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

MC Jupiter 37AM 135/3.5 and MC Sonnar 135/3.5
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 5:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Jupiter 37A vs CZJ Comparison

The setup - a few things on my mantlepiece - about 3-4 m from my desk where I rested my elbows for support...



Lens on D40x with mechanical (only) adapter, 1/200 s, mixed lighting daylight, tungsten, flash. RAW capture with camera defaults for contrast and saturation (both fairly high) but SHARPENING TURNED OFF. Exposure adjusted to just remove clipping.

100% crops

f/3.5 Jupiter left, CZJ right

f/5.6 Jupiter left, CZJ right

f/8 Jupiter left, CZJ right


Of course this is only ONE copy of one lens against ONE copy of another. And it's only one subject, and the crop is from the centre of the frame, and the shots were taken handheld....


PostPosted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 5:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
As my introduction to the wonderful world of manual lenses, a friend of mine gave me a mixed bunch for free.

Two of these were the CZJ Sonnar 3.5/135 and the Jupiter 37-A. (Also included in that batch of lenses was a SMC Tak 3.5/135)

From the get-go I have loved the Jupiter. In fact, I now have four of them - all different, yet all offering the same quirky qualities. So much so that I rarely take the Sonnar out of its box, and similarly with the Takumar.

The Jupiter is capable of going up against - and successfully competing with - the best of lenses, often with surprising results from the "little guy".

It's always interesting to read and learn about others experiences with similar kit - when I get time I'll do a more in-depth test of all the 135s I have (still missing the bokeh-monster Evil or Very Mad and several others, but have enough to work with), and post my findings here. Obviously all results will need to be taken in the spirit of which the tests were made!!!


PostPosted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 5:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
estudleon wrote:
sichko wrote:
no-X wrote:
....then I don't get why people are buying them.


Have you heard the story of the Emperor and his new clothes ?


Have heard the story of who do the things that he want to do?

Rino.


Same story I think.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm about to compare my 135mm f/3.5 Sonnar with the 135mm f/3.5 SMC Takumar. Should I post the results here, in this topic or in a new topic? I normally don't do this (for my photography it is pointless) but this would be interesting.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 5:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
re: hard to focus CZJ Sonnar

I did something truly evil. The Sonnar has a very wide base, so I drilled a shallow hole in the base of the lens so that it catches on the lens-locking pin on the Pentax body. Voila, it no longer screws off. But the lens base is slightly marred. I blackened it with a sharpie so it's not obvious.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 5:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
no-X wrote:
....then I don't get why people are buying them.


It's a question of reputation and trust. The Zeiss name still has magic from the era when Germany was the world leader in optics (and from its current line-up). The Sonnar 135 has followers willing to rave about it and the two reinforce each other. Soviet products had a poor reputation.
Most people who buy a Sonnar - even a bad copy - will be amazed by how sharp it is, because it exceeds their expectations (most people's expectations are really not very high) and they will be happy to admit owning a piece of German optical history.

A Jupiter will clearly also meet their expectations but they may not feel confident about engineering and build quality and will probably feel like cheapskates for buying cheap Soviet lenses and not want to advertise it.

Zeiss is launching new T* primes in Canon mount fit for between $600 and $2,000 each. Some people who can't see the difference between the output of a 50mm 1970s manual focus Tessar costing $50 and a $660, 2009. 50mm Zeiss T* Planar (or whatever they are) will still buy the new one, believing new is best and shows they have good taste. Some of the same people would turn their nose up at "old technology" manual lenses - even though the new line is also manual focus.

It's all about fashion - like clothes and cars. Some people want to save cash and know a good deal, some just want to show off, some what what their friends have, others think they are getting the best because it is the newest.

*** In Sichko's test, the Sonnar wins as soon as it gets above f3.5 but the Jupiter is close enough to make no difference for most purposes.

Last edited by PaulC on Mon Jan 19, 2009 5:38 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 5:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Spotmatic wrote:
I'm about to compare my 135mm f/3.5 Sonnar with the 135mm f/3.5 SMC Takumar. Should I post the results here, in this topic or in a new topic? I normally don't do this (for my photography it is pointless) but this would be interesting.


I suggest here ...


PostPosted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 7:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
sichko wrote:
Jupiter 37A vs CZJ Comparison

The setup - a few things on my mantlepiece - about 3-4 m from my desk where I rested my elbows for support...



Lens on D40x with mechanical (only) adapter, 1/200 s, mixed lighting daylight, tungsten, flash. RAW capture with camera defaults for contrast and saturation (both fairly high) but SHARPENING TURNED OFF. Exposure adjusted to just remove clipping.

100% crops

f/3.5 Jupiter left, CZJ right

f/5.6 Jupiter left, CZJ right

f/8 Jupiter left, CZJ right


Of course this is only ONE copy of one lens against ONE copy of another. And it's only one subject, and the crop is from the centre of the frame, and the shots were taken handheld....



I don't see the CA red. Why? Differents subjects?

I don't see it in http://www.lupomesky.cz/czj_vs_cz/comp135.html. Why? Differents copies?

