C-sonnar!
p.23 #1C-sonnar!
GMPhotography wrote:
the lux has better contrast and less SA at large aperture, it also has much less busy bokeh at full aperture. the lux also has better corners stopped down (at least on a leica, not sure on an unmodded a7).no, definitely not. the zm is one of those lenses where you have to be careful about your background and stop down a fair bit to not have ugly distracting bokeh as well as always being a bit weak towards the edges. the lux has some character but is doesn't ever really surprise you with weakness imo.
honestly, even ignoring price, size, and focus method i would choose the lux (on a leica sensor) over the otus, sigma art, ZA FE 50/1.4, and the new cron AA (though i haven't shot with all of those).I would not mind trying which I had before in the past is a Leica 50mm 1.4 lux pre-asph. I wonder how it would be on our Sonys. Yuk price is stupid high at least 2k
you can get them for 1.2k if you have a bit of patience and don't demand collector grade condition (don't know why you would). it seems about as troubled by the sony sensor as the zm 50/1.5 is.
personally, I like it better than the sonnar for portraits, but opinions vary – the lux pre-asph produces cat's eye bokeh where the sonnar really never does (it also lacks the modern coatings/contrast of the zm).
sebboh wrote
Arka wrote
Thanks. So you wouldn't consider replacing a lux with a Sonnar. Sounds like the lux brings a lot of performance advantages to the table (which it should, given the price!)sebboh wrote
Arka wrote
Anyone compare CZ 50mm f/1.5 Sonnar to the Leica Summilux 50mm f/1.4 (latest version?)honestly, even ignoring price, size, and focus method i would choose the lux (on a leica sensor) over the otus, sigma art, ZA FE 50/1.4, and the new cron AA (though i haven't shot with all of those).
you can get them for 1.2k if you have a bit of patience and don't demand collector grade condition (don't know why you would). it seems about as troubled by the sony sensor as the zm 50/1.5 is.
personally, I like it better than the sonnar for portraits, but opinions vary – the lux pre-asph produces cat's eye bokeh where the sonnar really never does (it also lacks the modern coatings/contrast of the zm).
Oct 04, 2016 at 10:47 AM
p.23 #3C-sonnar!
The Summilux M 50 v2 (aka pre-ASPH) is well behaved, has classic rendering and awesome handling. Mine is an early chrome E43. In terms of imperfect performance, it is a true sibling to the CZ CS50. Later 'lux vintages have the same formula, but are significantly more expensive: short throw, black barrel, inbuilt hood and unusable DOF scale has its price. 
Oct 04, 2016 at 11:24 PM
p.23 #4C-sonnar!
Couple shots i took yesterday. I shot all of these with a Godox AD 360II in HSS mode. Im at F3.2 for pretty much all of these. Save the Dates shots for a wedding next year
Oct 10, 2016 at 10:06 AM
p.23 #6C-sonnar!
GMPhotography wrote:
Need a little airbrushing on some hot spots but not bad.
Which aperture did you use?
Need a little airbrushing on some hot spots but not bad.
Which aperture did you use?
Nov 18, 2016 at 10:18 AM
p.23 #7C-sonnar!
Like 4.5 with fill flash as well. Really sharp on this one Fred. This lens has a great look to it
Nov 18, 2016 at 10:40 AM
p.23 #8C-sonnar!
GMPhotography wrote:
Like 4.5 with fill flash as well. Really sharp on this one Fred. This lens has a great look to it
I have to confess that I never passed f/2 when using this lens!
Like 4.5 with fill flash as well. Really sharp on this one Fred. This lens has a great look to it
I have to confess that I never passed f/2 when using this lens!
Nov 18, 2016 at 02:19 PM
p.23 #9C-sonnar!
Fred Miranda wrote:
I have to confess that I never passed f/2 when using this lens!
I haven't got a keeper past f2!
I did some test shots at infinity and small apertures, just to verify that the lens couldn't be used as an emergency landscape lens.
And no it can't really, except in a super emergency, unsurprisingly.
