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

Jupiter3 50mm f/1.5 VS. Helios 44-2 on MFT-which is best?
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2016 8:23 pm    Post subject: Jupiter3 50mm f/1.5 VS. Helios 44-2 on MFT-which is best? Reply with quote

Forget about the "new" Jupiter 3+ ......
I have an Helios 44-2 incoming any day now - And
then i read about the "new" Jupiter 3+ ..... googling the original
Jupiter3 50mm f/1.5 all evening,getting filled with confusion/G.A.S/
and so on - the usual symptoms,haha!

Jupiter3 50mm f/1.5 VS. Helios 44-2 on MFT-which is best?
On the Micro 4/3 system?

( i guess i should clarify what is “best” for me;
I like sharpest possible center, swirly bokeh, vignetting is no prob.,i think!
I will use it on full frame also… )

Thank you!


PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2016 9:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Comparing ratio quality/price, Helios 44 is the winner.
44 swirl a lot at f2. The Jupiter -3 not really even at 1.5.
Honestly, that very hard to compare them.
If you want swirl, sharpness, go for H44.
Jupiter is sharp when closed, but cost 8x more.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2016 10:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Impossible question, these two lenses are so very different. Jupiter has no swirl to the bokeh but has much smoother bokeh.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2016 10:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Impossible question, these two lenses are so very different. Jupiter has no swirl to the bokeh but has much smoother bokeh.


Interesting! Thanks.
Do you know a site where one can compare these two Russians?
I have searched - no luck so far.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2016 11:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This site has lots of examples of both lenses.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2016 11:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would rather have looked at Jupiter-8. Very similar to Jupiter-3, a little slower but much cheaper Wink


PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2016 12:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have both and use J-3 99% of the time because of the size difference.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2016 1:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Trully no matter Laugh 1 buy both if you can, if not, take Helios deadly simple.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2016 4:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Some complain about the 650USD price tag of the new J3+

Of course it would be nicer if it was cheaper, but having spent considerable time fiddling with various Russian lenses, seldom to good end, I think it's very nice to have the option to buy a brand new, 50/1.5, with modern coatings, mounted in brass, able to close focus to .7 and perfectly calibrated for the Leica M9 Smile

The J3 is an iconic lens and the closest brother to the best lens in 35mm photography for nearly 20 years, the CZJ 50/1.5. Most here know that's a direct descendent of the first practical candid reportage lens ever, the Ernostar.

The 44-2 I have not yet owned or it's inspiration the 58/2 Biotar. Another giant. I think what really stands out is the swirly bokeh, which I do like very much myself, though it's a bit edgy in many of the samples I see.

I think you should shoot the heck out of the helios and then consider the direction you want to go Smile


PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2016 4:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jupiter-8 if you use on M4/3 or APS-C camera. Jupiter-3 or Zeiss Sonnar if you use APS-C or FF camera.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2016 8:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I own both. Completely different lenses.

But Helios is useless on a MFT camera as the swirl effect will be completely gone. So my choice would be J-3 or J-8.

On a Full Frame, both are equally valid...but my choice would still be J-3 as it can be two completely different lenses (dreamy wide open, sharp as razor when stopped to 4-5.6), while the Helios doesn't offer that much apart the swirly bokeh.

But then, the Helios goes for 30€, so why not getting both Wink ?


PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2016 9:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

StyxD wrote:
I own both. Completely different lenses.

But Helios is useless on a MFT camera as the swirl effect will be completely gone. So my choice would be J-3 or J-8.

On a Full Frame, both are equally valid...but my choice would still be J-3 as it can be two completely different lenses (dreamy wide open, sharp as razor when stopped to 4-5.6), while the Helios doesn't offer that much apart the swirly bokeh.

But then, the Helios goes for 30€, so why not getting both Wink ?


+1


PostPosted: Thu Feb 25, 2016 2:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you intent to use it on m43 I would rather have something that is sharper wide open, like a Konica AR 50/1.4 or Canon FDn 50/1.4 (and so on)

However, on FF the J-3 is quite nice (I would still step it down to f/2 it looks to be the best 'balance' between sharpness and character).


PostPosted: Thu Feb 25, 2016 5:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Agreed the Helios will not produce swirls on the mft format, the best bet for that would be a C mount lens like a Cooke kinic, the prices of C mount lenses seem to be dropping so you might get one at a good price.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 25, 2016 11:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Considering the price difference, $650 to $20/$30(?) I believe the decision is too simple really, and I am not even thinking about the swirl and all of that, the price difference is not matched by the quality level. Period.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2016 4:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ChromaticAberration wrote:
Considering the price difference, $650 to $20/$30(?) I believe the decision is too simple really, and I am not even thinking about the swirl and all of that, the price difference is not matched by the quality level. Period.

A totally valid view if you prefer money to optical performance. Smile

That CERN camera cost 9 Billion. That's a lot of rubles. But's the only one on earth that could find reliable evidence of the Higgs.

Just about every physicist on earth will tell you it was worth every penny.

I'm too cheap at the moment to shell out the 650 for a J3+, but still....I would love to have one Smile

What I really want is a Leica 35 FLE, and they are running around 3200.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2016 9:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I did meant it that way, otherwise people wouldn't sheel out thousands of dollars for certain purpose lenses, I am not even saying the J3 is uber expensive, what I do believe (judging by the comments of the people who have tried it) is that when comparing it with the H44 you are deep into the little-gain-lots-more-money territory and it only makes sense if money is no objection other than that the H44 is a no-brainer.

As a side note, as I've seen the J3+ is marketed as somekind of "lomography" device... well that makes sense, judging by the softness of some photos (I dont think even the in-focus areas like the chin look better than a $110 collector-condition Takumar...):



And the distractive bokeh... which, then again, the H44 also has, ALOT(!), and that why people love it, but hell it doesn't cost nowhere near:



I DEFINETLY can't justify those $650 and I suspect they are merely taking advantage of people's nostalgia on vintage lenses and the fact anything that is release with a Leica compatible mount is probably going to be expensive.

As another side note, please don't take this as a rant or as me dissing anyone who bought a J3, I can see the motivations behind such purchase and besides that, each one invests as they think it is the suitable way. Anyways, the older original editions can still be had for a fair lower amount of money Wink


PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2016 10:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jupiter 3 (made 1964) fully open at F1.5 (ISO 1600 converted to B/W) shot with Ricoh GXR-M (APS-C):



I definitely prefer this lens over the 44-2. However, it's mainly a matter of taste.
BTW, I've bought this lens directly from Russia and paid only apprx. 70 Euro (including shipping). Wink
IMHO it's worth every penny.