dented filter ring so i doubt it has any collector value.
I bought it cheap (relatively) exactly because of this problem.
I have also figured, that f/1.5 is not too often an advantage against f/2.
Ash
Selflessly Self-involved
planetjoe said:
I'm pretty sure my Jupiter-8m (contax/kiev) clicks
triplefinger
Well-known
I also have a J-8, and a J-3, both are lovely and amazing... and cheap.
kind of a crap shoot though.
BUT i can say of ALL the FSU glass i have owned, J-3, J-8 I-22, I-50, J-9(is that the 85/2) and I-61.
They were ALL very good or better, except the I-61, which was soft and lifeless.
the only downside was on the collapsible lenses, which don't fully work(in respect to the infinity tab lock) on the M cameras.
Cheers, Mike
kind of a crap shoot though.
BUT i can say of ALL the FSU glass i have owned, J-3, J-8 I-22, I-50, J-9(is that the 85/2) and I-61.
They were ALL very good or better, except the I-61, which was soft and lifeless.
the only downside was on the collapsible lenses, which don't fully work(in respect to the infinity tab lock) on the M cameras.
Cheers, Mike
planetjoe said:
rbiemer
Unabashed Amateur
planetjoe,planetjoe said:
I have the J-8 lens in both Kiev and LTM mounts and the LTM version does not have click-stops while the Kiev mount has both(I have three J-8s in Kiev mount)--I have a '67 year make that does, an earlier('53? don't have it in front of me) that clearly does not and one other that does not but is in such poor condition that I can't tell if that is because of wear/abuse or just was manufactored with out.
Also, according to Isaac Maizenberg's book, the LTM and Kiev versions used identical optical blocks and the difference was only the mounting block. So it seems like one could transplant the Kiev(clock-stopped) versoin into an LTM mount with the correction for working distance and get a LTM click-stopped J-8? I am not willing to try this with my Kiev J-8 since it is the best one I have but it is an interesting idea, I think.
Rob
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
And I thought you were going to follow it with "...walk into a bar..."
I really don't know what you did, but I strongly disagree. Either you have a very bad copy of the f/1.5 Sonnar, or an incredibly good copy of the Jupiter-3, because they have very very distinct signatures from f/1.5 to about f/2.8, and then stopped down, yes, it is hard to tell them apart, but most lenses are hard to tell apart stopped down at f/8.
I should clarify what I mean by "signature": the Jupiter-3 I have tends to be softer wide open, even stopped down at f/2, at the same apertures than the Zeiss f/1.5 The blur areas in both have the same "Sonnar look", but in the Jupiter-3 they tend to get a little bit "cloudy", don't know how else to describe it, where the Zeiss f/1.5, although soft in these areas, almost retains the same contrast level, doesn't visibly affect it. I don't know if this has to do with the coatings (the J-3 I have is completely uncoated, and the Zeiss f/1.5 is T*)
The Sonnar 50/2, well, I haven't shot mine enough to tell, but the only few shots I've taken with it tell me that it's slightly muddier than the f/1.5, but that's it.
Got your test shots to share if we nag you enough?
Pherdinand said:
I really don't know what you did, but I strongly disagree. Either you have a very bad copy of the f/1.5 Sonnar, or an incredibly good copy of the Jupiter-3, because they have very very distinct signatures from f/1.5 to about f/2.8, and then stopped down, yes, it is hard to tell them apart, but most lenses are hard to tell apart stopped down at f/8.
I should clarify what I mean by "signature": the Jupiter-3 I have tends to be softer wide open, even stopped down at f/2, at the same apertures than the Zeiss f/1.5 The blur areas in both have the same "Sonnar look", but in the Jupiter-3 they tend to get a little bit "cloudy", don't know how else to describe it, where the Zeiss f/1.5, although soft in these areas, almost retains the same contrast level, doesn't visibly affect it. I don't know if this has to do with the coatings (the J-3 I have is completely uncoated, and the Zeiss f/1.5 is T*)
The Sonnar 50/2, well, I haven't shot mine enough to tell, but the only few shots I've taken with it tell me that it's slightly muddier than the f/1.5, but that's it.
Got your test shots to share if we nag you enough?
Last edited:
Flyfisher Tom
Well-known
Pherdinand,
I've been curious about getting one, but remember Brian Sweeney talking about adding shims on some Jupiters, while others were just fine out of the box. Curious what your experience has been with it out of the box?
I've been curious about getting one, but remember Brian Sweeney talking about adding shims on some Jupiters, while others were just fine out of the box. Curious what your experience has been with it out of the box?
Flyfisher Tom said:
The shim issue with J3's should only effect LTM lenses. It is hypothesized that FSU lenses are all made to the Contax Rangefinder Mount specs causing back focus issues with standard LTM cameras. I believe Pherdi is shooting with a Contax or Kiev therefore would not have experienced a problem.
Dante Stella speaks at length about this.
http://www.dantestella.com/technical/compat.html
Flyfisher Tom
Well-known
Thanks Ralph.
Unfortunately, my needs are in LTM
Unfortunately, my needs are in LTM
JoeFriday
Agent Provacateur
I kinda have to agree with Gabriel.. while the J8 I used to own was no slouch, it didn't have the crispness that my Sonnar 50/1.5 has.. altho they do have the same general look to them.. but it's pretty easy for me to pick out the Sonnar images in my portfolio
I'm thinking it's a matter of individual lenses in Pherdi's camera bag.. but at the same time I'm very tempted to pick up another J8 to do another comparison
I'm thinking it's a matter of individual lenses in Pherdi's camera bag.. but at the same time I'm very tempted to pick up another J8 to do another comparison