GMPhotography wrote
Like 4.5 with fill flash as well. Really sharp on this one Fred. This lens has a great look to itI haven't got a keeper past f2!
I did some test shots at infinity and small apertures, just to verify that the lens couldn't be used as an emergency landscape lens.
And no it can't really, except in a super emergency, unsurprisingly.
Nov 18, 2016 at 06:35 PM
p.23 #10C-sonnar!
I like my 50 Sonnars raw and randy
I have three: 1937 original with perfect glass, including the signature bubbles, and a natural coating that can come with age if you don't clean them; Nikkor 1952 version f/1.4, and this one:
Sonne by unoh7, on Flickr
K by unoh7, on Flickr
Cold Comfort by unoh7, on Flickr
Air by unoh7, on Flickr
Thinkin by unoh7, on Flickr
Smudge by unoh7, on Flickr
That's the Sonnetar 50/1.1
From a technical standpoint, the 1937 version is the best of the three, but hey, it's not really a technical lens.
Looking just now at the Zeiss 55/1.8 samples on flickr I think Fred has point, though. That IS a technical lens, and has some very sweet bokeh. Funny I hear complaints about it being uninspiring. Seems very nice.
I have three: 1937 original with perfect glass, including the signature bubbles, and a natural coating that can come with age if you don't clean them; Nikkor 1952 version f/1.4, and this one:
Sonne by unoh7, on Flickr
K by unoh7, on Flickr
Cold Comfort by unoh7, on Flickr
Air by unoh7, on Flickr
Thinkin by unoh7, on Flickr
Smudge by unoh7, on Flickr
That's the Sonnetar 50/1.1
From a technical standpoint, the 1937 version is the best of the three, but hey, it's not really a technical lens.
Looking just now at the Zeiss 55/1.8 samples on flickr I think Fred has point, though. That IS a technical lens, and has some very sweet bokeh. Funny I hear complaints about it being uninspiring. Seems very nice.
Nov 18, 2016 at 08:31 PM
|
p.23 #11C-sonnar!
A modern ZM C Sonnar 50/1.5 isn't in my budget, but I did manage to get a good deal on it's great grandfather? a 1950 Zeiss-Opton 50/1.5. Finally had a chance to use it for it's intended use today, I'm probably going to use this lens for every shot of every person I ever take again. Low contrast and glowy at 1.5, but I might just weld it to f/2. Doesn't love backlight either but I can live with that.
Nov 18, 2016 at 09:14 PM
p.23 #12C-sonnar!
What I really like about the modern version of this lens is the high contrast and flare performance. You may not have that with older versions.
Nov 18, 2016 at 10:51 PM
p.23 #13C-sonnar!
Fred Miranda wrote:
What I really like about the modern version of this lens is the high contrast and flare performance. You may not have that with older versions.
The new version of the Jupiter 1.5/50 (which is a classic Sonnar 1.5/50 design) now being made in Russia allegedly has modern coatings and baffling. One of the retro lens companies, Lomography, is selling it in the US. It's about half the price of the C-Sonnar. I would be surprised if the coatings and bafflings are up to the C-Sonnar standard, but I guess it's not impossible. Anyone tried it?
http://microsites.lomography.com/jupiter-3-plus/
View previous versions
What I really like about the modern version of this lens is the high contrast and flare performance. You may not have that with older versions.
The new version of the Jupiter 1.5/50 (which is a classic Sonnar 1.5/50 design) now being made in Russia allegedly has modern coatings and baffling. One of the retro lens companies, Lomography, is selling it in the US. It's about half the price of the C-Sonnar. I would be surprised if the coatings and bafflings are up to the C-Sonnar standard, but I guess it's not impossible. Anyone tried it?
http://microsites.lomography.com/jupiter-3-plus/
View previous versions
Nov 18, 2016 at 11:37 PM
p.23 #14C-sonnar!
