Jupiter-3 5cm 1.5 RED P Leica screw mount

LucisPictor · Expire: 2013-12-03

Attila, congratulations!
This is a fascinating lens which is fun to shoot.
Of course, if you compare it to a modern Summilux or something, it will open its completely different "character" (=aberrations Wink

), but nevertheless it is one of the most amazing lenses for an RF or an NEX you can find - as Andy's amazing portrait shows!

I do have a nice set of 50mm RF lenses now:
- Jupiter-3 (the version you also have)
- Jupiter-8
- Leitz Summitar 2/5cm (coated)

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

All pictures are post processed
http://forum.mflenses.com/jupiter-3-5cm-1-5-red-p-screw-mount-panasonic-g1-t45535.html

NO PP on these pictures, click on each images to get higher resolution.

#5 is wide open

#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

M. Valdemar · Joined: 14 Nov 2008 Posts: 93

These are test photos. I took them on a Leica M9 with a 60 year old ZK Sonnar Russian lens which was correctly shimmed recently. This lens was made in the USSR around 1948 from captured German Schott glass and Zeiss parts. It was the precursor to the Jupiter-3 lens.

The glass was coated, which was a key German technology which the Russians took. The Zeiss coating was the best. The Leitz (Leica) coating was so-so. Eastman Kodak developed lens coating technology on a parallel path to the Germans before WWII, and successfully used it in military optics during WWII. It was a top secret. The Japanese basically copied the Kodak method, and Nikon and Canon made superb coatings in the early 1950's. (coating prevents most flare and produces higher optical clarity in a lens)

After WWII, the Russians put the entire Zeiss factory into box cars, and brought it to the USSR. They also brought the key German Zeiss employees, and made them reassemble the factory. They then produced cameras and lenses with German stock until about 1952, when Russian-made parts became available. Until around 1960, the quality was up to German standards or better, remarkable. By 1980, the quality had deteriorated to junk.

99% of the stuff they tell you about modern lenses (such as Canon "L" lenses are sharper and have better "IQ") is complete and utter nonsense for the gullible.

RTI · Joined: 15 Jul 2011 Posts: 282 Location: Moldova, Chisinau

uhoh7 · Joined: 24 Nov 2010 Posts: 1300 Location: Idaho, USA

granpa wnats to play....

full
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6043/6311099398_cb7e78edf7_o.jpg

1937 CZJ sonnar uncoated. All at f/1.5

frankly, on the nex, i think one is better off with an Amedeo contax/nikon internal/external to M adapter and a real zeiss or nikkor sonnar. The russian glass is OK but the bodies are....and J-3s are not that cheap anyway.

I have yet to see a J-3 equal a good zeiss wide open--though of course they should.

OK one more:

the nikkor 5cm f/1.4 is well sharper wide open and close (above is CZJ), but the CZJ kill the nikkor at long infinity.

this lens was never cleaned until recently, and has the famous "bloom" which inspired coatings.

also bubbles of course Smile

M. Valdemar · Joined: 14 Nov 2008 Posts: 93

The only reason you think you're seeing that the J-3's are not equal to the Sonnars is because they are not shimmed properly. If your lenses have substantial haze or decentering, that could also affect file quality.

On the Sony Nex, you focus with the LCD so shimming doesn't matter, you should get excellent results with a good example.

Also, your photos are all about a stop underexposed, so the apparent sharpness is less when you view them online with a browser.

(I did a little correction on one of your shots)

uhoh7 · Joined: 24 Nov 2010 Posts: 1300 Location: Idaho, USA

scsambrook · Expire: 2011-11-18

That's a great cat - ! I prefer the dim one (scene, not cat!!)

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

I'd say the images from that J-3 are nicer than from your Summicron 28.

I haven't had back luck with Russian glass, everyone I've got is a great copy, J-8, J11A, I-50, I-61, Helios-44 (lots of copies), Tair-3C.

Wide open performance isn't important to me as I very rarely shoot wide open, you get sufficiently shallow dof at one or two stops closed with most lenses. Hence the J-3 doesn't interest me, I have a great J-8 and really don't need the extra half a stop or so.

RTI · Joined: 15 Jul 2011 Posts: 282 Location: Moldova, Chisinau

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

They are both Sonnars and pretty similar designs so I doubt they are all that different.

RTI · Joined: 15 Jul 2011 Posts: 282 Location: Moldova, Chisinau

aspen · Expire: 2014-02-20

here is an informative test comparison with the following lenses;
Jupiter 3 1,5/50 de 1950 (verres Zeiss)
Jupiter 3 1,5/50 de 1952
Jupiter 3 1,5/50 de 1956
Jupiter 3 1,5/50 de 1985 (noir)
Leitz Summarit 1,5/50 de 1950
Jupiter 8 2/50 de 1959
Jupiter 8 2/50 de 1967
Jupiter 8 2/50 de 1977 (noir)
Leitz Summicron rentrant 2/50 de 1953
Industar 26M 2,8/53 de 1963
Industar 61 L/D 2,8/55 de 1993
Industar 22 3,5/50 de 1950
English language is on the right side of the page.
http://www.collection-appareils.fr/avoscrayons/html/50mm.php

aspen · Expire: 2014-02-20

Interesting that the Leica's fared so poorly. I thought Fluffpuppy would comment on this... Rolling Eyes

kryss · Expire: 2017-09-18

Any truth in the rumour he was being held by the lens police for making statements he couldn't substantiate.

sinner79 · Joined: 02 May 2011 Posts: 157

J-8 and J-3 can be well adapted on a Canon APS-C?
Thanks.

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

kds315* · Expire: 2021-03-09

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

Seems to me that test confirmed what I had already been told by Attila and others several times - Russian RF lenses are superb and the 1950s ones are the best.

I have I-61, I-50 collapsible, J-8 Red P and can confirm they are all superb optics, the J-8 being the best of the three, closely followed by the I-61, all three have different characters so I keep and use all three.

I suppose the moral of the tale is - if you want an M39 50mm lens, better to get a cheap Russian than an expensive Leitz.

ForenSeil · Joined: 15 Apr 2011 Posts: 2726 Location: Kiel, Germany.

I had several Industars (26m and 61 in mint condition) and i was always very disappointed about sharpness.
OK for film with "low" resolution (APX100) but on NEX much worse than most of my other ~50mm lenses.
I you want I can post a comparision.

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

You must have had bad copies as I find my copies of the J-8, I-61 and I-50 to be very sharp on NEX.

J-8:

I-50:

I-61:

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18