Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Affordable lenses ,filtrers, for landscape photography. Tips
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 12:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

visualopsins wrote:
Was a Nikon 135/4 included in your testing? I ask because it has also 4/3 optics.

Curious about the better contrast, what color does the Jupiter front element reflect, please?


No, the only Nikon lens in my test was an old and heavy Nikkor-Q.C 1:3.5 f=13.5 cm M39/LTM lens from the 1950's. However, it's also based on a similar design of 4E/3G. Besides the already mentioned lenses there was a Topcor RE, a Topcor UV and an old Zeiss Jena Triotar in Exakta mount; i.e. 10 different lenses in total.

The coating of the Jupiter-11 looks red/purple. It was made by KOMZ and is marked in Cyrillic. Obviously it's the version "PT8225" according to: http://www.sovietcams.com/index.php?2125494681. I used a proper lens hood for testing to prevent flare.
Some people say that there are quite often big sample variations but my copy seems to be a very good one. Wink
Generally I have very good experiences with Russian lenses and I have a lot of them (almost every lens in M39/LTM and some M39/Zenit ones). The only exeption is my Jupiter-3 which has problems to focus correctly at infinity as the register distance seems to be a little bit too long.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

One more question, during the actual photo making, before looking at results, which lens did you think would be best? I.e., can the discerning eye acurately see the differences when looking through the camera?


PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 8:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

visualopsins wrote:
One more question, during the actual photo making, before looking at results, which lens did you think would be best? I.e., can the discerning eye acurately see the differences when looking through the camera?


Honestly, you can't see any differences when looking through the camera. Even if you look at the pictures at 100% view in pixel peeping mode at the F8 shots you will see barely any differences. However, at F4 the differences are bigger than expected and some lenses are really awful when used fully open; at least for infinity landscapes. A good example is the Minolta MD lens which produces heavy CA's or the Zeiss Tele-Tessar which is rather soft wide open. However, if used indoor for portraits the Minolta is able to deliver very nice results even wide open at F2.8.
I did expect that the Leitz lens will be best or at least very good but the Jupiter-11 was also a big surprise for me. Zeiss was rather disappointing.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

My experience is that you cant see and focus well without focusing aid. I dont think a "lousy" glass-bottle lens will make further problem. You would have to pull out the $5 2x SUPER VIDEO CONVERTER for that.

However, with automatic lenses, larger apertures provide a brighter viewfinder. That can help a lot. There is however a limit to that too, often viewfinders (and AF) are optimised for like, f/2.8, and further brightness will not help.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 7:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

buerokratiehasser wrote:
My experience is that you cant see and focus well without focusing aid. I dont think a "lousy" glass-bottle lens will make further problem. You would have to pull out the $5 2x SUPER VIDEO CONVERTER for that.

However, with automatic lenses, larger apertures provide a brighter viewfinder. That can help a lot. There is however a limit to that too, often viewfinders (and AF) are optimised for like, f/2.8, and further brightness will not help.


What you think with that optimised for like f/2.8? I would say that they primitive prisms are bright like max f/2.8 comparable to true glass prisms which are brighter.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 9:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

spleenone wrote:
buerokratiehasser wrote:
My experience is that you cant see and focus well without focusing aid. I dont think a "lousy" glass-bottle lens will make further problem. You would have to pull out the $5 2x SUPER VIDEO CONVERTER for that.

However, with automatic lenses, larger apertures provide a brighter viewfinder. That can help a lot. There is however a limit to that too, often viewfinders (and AF) are optimised for like, f/2.8, and further brightness will not help.


What you think with that optimised for like f/2.8? I would say that they primitive prisms are bright like max f/2.8 comparable to true glass prisms which are brighter.


The number of "lines" etched into the screen determines resolution.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 9:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tb_a wrote:
visualopsins wrote:
One more question, during the actual photo making, before looking at results, which lens did you think would be best? I.e., can the discerning eye acurately see the differences when looking through the camera?


Honestly, you can't see any differences when looking through the camera. Even if you look at the pictures at 100% view in pixel peeping mode at the F8 shots you will see barely any differences. However, at F4 the differences are bigger than expected and some lenses are really awful when used fully open; at least for infinity landscapes. A good example is the Minolta MD lens which produces heavy CA's or the Zeiss Tele-Tessar which is rather soft wide open. However, if used indoor for portraits the Minolta is able to deliver very nice results even wide open at F2.8.
I did expect that the Leitz lens will be best or at least very good but the Jupiter-11 was also a big surprise for me. Zeiss was rather disappointing.


Thanks Thomas.

Actually I have seen differences looking through the camera, between, say a Super-Tak and SMC Tak, and between SMC and say Soligor 135. I have also seen what looks terrible through viewfinder give fine, even great, results, with 28mm lenses. Canon 5d ff with stock screen. With high-res screen, I can see differences between SMC 55/1.8 and others, wide open. However, there is likely much larger differences there than between lenses you tested. I think I need a Jupiter 11!


PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

visualopsins wrote:
Actually I have seen differences looking through the camera, between, say a Super-Tak and SMC Tak, and between SMC and say Soligor 135. I have also seen what looks terrible through viewfinder give fine, even great, results, with 28mm lenses. Canon 5d ff with stock screen. With high-res screen, I can see differences between SMC 55/1.8 and others, wide open. However, there is likely much larger differences there than between lenses you tested. I think I need a Jupiter 11!


OK, I understand. My Ricoh GXR-M which I use primarily with RF/MF lenses and for testing doesn't have the highest resolution viewfinders; neither the camera screen nor the optional electronic viewfinder. But it has several different and very effective focus assist options since it was developed for the usage with MF lenses only. That may be an additional explanation.

However, to go for a Jupiter-11 is a good decision but you may need the Jupiter-11A in M42 for your camera. The quite often offered Jupiter-11 in M42 are mostly modified M39/Zenit lenses or only adapted with a step-up ring 39 to 42mm with the shorter Zenit register distance of 45.2 mm which may not work at infinity with standard M42 adapters which are designed for 45.46 mm. Optically the different versions (11 and 11A) are identically.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 1:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I need to use my m42 Pentax S-M-C Takumar 135/2.5 (vII) more.