I don't have the Jupiter. It's seems to be a super lens.

Rino.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 7:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
My sample images were taken under direct sunlight (winter day, blue sky, sun not too high above horizon).


PostPosted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
OK, I have conducted my tests - under the following conditions:

- 20 euro note
- Pentax K20D
- ISO 100 (the lowest ISO possible)
- 2s delay and SR off
- Artifical lighting but fixed WB
- Tripod
- Cable release
- Focusing done through live view
- Everything shot in RAW
- Manual mode

The tripod was not moved during lens change. Slight movements while changing lenses however may have caused a slight different framing. In each case I focused on the same part of the 20 euro note.

I tested the following lenses:

- Aus Jena S 135mm f/3.5 MC Electric
- Super-Takumar 135mm f/3.5
- S-M-C Takumar 135mm f/3.5
- S-M-C Takumar 135mm f/2.5
- SMC Pentax-F 70-210mm 4-5,6 @ 135mm.

I also wanted to test the 135mm f/3.5 Takumar Pre-set but I decided not to include it as its shortest focusing distance is 2m. The other lenses go much closer. I included the SMC Pentax-F zoom to see how a relatively modern zoom with ED element compares to the old 135mm's with regards to sharpness.

I took 3 photos with each lens at f/3.5, 5.6 and 8. The S-M-C Pentax was the exception here: I tested it at f/2.5, 4, 5.6 and 8. Also, the fastest diaphragm of the F 70-210 is 4 so I took the shots at 4, 5.6 and 8.

Now, I am not the best in this type of work so how can I provide crops the best way? I have Photoshop CS3.

I already have a strange conclusion: the S-M-C Takumar 135mm f/2.5 actually gets much softer after f/4. I guess this has a direct relation with it being a fast lens.

Last edited by Spotmatic on Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:38 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
My short and subjective view is that I owned both and sold the Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar, and still keep the Jupiter 37. I also own a Jupiter 11a, Tair 11a and a Pentacon electric 135 and think the Jupiter 37 is the best all round followed by the Jupiter 11. This is not to say that the others are not good or have good uses just to me the Jupiter 37 is the winner, particularly when price is considered.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I can confirm same I see no difference between jupiter 37 and sonnar 135 in practical usage.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Spotmatic wrote:
Now, I am not the best in this type of work so how can I provide crops the best way? I have Photoshop CS3.


View the images at "actual pixels" choose an area you want to compare an then use the selection box tool at the top right of the tools palette. You should be able to select style/fixed size from the top bar. You can then choose how many pixels wide and high you want the area you use to be. Move the tool over the bit you want to use and select copy. Go to "file" and select "new" then click "paste". Repeat for each photo.

There are probably more efficient ways than that, but it will work (you can use the text tool to type the lens and f-stop over the corner of each photo, if you like)


PostPosted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
PaulC wrote:
Spotmatic wrote:
Now, I am not the best in this type of work so how can I provide crops the best way? I have Photoshop CS3.


View the images at "actual pixels" choose an area you want to compare an then use the selection box tool at the top right of the tools palette. You should be able to select style/fixed size from the top bar. You can then choose how many pixels wide and high you want the area you use to be. Move the tool over the bit you want to use and select copy. Go to "file" and select "new" then click "paste". Repeat for each photo.

There are probably more efficient ways than that, but it will work (you can use the text tool to type the lens and f-stop over the corner of each photo, if you like)


OK, thank you very much for this little how-to! I'll be working with the pictures now, give it one hour or one hour and a half for me to finish them.

It was fun as I never have compared lenses before Smile


PostPosted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 10:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Unfortunately, I think my test is flawed... The tripod was not sturdy enough I think. Nevertheless, here are the results.

I think the Aus Jena is the best of the bunch. What do you think?

Funny: Photoshop CS3 was complaining that I was importing banknotes. Printing was then disabled Laughing


The test subject




Aus Jena MC S 135mm f/3.5








S-M-C Takumar 135mm f/2.5










S-M-C Takumar 135mm f/3.5








Super-Takumar 135mm f/3.5








SMC Pentax-F 70-210mm f/4-5.6







PostPosted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 10:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Great pics, Spotmatic.

Thank you, very much.

I note great differences between this close focus shots with the CZJ and the sichko's ones.

Can I to attribute it to differences between copies of each? It seems to me most reasonable, is not it?

Rino.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 10:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
estudleon wrote:
Great pics, Spotmatic.

Thank you, very much.

I note great differences between this close focus shots with the CZJ and the sichko's ones.

Can I to attribute it to differences between copies of each? It seems to me most reasonable, is not it?

Rino.


No thanks Rino. I think it would be indeed be a case of sample variation, unless Sichko's ones are not focused properly (I focused through live view to rule out focusing errors). Maybe he can try it again just to be sure?


PostPosted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 10:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Interesting stuff. I would say that the Sonnar wins again, just by a whisker over the Tak 3.5, and both of those are miles ahead of the other Takumar and the Pentax zoom.

So it looks to me as if the reputation of the Sonnar is justified after all, with two wins out of three on the tests.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 20, 2009 7:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
estudleon wrote:
Great pics, Spotmatic.

