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

Leitz 135 vs. Jupiter 37A
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun May 16, 2010 12:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
JohnBee wrote:
The 37AM proved to have better contrast resolution, less CA and flare resistance than my 37A and CZJ.


Get a new CZJ - a good one does not flare no matter what you do with it Smile

I need to get one of those 37s myself too, even though being poor I try to avoid filling my collection with similar or same focal lengths.


PostPosted: Sun May 16, 2010 3:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
JohnBee wrote:
no-X wrote:


there are at least these J-37 models:

Jupiter-37A early (white lettering) - deep violet
Jupiter-37A later (colored lettering) - more reddish
Jupiter-37A MC-H-30 - quite rare
Jupiter-37A MC - blueish (early)
Jupiter-37A MC - greenish (later)
Jupiter-37AM - quite rare
Jupiter-37AM MC - green + additional colors


There is also a Gold(very prominent) coating on some the later 37A models.
My star Jupiter(37AM MC) has the greenish coatings(very subtle cast).

As for the resolution, I haven't seen anything comprehensive other than the usual lin/mm ratings. However in my own personal tests, I was able to substantiate the 37AM MC advantage between my two copies. The 37AM proved to have better contrast resolution, less CA and flare resistance than my 37A and CZJ.

Which is where I based my position from.
As to whether or not this is empirical, I can't say.
But in my kit, its the 37AM that rides in my bag whenever I go out.


I'm looking at buying a 37AM with white lettering except for red MC and yellow/orange serial number, if any of that means something.

Can it be assumed that there is no downside to the 37AM?


PostPosted: Sun May 16, 2010 5:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
JohnBee wrote:

Though it's not as sharp


It depend upon your luck. Generally I had a lot of U11 in my past, and had been certain that it is completely very mediocre lens. However, several years ago I obtained the one of exceptional quality. In relation to sharpness it compares favorably even to the Takumar 135/3.5

There is an example:






There also is U11 for Kiev 4. However the picture had been taken through the windows glass:




PostPosted: Sun May 16, 2010 5:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Anu wrote:
JohnBee wrote:
The 37AM proved to have better contrast resolution, less CA and flare resistance than my 37A and CZJ.


Get a new CZJ - a good one does not flare no matter what you do with it Smile

I need to get one of those 37s myself too, even though being poor I try to avoid filling my collection with similar or same focal lengths.


I've owned 5 CZJ 135/3.5...all superb lenses with at least 2 professionally CLA'd. But point any of them at the sun and you're in for some trouble. I'm not sure how the Jupiter 37A fares...I have one in a box so must test soon Smile


PostPosted: Sun May 16, 2010 11:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ManualFocus-G wrote:
I've owned 5 CZJ 135/3.5...all superb lenses with at least 2 professionally CLA'd. But point any of them at the sun and you're in for some trouble. I'm not sure how the Jupiter 37A fares...I have one in a box so must test soon Smile


J73 flares quite badly when pointed into the sun. At least two my copies do. In this respect, another clone of the Sonnar 135/3.5 is better: the Nikkor 135/3.5 (Q.C. and K models). Of all lenses based on the Sonnar optical scheme, I found the Nikkor to be the best performer. (By the way, later Ai and AIS versions of Nikkor 135/3.5 based on the Ernostar design are sharper and more contrasty still, but their bokeh becomes harsher).


PostPosted: Sun May 16, 2010 11:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
aoleg wrote:
I found the Nikkor to be the best performer. (By the way, later Ai and AIS versions of Nikkor 135/3.5 based on the Ernostar design are sharper and more contrasty still, but their bokeh becomes harsher).


Would you happen to have an opinion(experience) with the Nikkor 135mm 2.8 AIs lens?

ie. how would it stack-up against Jupiter/CZJ candidates?


PostPosted: Mon May 17, 2010 12:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
JohnBee wrote:
aoleg wrote:
I found the Nikkor to be the best performer. (By the way, later Ai and AIS versions of Nikkor 135/3.5 based on the Ernostar design are sharper and more contrasty still, but their bokeh becomes harsher).


