uhoh7
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: C-sonnar! | |
genji wrote:
uhoh7 wrote:
OMG 
I\'ll make a guess: you never owned an original Jupiter 3.
Nope.
I\'ve never even seen a plus, but a wide variety of users who do know the original say the build is way better. No comparison, they claim. Some note their C-sonnars developed the famous wobble in short order
Perhaps you might want to take a look at a Jupiter 3+ and then express a first-hand opinion. I currently have four ZM lenses and none of them (so far) has had the famous ZM wobble.
Brian Sweeny who has seen literally hundreds of 5cm Sonnars of all flavors felt the build was excellent and more important, his calibration was spot on, which is huge, as the the originals are all over the place on the M body. Equally huge is the .7 CF.
I use all my lenses on an A7R II so I don\'t give a rat\'s arse about the calibration on an M body nor the 0.7m close focus distance.
Your complaint about the aperture ring not having any clicks and very easy to accidentally move: that\'s the way the originals are, both German and Russian, and Sonnetar too I\'m afraid. So I have to wonder, did you get a bad copy? Did you expect a modern lens or a modern re-issue, which is what it is. I certainly respect your opinion, but for others interested, I suggest you compare impressions on the build at RFF and Leicaplace, as honestly this is the first negative take on the construction I\'ve heard. 
I guess I\'m allergic to clickless aperture rings. I was so impressed with the Sonnetar pictures you posted recently that I thought seriously about purchasing the copy I saw on eBay. Until I discovered that it had a clickless aperture.
I\'m pretty sure I didn\'t get a bad copy for two reasons: firstly, that the image quality was fine, as I stated in my original post; secondly, that the review of the lens that Fred linked to, and from which I quoted, validated my criticisms of the build quality, meaning that there are now at least two negative takes on the construction.
The whole thing is made from chrome-plated solid brass, and those who know the old J3 or just old LTM lenses seem delighted with it.
Well, as you\'ve realized, I was far from delighted with it and, as for \"just old LTM lenses\", those that I currently own and use include:
Canon 50/1.4
Fujinon L 50/2
Hexanon 50/1.9
Nikkor H.C. 50/2 (two copies)
Super Rokkor 50/1.8
Topcor-S 50/2
Yashinon 50/1.8
Canon 100/2 (two copies)
IMNSHO, compared to any of these lenses, the build quality and haptics of the Jupiter 3+ are a joke.
Anyway I\'m sorry you had such a bad experience.
No need to apologize, the responsibility for my bad experience lies with Lomography not you.
I don\'t resile from my negative view of the Jupiter 3+. Rather, I believe that I should be congratulated, rather than castigated, for contradicting the prevailing deification of this overpriced \"modern re-issue\". As Mao Zedong said in 1957 (an unexpected coincidence given the vintage of the lenses under discussion): \"Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend.\"
OK points taken Love the Mao reference, but I have no plans to have you interned for dissent now you have expressed an outlying view, as happened back then 
Two ZM lenses here; 35/2 and 18/4, both are fine, no wobble, I love them. But some who did have to deal with that screamed: ZM is crap don\'t buy them etc, almost as poetically as you
No castigation intended, and for sure you need to call it as you see it regardless. You have those little nikkors 5cm, etc, so you know the era. Are they LTM or Nikon/Contax? Just curious.
Perhaps what you see is what DDD and others saw with the superior Nikkor builds in 1950, which caused them to leave Zeiss.
So besides the aperture ring, what were the worst aspects?
I guess what I\'m really wondering to myself is are you upset with what are basically design elements of the original? Back in the day, there were obviously some Nikkor designers in 1948 who felt the same way as you about the aperture.
DSC01098 by unoh7, on Flickr
The russians simply took the factory, and made the lens as best they could as a nearly exact copy. Not so the guys at Nikkor:
CZJ and progeny by unoh7, on Flickr
Note aperture ring on CZJ vs Nikkor. The Nikkor is very precise with clicks. The CZJ is clickless and very easy to move with little tabs. Build on the CZJ is not as good. Which do I prefer using? The CZJ by far because the ring moves so easy. You can change it without losing focus. This is impossible on the Nikkor or the Sonnetar. Common all three is that the \"throw\" of the aperture ring varies incredibly. Tiny space between F/8 and F/16, huge space between WO and f/2.
The nikkor became the fastest lens in the world for 135 film for a brief time. Dante Stella has a nice write up:
HERE
DSC01569-2 by unoh7, on Flickr
What he fails to get across is this lens can, at times, make the wildest bokeh WO I have ever seen--no swirl though. I made a album so you can see of these:
HERE
On the stock A7r:
Vic by unoh7, on Flickr
M9:
L1007300 by unoh7, on Flickr
Those are when it\'s in a good mood
What does he smell? by unoh7, on Flickr
This again is on the M9 so CF is one meter. With a Hawks CF adapter it will really make some shapes.
Sharpness sort of across the frame I have only seen happen when the focus is close, as Dante notes. Note snow flakes:
L1007379 by unoh7, on Flickr
UPDATE: at first I had a Sonnetar f/8 image here, My Bad, sorry Nikkor 
Let\'s compare fast v slow across the frame:
Nikkor_5cm_f2+ by unoh7, WO i think
Nikkor_5cm_f8 by unoh7, on Flickr
and here again you can see why sonnar experts like Brian Sweeney call the nikkor\'s bokeh harsher than other sonnars:
L1055009-2 by unoh7, on Flickr
That to my eye is very ugly, but some of the previous samples I like very much.
Many famous photos in LIFE during the 50s were taken with this lens. It was replaced by the \"olympic\", a double gauss design which was reissued in 2000 for the Nikon RF remake. Reputedly that is a fantastic lens.
|
