View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
meanwhile
Joined: 29 May 2014 Posts: 225 Location: Australia
Expire: 2016-11-28
|
Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2014 8:43 am Post subject: Jupiter-9 85mm f/2 vs Nikon 85mm f/2 AI |
|
|
meanwhile wrote:
If you had a choice between these two lenses at similar price and condition, which would you choose and why?
Thanks! _________________ In my bag: Sony A7II - Olympus OM 21mm f/3.5 - Minolta M-Rokkor 40mm f/2.0 - Konica Hexanon 57mm f/1.2 AR - Olympus Zuiko OM 100mm f/2.8 - Pentax 135mm f/3.5 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oldhand
Joined: 01 Apr 2013 Posts: 6006 Location: Mid North Coast NSW - Australia
|
Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2014 10:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oldhand wrote:
Take this with a grain of salt if you want to .......... but .....
These two lenses can both be excellent and the results simply lovely.
However from all that I have seen, the Jupiters can be very good or very .......... less than good.
The Nikkors are universally good and every example is going to keep on keeping on with excellence in engineering across the range.
The Jupiters can be good or can need attention
For the same price and in similarly good condition I would choose a Nikon every time because I would know what I was getting.
OH |
|
Back to top |
|
|
meanwhile
Joined: 29 May 2014 Posts: 225 Location: Australia
Expire: 2016-11-28
|
Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2014 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
meanwhile wrote:
Thanks Oldhand. That does seem to be something that comes up about the Jupiter's, particularly sticky focus rings. _________________ In my bag: Sony A7II - Olympus OM 21mm f/3.5 - Minolta M-Rokkor 40mm f/2.0 - Konica Hexanon 57mm f/1.2 AR - Olympus Zuiko OM 100mm f/2.8 - Pentax 135mm f/3.5 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Aanything
Joined: 27 Aug 2011 Posts: 2201 Location: Piacenza, Italy
Expire: 2014-05-30
|
Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2014 10:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Aanything wrote:
I love the j-9 but, if the price is similar, I'd take the nikkor: usually it goes for almost 2x the price of a comparable conditions j-9 so you either found a very cheap nikkor or an expensive jupiter. _________________ C&C and editing of my pics are always welcome
Samples from my lenses
My gear
My Flickr |
|
Back to top |
|
|
peterqd
Joined: 28 Feb 2007 Posts: 7448 Location: near High Wycombe, UK
Expire: 2014-01-04
|
Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2014 11:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
peterqd wrote:
Me too. I have a black J-9 but one of the aperture blades broke and jammed. It gives lovely colours and a swirly bokeh if you're into
that. My only useable 85 now is the Super-Takumar f1.9 - that's a nice lens to look out for too. The S-M-C f1.8 is even better I'm told. _________________ Peter - Moderator |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57840 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2021-11-18
|
Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2014 1:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
I have/had both lenses, they are basically identical not much difference, Jupiter is Sonnar lens , even stopped down bokeh, aperture rings in background will be more smooth easily. Nikkor sharper wide open. _________________ -------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
calvin83
Joined: 12 Apr 2009 Posts: 7548 Location: Hong Kong
|
Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2014 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
calvin83 wrote:
The Nikon 85mm f/2 is a Xenotar/Biometar type lens which is much sharper than the old Sonnar type Jupiter-9. If you need a sharp lens with better flare resistance, get the Nikkor. _________________ https://lensfever.com/
https://www.instagram.com/_lens_fever/
The best lens is the one you have with you. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
meanwhile
Joined: 29 May 2014 Posts: 225 Location: Australia
Expire: 2016-11-28
|
Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2014 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
meanwhile wrote:
Thanks all! Picked up a good condition Nikkor.