uhoh7 wrote:
I like my 50 Sonnars raw and randy
I have three: 1937 original with perfect glass, including the signature bubbles, and a natural coating that can come with age if you don't clean them; Nikkor 1952 version f/1.4, and this one:
https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7325/15827579224_5326b79003.jpg
Sonne by unoh7, on Flickr
https://c3.staticflickr.com/1/661/21254002874_e9f4984868_b.jpg
K by unoh7, on Flickr
https://c6.staticflickr.com/1/692/21304942373_6afd9becdb_b.jpg
Cold Comfort by unoh7, on Flickr
https://c8.staticflickr.com/6/5709/21886376151_74278dc265_b.jpg
Air by unoh7, on Flickr
https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7390/16468105785_b35800495a_b.jpg
Thinkin by unoh7, on Flickr
https://c8.staticflickr.com/1/265/20403283615_652147fa79_b.jpg
Smudge by unoh7, on Flickr
That's the Sonnetar 50/1.1
From a technical standpoint, the 1937 version is the best of the three, but hey, it's not really a technical lens.
Looking just now at the Zeiss 55/1.8 samples on...Show more →
Those Sonnetar pictures are just gorgeous. I see that there's one available on eBay for USD1199.00. This review, MS-Optical 50mm f/1.1 Sonnetar: magic time, suggests that it's a difficult lens to master, although that doesn't seem to have been a problem for you.
I like my 50 Sonnars raw and randy
I have three: 1937 original with perfect glass, including the signature bubbles, and a natural coating that can come with age if you don't clean them; Nikkor 1952 version f/1.4, and this one:
https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7325/15827579224_5326b79003.jpg
Sonne by unoh7, on Flickr
https://c3.staticflickr.com/1/661/21254002874_e9f4984868_b.jpg
K by unoh7, on Flickr
https://c6.staticflickr.com/1/692/21304942373_6afd9becdb_b.jpg
Cold Comfort by unoh7, on Flickr
https://c8.staticflickr.com/6/5709/21886376151_74278dc265_b.jpg
Air by unoh7, on Flickr
https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7390/16468105785_b35800495a_b.jpg
Thinkin by unoh7, on Flickr
https://c8.staticflickr.com/1/265/20403283615_652147fa79_b.jpg
Smudge by unoh7, on Flickr
That's the Sonnetar 50/1.1
From a technical standpoint, the 1937 version is the best of the three, but hey, it's not really a technical lens.
Looking just now at the Zeiss 55/1.8 samples on...Show more →
Those Sonnetar pictures are just gorgeous. I see that there's one available on eBay for USD1199.00. This review, MS-Optical 50mm f/1.1 Sonnetar: magic time, suggests that it's a difficult lens to master, although that doesn't seem to have been a problem for you.
Nov 19, 2016 at 04:42 AM
p.23 #15C-sonnar!
DavidBM wrote:
The new version of the Jupiter 1.5/50 (which is a classic Sonnar 1.5/50 design) now being made in Russia allegedly has modern coatings and baffling. One of the retro lens companies, Lomography, is selling it in the US. It's about half the price of the C-Sonnar. I would be surprised if the coatings and bafflings are up to the C-Sonnar standard, but I guess it's not impossible. Anyone tried it?
http://microsites.lomography.com/jupiter-3-plus/
David,
In paper, there seem to be pros and cons with the new Jupiter 3+.
Two of the advantages are closer MFD and rounded blades at smaller apertures.
Here is an interesting review from Hamish:
http://www.35mmc.com/15/05/2016/lomography-new-jupiter-3/
"Adding modern coatings to these designs is what I believe really makes the Zeiss ZM Sonnar the perfect lens for me. I waffle on at great length in my ZM Sonnar review about the 3D rendering and the way it deals with light and flare. In theory the new Jupiter 3+ should share some of these positive character traits."
Fred Miranda wrote
What I really like about the modern version of this lens is the high contrast and flare performance. You may not have that with older versions.http://microsites.lomography.com/jupiter-3-plus/
David,
In paper, there seem to be pros and cons with the new Jupiter 3+.
Two of the advantages are closer MFD and rounded blades at smaller apertures.