Would you happen to have an opinion(experience) with the Nikkor 135mm 2.8 AIs lens?

ie. how would it stack-up against Jupiter/CZJ candidates?


In fact, I do. This lens is a sleeper; it's a great one, right next to Contax Sonnar 135/2.8, which is better yet. The Nikkor is sharp wide open and produces beautiful rendering, again comparable to Contax Sonnar. However, I like the Sonnar is slightly better, and non-Nikon users will probably choose it against the Nikkor. For Nikon users, Nikkor 135/2.8 is a great option.


PostPosted: Mon May 17, 2010 2:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
aoleg wrote:
it's a great one, right next to Contax Sonnar 135/2.8, which is better yet.


BEHIND ME SATAN!
lol


PostPosted: Mon May 17, 2010 4:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I needed to take a mental health break today, so grabbed my camera and one of my five 135mm lenses and went outside to shoot anything that moved or didn't move. Not picky. Just for kicks, rate this lens either by itself or compared to the lenses discussed in this thread. Exif is incorrect and my memory stinks, so all I can say is most were at f/4 or fully open. Some were cropped a little, levels adjusted, and mild sharpening. No correction for CA or any other kind of fringing.









PostPosted: Mon May 17, 2010 6:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
woodrim wrote:
I needed to take a mental health break today, so grabbed my camera and one of my five 135mm lenses and went outside to shoot anything that moved or didn't move. Not picky. Just for kicks, rate this lens either by itself or compared to the lenses discussed in this thread. Exif is incorrect and my memory stinks, so all I can say is most were at f/4 or fully open. Some were cropped a little, levels adjusted, and mild sharpening. No correction for CA or any other kind of fringing.


Well from a composition perspective I'd say they are wonderful!
From a lens score perspective, I'd have to say it's near impossible to rate them without seeing the originals.

But very nice shots though!
PS. how did you achieve the black background with the flowers?


PostPosted: Mon May 17, 2010 12:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
And had I known earlier that I was going to post them, I might have left them unprocessed. You can get to the original images by right clicking on the picture, select properties, then go to that URL. It's pbase, so the original size image can be selected under the picture by clicking "original".


PostPosted: Mon May 17, 2010 2:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
JohnBee wrote:
PS. how did you achieve the black background with the flowers?


The flowers are on a vine that wraps around a brick pillar. The background was the shaded area under an elevated porch being supported by the pillar.


PostPosted: Mon May 17, 2010 4:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ManualFocus-G wrote:
Anu wrote:
JohnBee wrote:
The 37AM proved to have better contrast resolution, less CA and flare resistance than my 37A and CZJ.


Get a new CZJ - a good one does not flare no matter what you do with it Smile

I need to get one of those 37s myself too, even though being poor I try to avoid filling my collection with similar or same focal lengths.


I've owned 5 CZJ 135/3.5...all superb lenses with at least 2 professionally CLA'd. But point any of them at the sun and you're in for some trouble. I'm not sure how the Jupiter 37A fares...I have one in a box so must test soon Smile


I must admit I was wrong. Evidently I had never before pointed this tele lens too the sun (I have the 200 for a very brief moment - if you value your eyesight, don't do the same) Wink

Here is an image where aboiut half of the sun is in the frame. I pulled the hood back. Interesting "stars" - maybe dirt in the lens and some nice flare; contrast was still good though. However, without the sun in the frame and the hood in the place there aren't really any problems.



PostPosted: Mon May 17, 2010 5:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
JohnBee wrote:
Would you happen to have an opinion(experience) with the Nikkor 135mm 2.8 AIs lens?

ie. how would it stack-up against Jupiter/CZJ candidates?


No idea how it stacks up against the Jupiter or Leica, but this is a sleeper lens as already mentioned. I have a set of sample images uploaded original size, if you are interested in how it performs. As mentioned, it is great already wide open.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mureena/sets/72157619282386206/


PostPosted: Tue May 18, 2010 12:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
No one wants to play?


PostPosted: Thu May 20, 2010 1:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Found one more Jupiter 37A example from a few weeks ago:


Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2