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

Leitz 135 vs. Jupiter 37A
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 3:33 pm    Post subject: Leitz 135 vs. Jupiter 37A Reply with quote
Hi All,

I'm waiting for the Elmarit <-> Nikon adapter and in the meanwhile wanted to know your opinion : which one is a better performer?

My criteria : sharpness + silky smooth bokeh

I have the 37A and I totally love it!

Cheers!
Hari


PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 4:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
J37 is a Sonnar type and has smoother bokeh than the Elmarit-R which is sharper (but the J37 is surely sharp enough)


PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 7:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I had the J37. It's not as good as the Sonnar IMO.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 8:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Generally, I would say that the Elmarit is a "better" lens, but the J37 is a very good lens already.

And if you also look at the price? The Elmarit does not stand a chance against the J37. Wink


PostPosted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
martinsmith99 wrote:
I had the J37. It's not as good as the Sonnar IMO.


There was huge quality variation among many Russian lenses. I had a copy of J37 that was unsharp on one side (fixed it now by removing and carefully re-inserting all lenses). However, a good copy of J37 is almost as sharp as the Sonnar. Contra-light performance is another matter, and a weak point in many Russian lenses.

Pre-AI Nikkor 135/3.5 is also a Sonnar clone. It comes pretty close to the original in terms of performance (and offers much better build quality than the Sonanr). It costs about the same as Jupiter-37, yet without its quirks.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Good copy of Jupiter can be better the bad copy of Sonnar Smile Anyway, Jupiter has advantage in its round aperture, Sonnar aperture is more edgy. I think the biggest advantage of Sonnar is it's MC - it's harder, so not very easy to scratch and a bit more contrasty.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 2:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks All for your helpful insights!

Here are some of my recent J37A shots :





some of my recent MC CZ electric Sonnar 135 shots:





I didnt 'adjust levels' - straight out of the cam onto the post


PostPosted: Fri May 14, 2010 3:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have had really good experiences with the Jupiter 37a. Bought a well used one a couple of years ago and then picked up another spare, never touched, at a flea market ($20). Posting a sample picture taken with a Nikon D80, Jupiter 37A, M42 to Nikon adapter with lens (for infinity focus)...
(Vancouver's conference centre, before the Olympics, when it was being built)


PostPosted: Fri May 14, 2010 6:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
My copy of J37 MC is very sharp, fully comparable with my CZJ Sonnar 3.5/135 MC. Basic image character and OOF rendering is indistinguishable. But J37 lacks in contrast and overall crispness.

On the other side, Sonnar and Elmarit are both very different in overall image character, but both have the "punch". While Elmarit has still some edge in dull lighting.

My opinion is, that Sonnar and Elmarit are higher league than Jupiter, but definitely not as high, as you can judge from price difference.


PostPosted: Fri May 14, 2010 8:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The actual price level for a Leitz 135mm is approx. 150 to 200 €. For that price I would prefer the Leitz. Below a sample



Wink


PostPosted: Fri May 14, 2010 10:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
for what i saw, i like more J37A than CZJ Sonnar @3.5 but it has less contrast (i like very much the bokeh of J37A)
Elmarit-R (last version) is probably one of the best 135mm lens.
For me:
at small apertures: I like very much the Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 2.8/135mm (it is a blade Shocked) but at @FA I don't like so much the bokeh.
But I bought it for landscape (Dolomiti) and I use it stopped down!
So infact I am finding a J37A in order to use it @FA!
You can consider also a CZJ 4/135 single-coated


PostPosted: Fri May 14, 2010 1:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I found that the best - for me- 3,5/135 CZJ wasn't named here, the zebra no MC.

Very good lens, a first class. Cheapest with less CA than the MC, more resolution and a bit less contrast.

Rino


PostPosted: Sat May 15, 2010 2:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
May I ask how the Tair 11A compares to the 37A and Sonnar?


PostPosted: Sat May 15, 2010 3:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
woodrim wrote:
May I ask how the Tair 11A compares to the 37A and Sonnar?

The 11A has a reputation for a smooth bokeh and very pleasing skin tone rendering.
Though it's not as sharp or as well controlled(flaring, CA, washouts) in complex lighting. FWIW, the 37AM is a far better candidate than the 37A and Sonnar across the board.

* Sorry Sonnar fans(but as I own all of the lenses mentioned, results trump emotion in this case)


PostPosted: Sat May 15, 2010 9:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
What's the difference between 37A and 37AM? Smile


PostPosted: Sat May 15, 2010 12:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
no-X wrote:
What's the difference between 37A and 37AM? Smile


I have the 37A and the 37AM and I can't really tell any big difference

Then again, I haven't had the chance to test them AM thoroughly due to constantly shiit weather and overcast skies :/


PostPosted: Sat May 15, 2010 12:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
JohnBee wrote:
complex lighting. FWIW, the 37AM is a far better candidate than the 37A and Sonnar across the board.

* Sorry Sonnar fans(but as I own all of the lenses mentioned, results trump emotion in this case)


Your Sonnar is Jena 135/3.5? I must admit I don't have 37A, but maybe your Sonnar, if it is that 135/3.5, is for whatever reason seriously subpar copy? I ask this, because a proper CZJ 135/3.5 is an extremely solid performer, and even that is an understatement - it is impossible for me to imagine a lens that would outperform the Sonnar across the board. Or maybe I misunderstood...

