| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
no-X
Joined: 19 Jul 2008
Posts: 2495
Location: Budejky, Czech Republic
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 10:23 am Post subject: MC Jupiter 37AM 135/3.5 and MC Sonnar 135/3.5 |
 |
|
no-X wrote:
I think Jupiter 37 is one of the most underrated lenses. MC version goes 3-4 times cheaper on local market, than MC version of Sonnar, but it's the same optical design, iris is better (rounded, 12-blades) and optical performance is very similar.
I prepared a quick comparision:
My Sonnar is slightly sharper wide opened, but stopped down, there's no difference. But look at the chimney - there some kind of red CA with the Sonnar at all apertures, but nothing similar with the Jupiter 
_________________
(almost) complete list of Helios lenses |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Spotmatic
Joined: 18 Aug 2008
Posts: 4045
Location: Netherlands
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Spotmatic wrote:
Nice comparison, thanks! I haven't noticed any red fringing in my copy of the Sonnar but then I've not used it too much in the last months.
Are those 100% crops? If so then the "problem" is pretty much irrelevant?
_________________
Peter - Moderator
Pentax K-5 + Pentax 645 + Canon 5D + Bessa RF 10,5cm Heliar, and a 'little' bag full of MF lenses. The lens list is * here *.
My fast 80s: Asahi-Kogaku Takumar 83mm f/1.9 - Super-Takumar 85mm f/1.9 - FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited - Cyclop 85/1.5 (Helios-40 innards) - Komura 80mm f/1.8 - Meyer Görlitz Primoplan 7,5cm 1:1.9 - Carl Zeiss Jena 80mm f/1.8 Pancolar - Canon 85mm f/1.8 S.S.C. - Canon 85mm f/1.2 S.S.C. Aspherical |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GrahamNR17
Joined: 17 Jan 2009
Posts: 1855
Location: Norfolk, UK
Expire: 2012-09-06
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 10:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
GrahamNR17 wrote:
That's useful information, thanks  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
martinsmith99
Joined: 31 Aug 2008
Posts: 6943
Location: S Glos, UK
Expire: 2013-11-18
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
martinsmith99 wrote:
You may have an iffy copy.
My Sonnar hasn't displayed this problem. It is as sharp as my Canon L lens. The focus ring is not the easiest to turn. I occasionally unscrew the lens when trying to focus.
_________________
Casual attendance these days |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
no-X
Joined: 19 Jul 2008
Posts: 2495
Location: Budejky, Czech Republic
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
no-X wrote:
100% crops.
I noticed the same thing previously on S-M-C Takumar 135/3.5 and Sonnar 180/2.8.
Anyway, at f/3.5 Jupiter is sharper than Pentacon 135/2.8 and TAIR 11A 135/2.8. At higher aperture values, TAIR seems to be at least sharp as Jupiter or Sonnar, or maybe even sharper. But I didn't prepare direct comparision. Two TAIR shots at f/8, focused on centre:
 
_________________
(almost) complete list of Helios lenses |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
martinsmith99
Joined: 31 Aug 2008
Posts: 6943
Location: S Glos, UK
Expire: 2013-11-18
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
martinsmith99 wrote:
LOL, how many 135s have you got?
_________________
Casual attendance these days |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GrahamNR17
Joined: 17 Jan 2009
Posts: 1855
Location: Norfolk, UK
Expire: 2012-09-06
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
GrahamNR17 wrote:
There is nothing wrong with the performance of that lens... I should add it to my shopping list  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PaulC
Joined: 23 Dec 2008
Posts: 2318
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
PaulC wrote:
The Sonnar clearly loses in that comparison (look at the f8 sharpness) - but I suspect you have a bad copy. You may also have a particularly good copy of the Jupiter, I've no idea if its performance is normal for the kind.
Although the Sonnar is usually extremely good, the "mother of lens tests" http://www.rickdenney.com/mother_lens_test.htm showed that there was considerable variation in the image quality of the famous 180/2.8 Sonnar, so the 135 probably also has variability.
_________________
View or buy my photos at:
http://shutterstock.com/g/paulcowan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 3754
Location: Argentina
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
In your pics with the sonnar, I advertise a dominant greenish tonality that cause dirty colors . I don't see this in my copy.
The red CA don't appear in my pics.
Did you use a zebra or a MC sonnar?
Rino.
_________________
Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
no-X
Joined: 19 Jul 2008
Posts: 2495
Location: Budejky, Czech Republic
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 2:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
no-X wrote:
I have no idea... I had Jupiter 37A MC (sold on this forum), which was very good, too. I had 3 TAIR 11 lenses, all of them good. But anytime I prepare a comparision of CZJ lens to Takumars or russian lenses, most people say, that I have a bad copy of the CZJ lens. The question is: are really 50% of CZJ lenses deffective? For me it's easier to believe, that there are some lenses, which can be simply a bit better.
_________________
(almost) complete list of Helios lenses |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 3754
Location: Argentina
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 3:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
| no-X wrote: |
| I have no idea... I had Jupiter 37A MC (sold on this forum), which was very good, too. I had 3 TAIR 11 lenses, all of them good. But anytime I prepare a comparision of CZJ lens to Takumars or russian lenses, most people say, that I have a bad copy of the CZJ lens. The question is: are really 50% of CZJ lenses deffective? For me it's easier to believe, that there are some lenses, which can be simply a bit better. |
I didn't say that the Tair 11 or the 37 A aren't a bit or a lot better than the Sonnar, I only said that the greenish dominat that I saw in your picxs with the sonnar, don't appear in mines and that I didn't see a CA red, no more.
