Uncommon primes roundup (2xFujinon, Tamron 28, Jupiter-3)

mutabot · Joined: 18 May 2010 Posts: 33

Hi All,

EDIT: Updated with images from Voigtlander 40/1.4 "Nokton Classic" http://forum.mflenses.com/uncommon-primes-roundup-2xfujinon-tamron-28-jupiter-3-t29379.html#1046564

Though I'm not a very active MF-lenses collector, I have recently acquired a few. Some, like 28mm Tamron, to shoot remaining film leftovers that I still keep in the fridge. Others, like Jupiter-3, for uniqueness and as a challenge to adapt.
Been using these for a few month now, and have finally decided to do a formal test, that can be presented for a public's judgment.

Please post your thoughts on these lenses, I'm especially interested in what you think about Jupiter-3 as a portrait lens on 4/3 digital.

All test shots are done on Panasonic GH1 digital camera. Panasonic 20mm/1.7 lens is used as a benchmark.

EDIT: Panasonic 20mm samples in this post are automatically software corrected in raw conversion utility.
EDIT2: See my other post http://forum.mflenses.com/uncommon-primes-roundup-2xfujinon-tamron-28-jupiter-3-t29379.html#1041239 for uncorrected samples of this lens

It is not a scientifically accurate test -- light conditions did change during the test, camera position was moved, and exposure was set to auto.
Each lens starts from full image and a 100% crop @ 8 that is followed by crops to the widest aperture for the lens.

Participants : X-Fujinar T 135/2.8, Tamron 28/2.5, Jupiter-3 50/1.5, X-Fujinon 50/1.9, Panasonic 20/1.7

First Panasonic 20/1.7 @ 2.8 to establish a baseline:

Tamron 28/2.5 @ 8

Tamron 28/2.5 @ 5.6

Tamron 28/2.5 @ 4

Tamron 28/2.5 @ 2.5

X-Fujinon 50/1.9 @ 8

X-Fujinon 50/1.9 @ 5.6

X-Fujinon 50/1.9 @ 4

X-Fujinon 50/1.9 @ 2.8

X-Fujinon 50/1.9 @ 1.9

Jupiter-3 50/1.5 @ 8

Jupiter-3 50/1.5 @ 5.6

Jupiter-3 50/1.5 @ 4

Jupiter-3 50/1.5 @ 2.8

Jupiter-3 50/1.5 @ 2.0

Jupiter-3 50/1.5 @ 1.5

X-Fujinar T 135/2.8 @ 8

X-Fujinar T 135/2.8 @ 5.6

X-Fujinar T 135/2.8 @ 4

X-Fujinar T 135/2.8 @ 2.8

Excalibur · Expire: 2014-04-21

Interesting...on my monitor the Fuji lenses are not very good but maybe the small beam of sunlight into the lens doesn't help.

pat donnelly · Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:41 am Post subject: Tests

Very useful! Thanks.

I particularly like the very contrasty light, as it demonstrates the flare at wide open of the older lenses which is an important asset, particularly on a 4/3 sensor.

It is inevitable that some image degradation occurs in such circumstances, but the other forms of test neglect the real use of these lenses and may be suspect from that point of view.

Please feel encouraged to continue!

DigiChromeEd · Joined: 29 Dec 2009 Posts: 3460 Location: Northern Ireland

Aaaagh!! I hate to see lenses resting on their rear elements unprotected! Surprised

Scheimpflug · Expire: 2011-11-18

mutabot · Joined: 18 May 2010 Posts: 33

mutabot · Joined: 18 May 2010 Posts: 33

DigiChromeEd · Joined: 29 Dec 2009 Posts: 3460 Location: Northern Ireland

martinsmith99 · Expire: 2013-11-18

I had high hopes for a few of those lenses but they all seem rather poor and the winner for me is the Panasonic.

calvin83 · Joined: 12 Apr 2009 Posts: 7553 Location: Hong Kong

poilu · Expire: 2019-08-29

mutabot · Joined: 18 May 2010 Posts: 33

To be a bit more fair to Panasonic Lumix 20mm lens, I'm posting uncorrected samples @ 2.8 and 1.7 apertures below:

Panasonic Lumix 20mm @ 2.8 full shot and crop

Panasonic Lumix 20mm @ 1.7 crop

mutabot · Joined: 18 May 2010 Posts: 33

Now let's add Voigtlander 40/1.4 "Nokton Classic" to this test.
Focused at "U" on the lens cap.

Full image @ 8

Crop @8

@5.6

@4

@2.8

@2

@1.4