My needed focal lengths are now complete! (he says with the confidence that he needs to buy no more lenses for years - did that sound even mildly believable?) _________________ In my bag: Sony A7II - Olympus OM 21mm f/3.5 - Minolta M-Rokkor 40mm f/2.0 - Konica Hexanon 57mm f/1.2 AR - Olympus Zuiko OM 100mm f/2.8 - Pentax 135mm f/3.5 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Gardener
Joined: 22 Sep 2013 Posts: 950 Location: USA
|
Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2014 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gardener wrote:
Good decision! I've owned multiple copies of both and dollar for dollar Nikkor is better in every conceivable way. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Pablo0105
Joined: 19 Apr 2014 Posts: 13 Location: Liverpool, England
|
Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2014 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Pablo0105 wrote:
I'd choose the nikon. I have owned both, a nikon in poor condition and a Jupiter in good condition. The nikon was sharper with better contrast but the Jupiter had better bokeh. _________________ Sony a7 | Nikon ai 20mm 3.5 | Sony 28mm f2 | Sony Zeiss 55mm 1.8| Samyang 85mm 1.4 | Tamron SP 90mm 2.5 | Nikon 80-200mm f4 | Canon FD 200mm macro f4 | Sigma Apo Macro 300mm f4
http://www.flickr.com/photos/64378612@N06/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston
|
Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2014 8:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
I suppose if the choices were those two only, I'd also go for the sharper lens. However, since I have other lenses in the same focal range that are very sharp, I'm very happy with my J-9 for it's different rendering and multi-bladed diaphragm. I had a very sharp Hexanon 1.8/85 that I sold, keeping the Jupiter. _________________ Regards,
Woodrim |
|
Back to top |
|
|
meanwhile
Joined: 29 May 2014 Posts: 225 Location: Australia
Expire: 2016-11-28
|
Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2014 10:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
meanwhile wrote:
I really like the rendering of the Contax G 90mm too in this range, but it seems to be more than double the price of the Nikkor for a nice one. _________________ In my bag: Sony A7II - Olympus OM 21mm f/3.5 - Minolta M-Rokkor 40mm f/2.0 - Konica Hexanon 57mm f/1.2 AR - Olympus Zuiko OM 100mm f/2.8 - Pentax 135mm f/3.5 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston
|
Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 12:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
There will always be a better and more expensive one, or at least the latter. _________________ Regards,
Woodrim |
|
Back to top |
|
|
meanwhile
Joined: 29 May 2014 Posts: 225 Location: Australia
Expire: 2016-11-28
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
meanwhile wrote:
Lens has arrived and it's in great condition. Focus is smooth, and it works better than any other lens I have with the NEX-6 focus peaking (Fujinon 55mm is close, but this is noticeably better). It's a really late serial (347xxx), so should be a 1995 copy. On the Lens Turbo it behaves like a 93mm f/1.4-ish lens, directly on the NEX-6 it behaves like a 127.5mm f/2, and it doesn't take up much space/weight in the bag.
Thank you all for the advice! _________________ In my bag: Sony A7II - Olympus OM 21mm f/3.5 - Minolta M-Rokkor 40mm f/2.0 - Konica Hexanon 57mm f/1.2 AR - Olympus Zuiko OM 100mm f/2.8 - Pentax 135mm f/3.5 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
1kgcoffee
Joined: 16 May 2014 Posts: 52
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 11:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
1kgcoffee wrote:
On a side note, can anyone tell me why 85mm lenses are so much more expensive than than 50 and 135? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
meanwhile
Joined: 29 May 2014 Posts: 225 Location: Australia
Expire: 2016-11-28
|
Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 12:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
meanwhile wrote:
There is likely other stuff too, but I think part of it for used lenses comes down to rarity. There are just soooo many nifty-fifty's out there. I think the 135mm difference is because the designs are simpler and they are usually slower. I may be talking out my hat though. _________________ In my bag: Sony A7II - Olympus OM 21mm f/3.5 - Minolta M-Rokkor 40mm f/2.0 - Konica Hexanon 57mm f/1.2 AR - Olympus Zuiko OM 100mm f/2.8 - Pentax 135mm f/3.5 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston
|
Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 12:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
1kgcoffee wrote: |
On a side note, can anyone tell me why 85mm lenses are so much more expensive than than 50 and 135? |
Numbers produced? _________________ Regards,
Woodrim |
|
Back to top |
|
|
memetph
Joined: 01 Dec 2013 Posts: 942 Location: Poland
|
Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 1:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
memetph wrote:
Obviously it is rarity. 50/55mm and 135mm are the most common lenses available.
Small telelenses are for me very usefull.
I like very much the range 85/105 on FF, I have no APS-C camera but I can imagine that I would prefer a 50/55mm with such a camera. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|