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

Jupiter 8 50/2 vs pancolar/planar
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 10:39 am    Post subject: Jupiter 8 50/2 vs pancolar/planar Reply with quote
How would you rate the m39 jupiter 8 against zeiss pancolar 50/1.8 or zeiss planar 50/1.7?
Does it play in the same,league?


PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 11:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
No, in my experience it's inferior in all aspects except bokeh smoothness and compactness.

Last edited by ForenSeil on Tue Mar 18, 2014 11:18 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 11:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't think you can compare a Sonnar to a Planar; they have different characteristics. However, the design aside, all my Jupiters are quite good. Hoods are necessary though.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 11:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yep, they are not exactly directly comparable for many reasons (optical formula, era, price, rangefinder vs slr), and if you did, the planar and the pancolar would be better under all standard parameters.
But the jupiter has a nice character, wonderful sonnar bokeh, it's extremely small, and cheap. So it could make sense to have it together with one of the other two.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 11:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Aanything wrote:
Yep, they are not exactly directly comparable for many reasons (optical formula, era, price, rangefinder vs slr), and if you did, the planar and the pancolar would be better under all standard parameters.
But the jupiter has a nice character, wonderful sonnar bokeh, it's extremely small, and cheap. So it could make sense to have it together with one of the other two.


Precisely.

Furthermore, the Sonnar/Jupiter-8 is more than sharp enough to produce excellent results on a dense digital sensor, so while the specs say it is only capable of40lp/mm centrally, and the Pancolar/Planar can achieve over 50lp/mm, this is meaningless in the real world.

The Sonnar has a totally different character and for me, I very much prefer it to the Pancolar/Planar.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 11:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
My Jupiter 8 gives stunning contrasts and nice colours. I read somewhere that this typical from Sonnar (6 elements) designs.
It works well with my A7 from f2.8. It is a lens with caracter not as "universal" as a good double Gauss SLR lenses like my SMC 55mm.
Subject to flare and therefore to loss of contrast.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 3:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Very interesting. I think I will give the Jupiter a try. Love sonnar output and de adapter is very small Smile


PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 6:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
These are my first two pictures with the A7 and the J8. Straight from the camera.
They are not special but I think you can see that the colours ans contrast are nice. The out of focus is also is smooth.





PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 9:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lovely rendering. Are these shot wide open?


PostPosted: Wed Mar 19, 2014 4:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
No they are not.
I don't remember precisely . I think 2.8 and 4 . F2 is really softer on my sample. Some people like it , softness and bokeh for portraits. The lens is good from f2.8 .
I was testing focus peaking + tilted screen which work nice together and allow such perspectives with sharp focus.
This is a 1959 version. which I bought 15 euros with a Zorki. I had to slightly modify and relub it but this is not difficult.

From all my standard lenses and after testing them with my A7, I use the SMC 55/2 , the Yashinon DX 50/1.7 and this J8. I like this J8.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 19, 2014 6:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Did you focus on the dogs eyes ?Looks really soft for f2.8.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 19, 2014 8:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
These shots are slightly blurred because of slow shutter speed and don't forget the hudge compression for the forum.
I showed them for contrast and coulours which are the main qualities of these lens with the smoothness of the out of focus.
Sharpness is sufficient in most cases if you camera has a good sensor. For close subjects, it has "something special".

About focusing , you can't really focus on a spot with peaking.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
not at all. Better camera helps to lack lens weakness, older shows more how Pancolar, Planar are better especially at near wide open or wide open, crap light also makes huge difference.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I like Sonnar rendering so much I went to the trouble of converting a Jupiter-11 for use on my Century Graphic 6x9 camera.



I think this is a good example of the smooth and attractive rendering of the Sonnar at large apertures, J11 on 6x9:



PostPosted: Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Jupiter 50/2 has a nasty mfd of 1 metre Sad Good lens though (particularly in b+w) and tiny. Much prefer the Planar 50/1.4 though.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 19, 2014 2:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ManualFocus-G wrote:
The Jupiter 50/2 has a nasty mfd of 1 metre Sad Good lens though (particularly in b+w) and tiny. Much prefer the Planar 50/1.4 though.


It has a 1m mfd because it's a rangefinder lens, to focus closer than 1m with an rf camera requires add-ons.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 19, 2014 5:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
not at all. Better camera helps to lack lens weakness, older shows more how Pancolar, Planar are better especially at near wide open or wide open, crap light also makes huge difference.


Why not at all, Attila?
I don't see any contradiction if you read what I wrote with attention.

By the way, those pictures are blurred and the J8 is a good and sharp lens. Nobody said that it is the sharpest. There are many lenses which are sharper.
From my list of standard lenses , many did not survive the test of the A7 . And the J8 stays in the short list .


PostPosted: Wed Mar 19, 2014 7:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
ManualFocus-G wrote:
The Jupiter 50/2 has a nasty mfd of 1 metre Sad Good lens though (particularly in b+w) and tiny. Much prefer the Planar 50/1.4 though.


It has a 1m mfd because it's a rangefinder lens, to focus closer than 1m with an rf camera requires add-ons.


Clearly, but it doesn't change the fact that it has a naff mfd compared with a Pancolar or Planar.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 1:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ManualFocus-G wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
ManualFocus-G wrote:
The Jupiter 50/2 has a nasty mfd of 1 metre Sad Good lens though (particularly in b+w) and tiny. Much prefer the Planar 50/1.4 though.


It has a 1m mfd because it's a rangefinder lens, to focus closer than 1m with an rf camera requires add-ons.


Clearly, but it doesn't change the fact that it has a naff mfd compared with a Pancolar or Planar.


But an helicoid macro focusing adapter does Wink

Anyway, at wide apertures it's softer, it has less contrast, more distortion etc.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1