Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Jupiter-3 1.5/50 on Fed-2: a portrait
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 5:59 pm    Post subject: Jupiter-3 1.5/50 on Fed-2: a portrait Reply with quote
I finally got around testing the Jupiter-3 I bought almost two years ago. The commercial, so-called "proCD" scans at 6 Mp are no good - saying no good is actually flattering, they are just crap. A couple of frames seemed worth some extra trouble, however, and I scanned them with my Epson 4990, which isn't the best possible one for 35 mm scanning. Here is the one frame which is worth displaying, not so much for any photographic merit, but to show an unexpected weakness, the Jupiter seems to have quite a bad bokeh, which was also evident in some of the other frames. This shot was taken at f/1.5, 1/30s, so it isn't very sharp, but would be quite nice with some other kind of background with softer lines, not the hard lines which get doubled here. The natural OOF softening doesn't a good bokeh make. This is a down-sampled crop. The girl is my younger daughter, the linguist, who inherited her father's interest in Japanese and beat him flat by also studying Basque - I haven't yet got around to that Smile



Veijo


PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 6:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Maybe my comment isnt' what you would expect Veijo.. but I am struck by the pictorialist quality of the image. Try to crop it some above the glass (so the glass is not seen).
It could easily be either a portrait painting by Mary Cassatt or Berthe Morisot, or, a photograph by Steichen.
Your daughter's elegant portamento and sort of "timeless" figure contribute to that, too.

Having that said, I think that some Jupiter lenses have really a bad bokeh. Jupiter 9 has the worst bokeh I ever saw in a lens. This one also shows to be quite ugly.
There are some exceptions amongst the Jupiters though, both the Jupiter-37 and Jupiter-21 have nice bokeh in my opinion.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 6:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Wow! This J-3 1.5/50 is some kind of "dream lens" for me which would be a perfect addition to my Industar-61 and my Jupiter-12 (at my FED-3b).


@Orio: This is a point where we don't agree on, apart from its highlight bokeh, I like the bokeh of my J9... Wink


PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 6:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Maybe my comment isnt' what you would expect Veijo.. but I am struck by the pictorialist quality of the image. Try to crop it some above the glass (so the glass is not seen).


For a portrait, I'd do that. This was, however, more a display of optical properties of the lens.

Quote:
Having that said, I think that some Jupiter lenses have really a bad bokeh. Jupiter 9 has the worst bokeh I ever saw in a lens. This one also shows to be quite ugly.


Jupiter-9? One of our favourite portrait lenses? How about this:




The bokeh of the Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 3.5/135, probably the worst bokeh I've ever caught.

Veijo


PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 7:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
vilva wrote:
The bokeh of the Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 3.5/135, probably the worst bokeh I've ever caught.


Well, I have to agree. This beats my concept of ugliest bokeh. But seiing this, I suspect that your lens may have a problem. What I see does not seem normal, not for a Takumar lens (we are not talking about Panagor)

Quote:

Jupiter-9? One of our favourite portrait lenses?


Look at this:



It has literally ruined my photo.

And I remember a beautiful portrait by Yvonne, posted on this forum some time ago, with her child in the foreground, perfectly focused, and a friend in the background, out of focus, that looked doubled, like two same images out of alignment.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 3:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
vilva wrote:
The bokeh of the Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 3.5/135, probably the worst bokeh I've ever caught.


Well, I have to agree. This beats my concept of ugliest bokeh. But seiing this, I suspect that your lens may have a problem. What I see does not seem normal, not for a Takumar lens (we are not talking about Panagor)


I don't think there is anything wrong with the lens. Most of the phtos taken with it are just OK, but here the circumstances conspired to produce the ugliness - just like in your J-9 photo. Very few lenses behave well under all circumstances, not perhaps even my Radionars, which are almost failsafe as far as the bokeh is concerned.

Veijo


PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 4:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
BTW. fully open the 2.9/50 Radionar on 350D might be quite a good portrait lens. Here is a quick shot from last summer, slightly cropped and down-sampled:



Note the typical Radionar bokeh at the left edge of the white column above her head. Instead of the nasty J-3/Sonnar double-lining, the edge gets smudged out. It's the same story all over the frame, no disturbing artifacts, things just gradually fade out.

Veijo


PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 4:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Veijo, What should I say... You are an artist... and jeweler too... Wink
I cant tell which is is good or great...
I am behind this lens from a long time.. but never able to find below $50... one day, will be successful (getting little cheap)


PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 8:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
vilva wrote:
BTW. fully open the 2.9/50 Radionar on 350D might be quite a good portrait lens.
Veijo


Absolutely. Bokeh-wise, that lens is in another league alltogether.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1