Here is an interesting review from Hamish:
http://www.35mmc.com/15/05/2016/lomography-new-jupiter-3/
"Adding modern coatings to these designs is what I believe really makes the Zeiss ZM Sonnar the perfect lens for me. I waffle on at great length in my ZM Sonnar review about the 3D rendering and the way it deals with light and flare. In theory the new Jupiter 3+ should share some of these positive character traits."
Nov 19, 2016 at 10:48 AM
p.23 #16C-sonnar!
Fred Miranda wrote:
The new version of the Jupiter 1.5/50 (which is a classic Sonnar 1.5/50 design) now being made in Russia allegedly has modern coatings and baffling. One of the retro lens companies, Lomography, is selling it in the US. It's about half the price of the C-Sonnar. I would be surprised if the coatings and bafflings are up to the C-Sonnar standard, but I guess it's not impossible. Anyone tried it?
http://microsites.lomography.com/jupiter-3-plus/David,
In paper, there seem to be pros and cons with the new Jupiter 3+.
Two of the advantages are closer MFD and rounded blades at smaller apertures.
Here is an interesting review from Hamish:
http://www.35mmc.com/15/05/2016/lomography-new-jupiter-3/
"Adding modern coatings to these designs is what I believe really makes the Zeiss ZM Sonnar the perfect lens for me. I waffle on at great length in my ZM Sonnar review about the 3D rendering and the way it deals with light and flare. In theory the new Jupiter 3+ should share some of these positive character traits."
Interesting review!
The rounded blades could be good at f2.8 or smaller, at f2 10 straight blades make a round enough aperture..
Looks like it's more succeptible to veiling flare than ZM, but less so than original Sonnars or Jupiters. Also sounds like it has a smaller and weaker central area if sharpness at wide apertures than ZM. And it's look is just a little more 'extreme' by modern standards in virtue of being exactly like a Jupiter/Opton Sonnar.
So all in I think the ZM is likely the best bet for use on Sony (where the mfd is no issue using TAP or a regular helicoid adapter). But it might well be a good option in those markets where it is very much cheaper than ZM. Useful performance and quality improvements over a classic Jupiter or Zeiss Opton while less money than ZM.
DavidBM wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
What I really like about the modern version of this lens is the high contrast and flare performance. You may not have that with older versions.http://microsites.lomography.com/jupiter-3-plus/
In paper, there seem to be pros and cons with the new Jupiter 3+.
Two of the advantages are closer MFD and rounded blades at smaller apertures.
Here is an interesting review from Hamish:
http://www.35mmc.com/15/05/2016/lomography-new-jupiter-3/
"Adding modern coatings to these designs is what I believe really makes the Zeiss ZM Sonnar the perfect lens for me. I waffle on at great length in my ZM Sonnar review about the 3D rendering and the way it deals with light and flare. In theory the new Jupiter 3+ should share some of these positive character traits."
Interesting review!
The rounded blades could be good at f2.8 or smaller, at f2 10 straight blades make a round enough aperture..
Looks like it's more succeptible to veiling flare than ZM, but less so than original Sonnars or Jupiters. Also sounds like it has a smaller and weaker central area if sharpness at wide apertures than ZM. And it's look is just a little more 'extreme' by modern standards in virtue of being exactly like a Jupiter/Opton Sonnar.
So all in I think the ZM is likely the best bet for use on Sony (where the mfd is no issue using TAP or a regular helicoid adapter). But it might well be a good option in those markets where it is very much cheaper than ZM. Useful performance and quality improvements over a classic Jupiter or Zeiss Opton while less money than ZM.
