View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
togg
Joined: 16 Feb 2016 Posts: 31 Location: Norway
|
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2016 8:23 pm Post subject: Jupiter3 50mm f/1.5 VS. Helios 44-2 on MFT-which is best? |
|
|
togg wrote:
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! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
BurstMox
Joined: 04 Dec 2011 Posts: 2018 Location: France
Expire: 2016-08-02
|
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2016 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
BurstMox wrote:
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. _________________ Pierre
sovietlenses.fr
Soviet lenses Facebook group |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2016 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Impossible question, these two lenses are so very different. Jupiter has no swirl to the bokeh but has much smoother bokeh. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
togg
Joined: 16 Feb 2016 Posts: 31 Location: Norway
|
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2016 10:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
togg wrote:
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2016 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
This site has lots of examples of both lenses. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Nordentro
Joined: 24 Jun 2010 Posts: 4713 Location: Lillehammer, Norway
Expire: 2015-01-29
|
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2016 11:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nordentro wrote:
I would rather have looked at Jupiter-8. Very similar to Jupiter-3, a little slower but much cheaper _________________ Lars | Manuellfokus.no |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Riku
Joined: 23 May 2007 Posts: 1059 Location: Finland
Expire: 2017-04-30
|
Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2016 12:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Riku wrote:
I have both and use J-3 99% of the time because of the size difference. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57865 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2016 1:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
Trully no matter buy both if you can, if not, take Helios deadly simple. _________________ -------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
uhoh7
Joined: 24 Nov 2010 Posts: 1300 Location: Idaho, USA
|
Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2016 4:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
uhoh7 wrote:
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
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 _________________ Making MFlenses safe for the letter *L* |
|
Back to top |
|
|
calvin83
Joined: 12 Apr 2009 Posts: 7568 Location: Hong Kong
|
Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2016 4:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
calvin83 wrote:
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. _________________ https://www.instagram.com/_lens_fever/
The best lens is the one you have with you. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
StyxD
Joined: 18 Nov 2014 Posts: 79 Location: Italia
|
Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2016 8:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
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 ? _________________ Powered by Sony A7ii, Canonet QL17 G-III, Konica Hexar RF and:
Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 35 2.4 - Porst 50 1.2 - Canon LTM 50 1.4 - Fujinon 55 2.2 - Topcon 58 1.4 - Leica Summicron-R 90 2.0 - Helios 44M-4 58 2.0 - Konica AE 24 2.8 - Voigtlander Nokton SC 35 1.4 - Leica-R Elmarit 135 2.8 - Leica-R Elmarit 180 2.8 - Jupiter-3 50 1.5 - Jupiter-9 85 2.0
My Flickr |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Rick1779
Joined: 17 May 2013 Posts: 1207 Location: Italy
Expire: 2014-06-06
|
Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2016 9:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Rick1779 wrote:
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 ? |
+1 _________________ TELLTALE
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
padam
Joined: 09 Oct 2012 Posts: 175 Location: Hungary
|
Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2016 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
padam wrote:
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). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Layer-cake
Joined: 18 Mar 2013 Posts: 560 Location: Cape Town
|
Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2016 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Layer-cake wrote:
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ChromaticAberration
Joined: 23 Dec 2010 Posts: 819 Location: Portugal
|
Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2016 11:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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. _________________ Body: Fujifilm X-E1
Landscapes: Samyang 12mm f/2 NCS CS
Macro: Vivitar Series 1 105mm Æ’/2.5
Portrait: Helios-44 58mm Æ’/2.0
Low-light: SMC Takumar 50mm Æ’/1.4
_________________
Marketplace feedback
_________________
a pнoтograpн ιѕ neιтнer тaĸen or ѕeιzed вy ғorce. ιт oғғerѕ ιтѕelғ υp. ιт ιѕ тнe pнoтo тнaт тaĸeѕ yoυ. one мυѕт noт тaĸe pнoтoѕ.†– нenrι carтιer-вreѕѕon |
|
Back to top |
|
|
uhoh7
Joined: 24 Nov 2010 Posts: 1300 Location: Idaho, USA
|
Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2016 4:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
uhoh7 wrote:
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.
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
What I really want is a Leica 35 FLE, and they are running around 3200. _________________ Making MFlenses safe for the letter *L* |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ChromaticAberration
Joined: 23 Dec 2010 Posts: 819 Location: Portugal
|
Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2016 9:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
ChromaticAberration wrote:
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 _________________ Body: Fujifilm X-E1
Landscapes: Samyang 12mm f/2 NCS CS
Macro: Vivitar Series 1 105mm Æ’/2.5
Portrait: Helios-44 58mm Æ’/2.0
Low-light: SMC Takumar 50mm Æ’/1.4
_________________
Marketplace feedback
_________________
a pнoтograpн ιѕ neιтнer тaĸen or ѕeιzed вy ғorce. ιт oғғerѕ ιтѕelғ υp. ιт ιѕ тнe pнoтo тнaт тaĸeѕ yoυ. one мυѕт noт тaĸe pнoтoѕ.†– нenrι carтιer-вreѕѕon |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tb_a
Joined: 26 Jan 2010 Posts: 3678 Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2016 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
tb_a wrote:
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).
IMHO it's worth every penny. _________________ Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|