Very few forman tests of the lens are available in the interwebs, though one is here and my experience with the lens agrees wiith this review: http://www.slrlensreview.com/web/carl-zeiss-slr-lenses-51/telephoto-slr-lenses-95/400-carl-zeiss-jena-mc-sonnar-135mm-m42-f35-lens-review.html


PostPosted: Sat May 15, 2010 1:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I agree, that Sonnars and Jupiters are both exceptional lenses. I think all the difference is caused by

- copy variation
- bad servicing (loosy/decentered elements)
- color of coating (if the color of rear element is very close to the coating color of camera sensor, low contrast or more significant glow can appear)
- condition of the coating (coating of jupiters is sometimes very soft, so some lenses have so many cleaning marks, that sharpness and contrast is affected)


PostPosted: Sat May 15, 2010 1:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Going back towards the Elmarit 135/2.8, here are some shots I took after I operated on the lens and fitted it with the Nikon mount

I hafta say it weighs a ton!! Probably the heaviest 135 ever Laughing and I have quite a few 135's in my collection now. Actually, in weight, its comparable to the Jupiter 21M for those who understand the comparison!

Now it's locked n loaded onto the D90:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dementedjesus/sets/72157624061303572/

(i'm too lazy to resize so many images at the moment) Embarassed


PostPosted: Sat May 15, 2010 2:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
no-X wrote:
What's the difference between 37A and 37AM? Smile


According to what I read somewhere, the "M" would stand for "modern", with reference to a supposed renovation of the design, not sure if optical or mechanical.

Not sure if to be believed or not. Surely the "M" should not stand for "multicoated", because in all soviet lenses that I know, "MC" is used for multicoated.

-


PostPosted: Sat May 15, 2010 9:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
no-X wrote:
What's the difference between 37A and 37AM? Smile

The AM has better coatings, resolution, flare resistance and contrast. I have both copies.


PostPosted: Sat May 15, 2010 9:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Anu wrote:
I must admit I don't have 37A, but maybe your Sonnar, if it is that 135/3.5, is for whatever reason seriously subpar copy? I ask this, because a proper CZJ 135/3.5 is an extremely solid performer, and even that is an understatement - it is impossible for me to imagine a lens that would outperform the Sonnar across the board. Or maybe I misunderstood...


I have owned a few copies of this fine lens over the years and they were always the tool of choice for portrait and medium tele work. However... when I got my first 37A(aprox. 1 year ago) I did some quick testing and found that the Jup consistently gave more contrast than the Sonnar. Not that I couldn't dial-in more contrast, but it was more convenient and since both lenses preformed on parr on every other aspect(resolution, bokeh, flair), I opted to use the 37A instead.

However, when I got my hands on a 37AM and did some testing, it proved to be sharper and better at CA than the former 37A. Which was very obvious when I coupled it with my 1.7x teleconverter(amplified).

Having said that... the 37AM is now the best 135mm I have owned to date.


PostPosted: Sat May 15, 2010 9:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
JohnBee wrote:
no-X wrote:
What's the difference between 37A and 37AM? Smile

The AM has better coatings, resolution, flare resistance and contrast. I have both copies.

There are at least 5 versions of 37A and at least 2 versions of 37AM. Each one has different coating and some of these models were available with differen coating (type of coating changed in time and not always was reflected in the name of the lens)

there are at least these J-37 models:

Jupiter-37A early (white lettering) - deep violet
Jupiter-37A later (colored lettering) - more reddish
Jupiter-37A MC-H-30 - quite rare
Jupiter-37A MC - blueish (early)
Jupiter-37A MC - greenish (later)
Jupiter-37AM - quite rare
Jupiter-37AM MC - green + additional colors

As for the different resolution, do you have any references? I'm interested, because I have never found other than 45/30 value.

I also remember, that the sharpest Jupiter I had in my hands was ther early 37A with deep violet coating. I sold it to a forum member. I think this early models were less copy-variable (it carried the CCCP quality star symbol)


PostPosted: Sun May 16, 2010 3:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
no-X wrote:


there are at least these J-37 models:

Jupiter-37A early (white lettering) - deep violet
Jupiter-37A later (colored lettering) - more reddish
Jupiter-37A MC-H-30 - quite rare
Jupiter-37A MC - blueish (early)
Jupiter-37A MC - greenish (later)
Jupiter-37AM - quite rare
Jupiter-37AM MC - green + additional colors


There is also a Gold(very prominent) coating on some the later 37A models.
My star Jupiter(37AM MC) has the greenish coatings(very subtle cast).

As for the resolution, I haven't seen anything comprehensive other than the usual lin/mm ratings. However in my own personal tests, I was able to substantiate the 37AM MC advantage between my two copies. The 37AM proved to have better contrast resolution, less CA and flare resistance than my 37A and CZJ.

Which is where I based my position from.
As to whether or not this is empirical, I can't say.
But in my kit, its the 37AM that rides in my bag whenever I go out.


PostPosted: Sun May 16, 2010 6:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
no-X wrote:
What's the difference between 37A and 37AM? Smile


According to what I read somewhere, the "M" would stand for "modern", with reference to a supposed renovation of the design, not sure if optical or mechanical.

Not sure if to be believed or not. Surely the "M" should not stand for "multicoated", because in all soviet lenses that I know, "MC" is used for multicoated.

-


The letter "M" is often associated with the KMZ designer N M Marenkov. So Marenkov is reported to have designed the Zorki 3M & Zenit 3M. Also the Zenit EM. AFAIK this is the first appearance of the automatic aperture on this line of cameras. It coincides with the appearance of the Helios 44M lens. So maybe the Jupiter 37AM was named in honour of Marenkov. Yes - I know the Jupiter was made in a different factory - so this is only a guess.

BTW - the Zenit E was named after the KMZ director Egorova, and the Zenit B after a later director Voronin.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2