Nov 19, 2016 at 02:45 PM
p.23 #17C-sonnar!
genji wrote:
I have three: 1937 original with perfect glass, including the signature bubbles, and a natural coating that can come with age if you don't clean them; Nikkor 1952 version f/1.4, and this one:
https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7325/15827579224_5326b79003.jpg
Sonne by unoh7, on Flickr
https://c3.staticflickr.com/1/661/21254002874_e9f4984868_b.jpg
K by unoh7, on Flickr
https://c6.staticflickr.com/1/692/21304942373_6afd9becdb_b.jpg
Cold Comfort by unoh7, on Flickr
https://c8.staticflickr.com/6/5709/21886376151_74278dc265_b.jpg
Air by unoh7, on Flickr
https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7390/16468105785_b35800495a_b.jpg
Thinkin by unoh7, on Flickr
https://c8.staticflickr.com/1/265/20403283615_652147fa79_b.jpg
Smudge by unoh7, on Flickr
That's the Sonnetar 50/1.1
From a technical standpoint, the 1937 version is the best of the three, but hey, it's not really a technical lens.
Looking just now at the Zeiss 55/1.8 samples on flickr I think Fred has point, though. That IS a technical lens, and has some very sweet bokeh. Funny I hear complaints about it being uninspiring. Seems very nice.Those Sonnetar pictures are just gorgeous. I see that there's one available on eBay for USD1199.00. This review, MS-Optical 50mm f/1.1 Sonnetar: magic time, suggests that it's a difficult lens to master, although that doesn't seem to have been a problem for you.
TY very much for kind words. It's unpredictable on the M9, so not the best thing to use when you must count on results. You throw out plenty. A7 is better since WYSIWYG. BTW the sonnetar has very nice german aperture, always perfect circle. Rear group can be moved in or out either to adjust coma, or for calibration on RF.
Fred Miranda wrote:
What I really like about the modern version of this lens is the high contrast and flare performance. You may not have that with older versions.
One stereotype about old lenses is that they are low contrast. I don't doubt the C-sonnar has more contrast at 1.5, but by f/4 I would very much doubt a clean original is far behind. The CZJ 50/1.5 was famous at the time for high contrast, and old lenses contrast issues are case by case between designs, and since haze is a very common issue, often between copies.
Let's take a look:
Untitled by unoh7, 1937 CZJ Sonnar
First a benchmark....which image has more contrast?
shot two by unoh7, on Flickr
shot one by unoh7, on Flickr
Above are the 50 cron v4 and CZJ 50/1.5 on the M9. Which is which? No PP. Exposure is slightly different, so though one has brighter whites, the other has darker blacks.
The only thing these lenses have in common is the size
. But at f/8 contrast is very similar, that's for sure.
What about f/4?
L1023072 by unoh7, CZJ f/4 M9 No PP
In fact at F/4 the uncoated CZJ has fantastic contrast.
WO:
Shy Friend by unoh7, on Flickr
Hard to tell here, but I would not call it: "low contrast". Every lens looses contrast WO compared to say F/8.
Below we can see why this was the "best" 50 money could buy for 20 years:
L1023704 by unoh7, f/8
It's slightly overcast, so contrast is not obvious in this image, but note edges at this range are not glaringly soft, and not far off or equal to the elmar 50/3.5, which likes F/11 at least for landscape. A more distant shot would show more softness, but for reporters this level of performance on the edge is basically fine in 1940.
F/10ish, again slightly overcast:
L1023670 by unoh7, on Flickr
On the A7 Mod F/8 +
River Banks by unoh7, edited.
Below A7mod, no pp WO:
CZJ 50 WO by unoh7, on Flickr
AhHa! Low contrast Sun has gone behind thin cloud, so yes, at f/1.5 it is "low" contrast, yet by f/4 this lens is very close to modern contrast and famous for that at the time. It was also the fastest lens in the world for the 35 film format for many years, until Nikon went to f/1.4 with the design: more on that lens later.
Back then F1.5 was for emergencies, like 1.1 with the sonnetar
I'd love to have a Jupiter 3 +, and I think the price is fine for what you get. But the original CZJ is not expensive in the Contax mount:
DSC01069 by unoh7, on Flickr
Body and lens were 200 bucks or so. It's a 3a post war body, which cost the same as a Chevy sedan when new, but the lens was pre-war. No clue why.
No helicoid, so you need an Amedeo adapter (about 200) to get to M, then use you M adapter on A7. The LTM copies are much more, often beat up. No problem to find a clean copy in Contax mount. Glass was very hard, unlike Leitz.