Thank you, very much.

I note great differences between this close focus shots with the CZJ and the sichko's ones.

Can I to attribute it to differences between copies of each? It seems to me most reasonable, is not it?

Rino.


Hi,
once upon a time I've tested 4 copies of Sonnar (not mine) vs 4 copies of Jupiter-37A.
I've tested one copy of Takumar 135/3.5, Chinon MTL 135/2.8 and 4 copies of Pentacon 135/2.8 as well but not in this way.

IMHO, such "tests", especially with flat targets and close focusing are virtually useless, especially with long focal length lenses.
Assuming, that we have 135/3.5 lens, target distance 1,5m: DOF is 1,4cm.
We have not enough precision in our hand, eyes and brain to set "perfect focus" using amateur dSLR "lifeview " or viewfinder.
Guys at optical factories uses flat targets, but they have something much more sophisticated than dSLR's with focus confirmation, lifeview and split screen prism on the matte to do it.
It is VERY easy to "judge" one lens as "perfect" and other lens as "lemon" this way, but it's virtually waste of shutter cycles - each time you set focus with the different lens You will have some shots with slightly better or worse focus, sometimes very good but virtually NEVER with "perfect" one.
The only way to judge quality of the lenses in home conditions is three dimensional scene, so You always have chance to catch perfect focus in 3D space of target.

Going back to the topic - IMHO, difference in "resolution" of all lenses I've tested is really cosmetic - all these lenses shares Sonnar design, and all are well made.
I've tested several copies of CZJ Sonnar, J-37A and Pentacon 135/2.8, so I can say something about them (i'll use abbreviations CZJ, J-37A, P135):

Overal IQ, contrast, sharpness - all lenses are very good. P135 seems to have slightly better centre resolution at f11-f16 than CZJ/J37A.
Chromatic aberration control: best are CZJ and J-37A, the worse is P135
"Bokeh" - at full opening all are similar, at f5.6 best one is P135, J-37A and CZJ are equal.
Flaring: CZJ and J-37A are prone to flaring when light is aside, are better in case in front lighting - P135 is worse with front lighting and better with aside one (135/2.8 Pentacon Auto/Electric is much better there than preset version or CZJ/J37A).
Ergonomy: preset P135 wins with it's aperture control which is pleasure to use with dSLR. It looses in case of focusing - in J37 and CZJ double helicoid makes focusing very fast which (surprise?) gives gives more precision than almost 365 degrees of turning in case of P135.
The both German lenses are prone to stiffing grease - I had to relube one preset Pentacon and one Auto version, and from 4 copies of CZJ two were almost unusable.
In this case Soviet grease is much better - my 4 copies of J37A works perfectly smooth, as all other I have touched (about 10 copies till now Smile

So, where these lenses stand out?
preset P135 - good with aside lighting. Goes down to f32. Compact (but heavy). From f5.6 it's real "bokeh monster".
J37A - Zeiss Sonnar clone, as good as CZJ, close focus 1,2m, round aperture, good grease, works at -20C Smile
CZJ - close focus 1m, it's original Sonnar sibling if You want.

I'm happy with my J-37A and my P135 - I've sold my Super Takumar 135/3.5 (I've two more 135's - Chinon MTL 135/2.8 which is comparable to Takumar and Sigma Pantel 135/2.8 which goes down to f64, but I do not use them much)

Cheers Smile

Last edited by wariag on Tue Jan 20, 2009 3:52 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for your response, Wariag! I said in advance that I'm not really a testing person, and that there's much more to a picture than sharpness alone. It was a fun exercise, though. Whether or not we like a certain lens is purely a matter of taste. To me, mechanics are very important and that's why I prefer Takumars above the East German lenses (Russian lenses are indeed much better than East German lenses mechanically).


PostPosted: Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Spotmatic wrote:
Thanks for your response, Wariag! I said in advance that I'm not really a testing person, and that there's much more to a picture than sharpness alone. It was a fun exercise, though. Whether or not we like a certain lens is purely a matter of taste. To me, mechanics are very important and that's why I prefer Takumars above the East German lenses (Russian lenses are indeed much better than East German lenses mechanically).


I agree, Takumars (and many old Japanese lenses build in "takumar" style) truly define what we shall call "quality". I had 135/3.5 and 200/4, both were working as brand new despite of years of use.
That's the choice for people who want to buy a lens and just use it without thoughts about stiff focus ring, oil on diaphragm etc.
From the other hand, I've sold them for good price, and bought a bunch of made in and DDR and some not-as-well-know Japanese lenses for this money.
After relubing and cleaning West German products they are fine tools now - the good side of DDR lenses are good quality screws, they are easy to service.
In the case of USSR products, the real lottery and Achilles' heel are in the screws quality - in some lenses they are really good quality (especially in these with USSR quality mark), in some lenses You will find some made of so soft metal, that Chinese screwdriver will rather chip off some material than turn a screw - that's very annoying, but hopefully that's the only serious drawback I've noticed in Soviet lenses mechanic department Smile.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2