As your job is a contribution very interesant, my humble intention was only to extend it with my experience on the fact in analysis.
Differents copies differents experiences, seems to be the question
Rino.
_________________
Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
no-X
Joined: 19 Jul 2008
Posts: 2495
Location: Budejky, Czech Republic
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 3:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
no-X wrote:
I wasn't implying, that Jupiter and TAIR are better or worse. Just that their quality was consistent. If the quality of Sonnars is less consistent than quality of 3-times cheaper russian lens, then I don't get why people are buying them.
I was going to buy 2 more Sonnars and compare them mutually, but I missed the chance. But anyway, if many people says, that my copy is bad, I'll try to get another to verify that.
_________________
(almost) complete list of Helios lenses |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sichko
Joined: 20 Jun 2008
Posts: 2475
Location: South West UK
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 ?
_________________
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spotmatic
Joined: 18 Aug 2008
Posts: 4045
Location: Netherlands
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Spotmatic wrote:
But what's considered bad? I almost never look at my pics at 1:1. Moreover I also almost never take pictures at infinity or pictures of flat subjects, so border defects will never show up. That's why I don't mind small variations provided that the center should be fairly sharp.
I usually try to avoid minty lenses. Mint probably means "never used". If a lens is never used, things can get stuck or attract mold or dust, or it is bad optically. I think that lenses that show 'battle scars' are lenses that were loved by their owners (so presumably did not have mechanical or optical defects), so were used a lot.
_________________
Peter - Moderator
Pentax K-5 + Pentax 645 + Canon 5D + Bessa RF 10,5cm Heliar, and a 'little' bag full of MF lenses. The lens list is * here *.
My fast 80s: Asahi-Kogaku Takumar 83mm f/1.9 - Super-Takumar 85mm f/1.9 - FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited - Cyclop 85/1.5 (Helios-40 innards) - Komura 80mm f/1.8 - Meyer Görlitz Primoplan 7,5cm 1:1.9 - Carl Zeiss Jena 80mm f/1.8 Pancolar - Canon 85mm f/1.8 S.S.C. - Canon 85mm f/1.2 S.S.C. Aspherical |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 3754
Location: Argentina
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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.
_________________
Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sichko
Joined: 20 Jun 2008
Posts: 2475
Location: South West UK
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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....
_________________
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mal1905
Joined: 30 Oct 2008
Posts: 1705
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mal1905 wrote:
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  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!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sichko
Joined: 20 Jun 2008
Posts: 2475
Location: South West UK
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 5:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
sichko wrote:
| 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.
_________________
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spotmatic
Joined: 18 Aug 2008
Posts: 4045
Location: Netherlands
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 5:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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.
_________________
Peter - Moderator
Pentax K-5 + Pentax 645 + Canon 5D + Bessa RF 10,5cm Heliar, and a 'little' bag full of MF lenses. The lens list is * here *.
My fast 80s: Asahi-Kogaku Takumar 83mm f/1.9 - Super-Takumar 85mm f/1.9 - FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited - Cyclop 85/1.5 (Helios-40 innards) - Komura 80mm f/1.8 - Meyer Görlitz Primoplan 7,5cm 1:1.9 - Carl Zeiss Jena 80mm f/1.8 Pancolar - Canon 85mm f/1.8 S.S.C. - Canon 85mm f/1.2 S.S.C. Aspherical |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
orly_andico
Joined: 02 Jul 2008
Posts: 253
Location: Philippines
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
orly_andico wrote:
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PaulC
Joined: 23 Dec 2008
Posts: 2318
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
PaulC wrote:
| 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.
_________________
View or buy my photos at:
http://shutterstock.com/g/paulcowan
Last edited by PaulC on Mon Jan 19, 2009 5:38 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PaulC
Joined: 23 Dec 2008
Posts: 2318
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
PaulC wrote:
| 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 ...
_________________
View or buy my photos at:
http://shutterstock.com/g/paulcowan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 3754
Location: Argentina
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
| 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.
_________________
Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
no-X
Joined: 19 Jul 2008
Posts: 2495
Location: Budejky, Czech Republic
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
no-X wrote:
My sample images were taken under direct sunlight (winter day, blue sky, sun not too high above horizon).
_________________
(almost) complete list of Helios lenses |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spotmatic
Joined: 18 Aug 2008
Posts: 4045
Location: Netherlands
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Spotmatic wrote:
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.
_________________
Peter - Moderator
Pentax K-5 + Pentax 645 + Canon 5D + Bessa RF 10,5cm Heliar, and a 'little' bag full of MF lenses. The lens list is * here *.
My fast 80s: Asahi-Kogaku Takumar 83mm f/1.9 - Super-Takumar 85mm f/1.9 - FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited - Cyclop 85/1.5 (Helios-40 innards) - Komura 80mm f/1.8 - Meyer Görlitz Primoplan 7,5cm 1:1.9 - Carl Zeiss Jena 80mm f/1.8 Pancolar - Canon 85mm f/1.8 S.S.C. - Canon 85mm f/1.2 S.S.C. Aspherical
Last edited by Spotmatic on Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:38 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