The whole Zeiss reputation was created by this single lens, which evolved from the early hand held low light ernostar.
Erich Salomon with his RX1
Picked up a camera at 41. He would hide it in his bowler hat and take pictures of murderers on trial, diplomatic events, the US supreme court and Marlene Dietrich:
Father of candid photography and the most famous photographer in the world at the outbreak of the war he died in Auschwitz in 1944.
uhoh7 wrote
I like my 50 Sonnars raw and randyI have three: 1937 original with perfect glass, including the signature bubbles, and a natural coating that can come with age if you don't clean them; Nikkor 1952 version f/1.4, and this one:
https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7325/15827579224_5326b79003.jpg
Sonne by unoh7, on Flickr
https://c3.staticflickr.com/1/661/21254002874_e9f4984868_b.jpg
K by unoh7, on Flickr
https://c6.staticflickr.com/1/692/21304942373_6afd9becdb_b.jpg
Cold Comfort by unoh7, on Flickr
https://c8.staticflickr.com/6/5709/21886376151_74278dc265_b.jpg
Air by unoh7, on Flickr
https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7390/16468105785_b35800495a_b.jpg
Thinkin by unoh7, on Flickr
https://c8.staticflickr.com/1/265/20403283615_652147fa79_b.jpg
Smudge by unoh7, on Flickr
That's the Sonnetar 50/1.1
From a technical standpoint, the 1937 version is the best of the three, but hey, it's not really a technical lens.
Looking just now at the Zeiss 55/1.8 samples on flickr I think Fred has point, though. That IS a technical lens, and has some very sweet bokeh. Funny I hear complaints about it being uninspiring. Seems very nice.
TY very much for kind words. It's unpredictable on the M9, so not the best thing to use when you must count on results. You throw out plenty. A7 is better since WYSIWYG. BTW the sonnetar has very nice german aperture, always perfect circle. Rear group can be moved in or out either to adjust coma, or for calibration on RF.
Fred Miranda wrote:
What I really like about the modern version of this lens is the high contrast and flare performance. You may not have that with older versions.
One stereotype about old lenses is that they are low contrast. I don't doubt the C-sonnar has more contrast at 1.5, but by f/4 I would very much doubt a clean original is far behind. The CZJ 50/1.5 was famous at the time for high contrast, and old lenses contrast issues are case by case between designs, and since haze is a very common issue, often between copies.
Let's take a look:
Untitled by unoh7, 1937 CZJ Sonnar
First a benchmark....which image has more contrast?
shot two by unoh7, on Flickr
shot one by unoh7, on Flickr
Above are the 50 cron v4 and CZJ 50/1.5 on the M9. Which is which? No PP. Exposure is slightly different, so though one has brighter whites, the other has darker blacks.
The only thing these lenses have in common is the size
. But at f/8 contrast is very similar, that's for sure. What about f/4?
L1023072 by unoh7, CZJ f/4 M9 No PP
In fact at F/4 the uncoated CZJ has fantastic contrast.
WO:
Shy Friend by unoh7, on Flickr
Hard to tell here, but I would not call it: "low contrast". Every lens looses contrast WO compared to say F/8.
Below we can see why this was the "best" 50 money could buy for 20 years:
L1023704 by unoh7, f/8
It's slightly overcast, so contrast is not obvious in this image, but note edges at this range are not glaringly soft, and not far off or equal to the elmar 50/3.5, which likes F/11 at least for landscape. A more distant shot would show more softness, but for reporters this level of performance on the edge is basically fine in 1940.
F/10ish, again slightly overcast:
L1023670 by unoh7, on Flickr
On the A7 Mod F/8 +
River Banks by unoh7, edited.
Below A7mod, no pp WO:
CZJ 50 WO by unoh7, on Flickr
AhHa! Low contrast
Sun has gone behind thin cloud, so yes, at f/1.5 it is "low" contrast, yet by f/4 this lens is very close to modern contrast and famous for that at the time. It was also the fastest lens in the world for the 35 film format for many years, until Nikon went to f/1.4 with the design: more on that lens later.Back then F1.5 was for emergencies, like 1.1 with the sonnetar
I'd love to have a Jupiter 3 +, and I think the price is fine for what you get. But the original CZJ is not expensive in the Contax mount:
DSC01069 by unoh7, on Flickr
Body and lens were 200 bucks or so. It's a 3a post war body, which cost the same as a Chevy sedan when new, but the lens was pre-war. No clue why.
No helicoid, so you need an Amedeo adapter (about 200) to get to M, then use you M adapter on A7. The LTM copies are much more, often beat up. No problem to find a clean copy in Contax mount. Glass was very hard, unlike Leitz.
The whole Zeiss reputation was created by this single lens, which evolved from the early hand held low light ernostar.
Erich Salomon with his RX1
Picked up a camera at 41. He would hide it in his bowler hat and take pictures of murderers on trial, diplomatic events, the US supreme court and Marlene Dietrich:Father of candid photography and the most famous photographer in the world at the outbreak of the war he died in Auschwitz in 1944.
Nov 19, 2016 at 05:12 PM
p.23 #18C-sonnar!
DavidBM wrote:
Interesting review!
The rounded blades could be good at f2.8 or smaller, at f2 10 straight blades make a round enough aperture..
Looks like it's more succeptible to veiling flare than ZM, but less so than original Sonnars or Jupiters. Also sounds like it has a smaller and weaker central area if sharpness at wide apertures than ZM. And it's look is just a little more 'extreme' by modern standards in virtue of being exactly like a Jupiter/Opton Sonnar.
So all in I think the ZM is likely the best bet for use on Sony (where the mfd is no issue using TAP...Show more →
Having briefly had a Lomography Jupiter 3+ 50/1.5 I'd have to say that it offers "useful performance and quality improvements" only if "performance" doesn't include handling and "quality" doesn't refer to construction.
Over the years I've owned and used several hundred lenses and I can't recall being more disappointed in a lens than I was with the Jupiter 3+. Not with the images it produced, which were much as I'd expected but rather with its haptics and marginally acceptable build quality (for its price).
While the review Fred linked to, which runs to nearly 7000 words, tells a prospective buyer everything he or she might wish to know about the Jupiter 3+, I did feel that the author bent over backwards to defend the build quality:
"...minor imperfections... aren’t quite on a par with Leica or Zeiss in terms of build... actually pretty good... perfect, no... all things considered, definitely good enough... much better than I expected." And that was before he wrote about "a small amount of play in the aperture ring" which "at the moment doesn’t feel perfect but it also doesn’t feel like anything is broken".
This is what's commonly referred to as damning with faint praise.
He liked the "otherwise very smooth and satisfying clickless aperture". I hated it: fiddly to set and dishearteningly easy to bump off the chosen aperture.
I knew I had to get rid of it but I didn't want to put it on the Buy-Sell board because photographs of the Jupiter 3+ cannot convey its innate awfulness. Given that there was a strong chance that any FM member who purchased it would be equally disappointed, I gave it to sell on consignment to a local store with a generous try before you buy policy. I was happy to trade a 20% hit on what it had cost me in return for the satisfaction of never having to touch it again.
Interesting review!
The rounded blades could be good at f2.8 or smaller, at f2 10 straight blades make a round enough aperture..
Looks like it's more succeptible to veiling flare than ZM, but less so than original Sonnars or Jupiters. Also sounds like it has a smaller and weaker central area if sharpness at wide apertures than ZM. And it's look is just a little more 'extreme' by modern standards in virtue of being exactly like a Jupiter/Opton Sonnar.
So all in I think the ZM is likely the best bet for use on Sony (where the mfd is no issue using TAP...Show more →
Having briefly had a Lomography Jupiter 3+ 50/1.5 I'd have to say that it offers "useful performance and quality improvements" only if "performance" doesn't include handling and "quality" doesn't refer to construction.
Over the years I've owned and used several hundred lenses and I can't recall being more disappointed in a lens than I was with the Jupiter 3+. Not with the images it produced, which were much as I'd expected but rather with its haptics and marginally acceptable build quality (for its price).
While the review Fred linked to, which runs to nearly 7000 words, tells a prospective buyer everything he or she might wish to know about the Jupiter 3+, I did feel that the author bent over backwards to defend the build quality:
"...minor imperfections... aren’t quite on a par with Leica or Zeiss in terms of build... actually pretty good... perfect, no... all things considered, definitely good enough... much better than I expected." And that was before he wrote about "a small amount of play in the aperture ring" which "at the moment doesn’t feel perfect but it also doesn’t feel like anything is broken".
This is what's commonly referred to as damning with faint praise.
He liked the "otherwise very smooth and satisfying clickless aperture". I hated it: fiddly to set and dishearteningly easy to bump off the chosen aperture.
I knew I had to get rid of it but I didn't want to put it on the Buy-Sell board because photographs of the Jupiter 3+ cannot convey its innate awfulness. Given that there was a strong chance that any FM member who purchased it would be equally disappointed, I gave it to sell on consignment to a local store with a generous try before you buy policy. I was happy to trade a 20% hit on what it had cost me in return for the satisfaction of never having to touch it again.
Nov 19, 2016 at 08:19 PM
p.23 #19C-sonnar!
genji, thanks for reporting on the quality of the Jupiter 3+. I have at times wondered about getting it, but not anymore.
Nov 19, 2016 at 08:40 PM
p.23 #20C-sonnar!
genji wrote:
The rounded blades could be good at f2.8 or smaller, at f2 10 straight blades make a round enough aperture..
Looks like it's more succeptible to veiling flare than ZM, but less so than original Sonnars or Jupiters. Also sounds like it has a smaller and weaker central area if sharpness at wide apertures than ZM. And it's look is just a little more 'extreme' by modern standards in virtue of being exactly like a Jupiter/Opton Sonnar.
So all in I think the ZM is likely the best bet for use on Sony (where the mfd is no issue using TAP or a regular helicoid adapter). But it might well be a good option in those markets where it is very much cheaper than ZM. Useful performance and quality improvements over a classic Jupiter or Zeiss Opton while less money than ZM.Having briefly had a Lomography Jupiter 3+ 50/1.5 I'd have to say that it offers "useful performance and quality improvements" only if "performance" doesn't include handling and "quality" doesn't refer to construction.
Over the years I've owned and used several hundred lenses and I can't recall being more disappointed in a lens than I was with the Jupiter 3+. Not with the images it produced, which were much as I'd expected but rather with its haptics and marginally acceptable build quality (for its price).
While the review Fred linked to, which runs to nearly 7000 words, tells a prospective buyer everything he...Show more →
Thanks for that! I was in no danger of buying one, but I might have told friends who were balking at the price of a c-Sonnar to consider it. Not now!
DavidBM wrote
Interesting review!The rounded blades could be good at f2.8 or smaller, at f2 10 straight blades make a round enough aperture..
Looks like it's more succeptible to veiling flare than ZM, but less so than original Sonnars or Jupiters. Also sounds like it has a smaller and weaker central area if sharpness at wide apertures than ZM. And it's look is just a little more 'extreme' by modern standards in virtue of being exactly like a Jupiter/Opton Sonnar.
So all in I think the ZM is likely the best bet for use on Sony (where the mfd is no issue using TAP or a regular helicoid adapter). But it might well be a good option in those markets where it is very much cheaper than ZM. Useful performance and quality improvements over a classic Jupiter or Zeiss Opton while less money than ZM.
Over the years I've owned and used several hundred lenses and I can't recall being more disappointed in a lens than I was with the Jupiter 3+. Not with the images it produced, which were much as I'd expected but rather with its haptics and marginally acceptable build quality (for its price).
While the review Fred linked to, which runs to nearly 7000 words, tells a prospective buyer everything he...Show more →
Thanks for that! I was in no danger of buying one, but I might have told friends who were balking at the price of a c-Sonnar to consider it. Not now!
Nov 19, 2016 at 08:46 PM