Leica Jupiter-3 Plus Compared with Three Rare Sonnar lenses

Brian

Product of the Fifties
Probably the last of semi-controlled comparisons of the Lomography Jupiter-3 Plus, just going to use it from here on in.

I took the Jupiter-3+, 1943 Carl Zeiss Jena 5cm F1.5 Sonnar T in LTM, the 1949 Nikkor-SC 5cm F1.5, and 1949 ZK 5cm F1.5 Sonnar back to Gunston Hall today. I used a tripod for the comparison shots, F1.5 and F4 for each setting. Changing 4 lenses is a bit much, so most comparisons are between the J-3+, 1943 Sonnar, and Nikkor. A couple with the ZK: which is nearly identical to the Sonnar. The internal serial numbers of the ZK show it to be a 1945 CZJ Sonnar.

We'll start with the ZK Sonnar at F1.5, for the 4-way comparison shots.

25219062951_553f38385c_b.jpg
Gunston Hall 2, ZK Sonnar
by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

The 1943 Sonnar at F1.5,

25285802756_7e6bd584eb_b.jpg
Gunston Hall 2, 1943 Sonnar 5cm F1.5
by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr


The Nikkor at F1.5,

24681493794_d840646f07_b.jpg
Gunston Hall 2, Nikkor 5cm F1.5
by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

And the J-3 Plus At F1.5,

25285769896_afe8f4b304_b.jpg
Gunston Hall
by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

Schneider UV filters and Hoods used on all lenses.
 
Last edited:
The ZK at F4,

25016587150_e78c8cf9db_b.jpg
Gunston Hall 2, ZK Sonnar
by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

1943 Sonnar at F4,

25285801566_e12f2fc7ab_b.jpg
Gunston Hall 2, 1943 Sonnar 5cm F1.5
by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

The Nikkor at F4,

24685356843_6266435bb6_b.jpg
Gunston Hall 2, Nikkor 5cm F1.5
by fiftyonepointsix, on Flick


and the Jupiter-3 Plus,

24685261863_17eb7541ce_b.jpg
Gunston Hall
by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

Good think I jiggled the tripod a little when changing lenses. The 1943 Sonnar and the J-3 Plus are amazingly similar. That's a good thing- a wartime Sonnar in original Leica mount is likely to cost more than the J3Plus in the condition that mine is in.
 
Closer in:

The 1943 Sonnar at F1.5,

25285805876_ef6ebbcba4_b.jpg
Gunston Hall 2, 1943 Sonnar 5cm F1.5
by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

The Nikkor at F1.5,

25193864322_4e0365cf3c_b.jpg
Gunston Hall 2, Nikkor 5cm F1.5
by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

And the Jupiter-3+ at F1.5,

24681401094_9c6c095d9c_b.jpg
Gunston Hall
by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

Of course lighting coming through the trees and with some clouds in the sky has an effect, but I tried to wait for the sun to pop out from behind scattered clouds. I think the 1943 Sonnar produced the best image in this wide-open and close-up set. This is a spectacular lens, the middle triplet was loose when I got it. Drove me nuts trying to shim the lens until figuring out it was loose.
 
The new Amedeo Contax-Leica adapter for Internal mount lenses arrived today, so i will be testing a 1950s Carl Zeiss 50mm F1.5 Sonnar "T" with the J3+. I spent some time "zeroing" the Zeiss on the adapter for best use on the M9 at F1.5. The Zeiss lenses are not optimized for F1.5 perhaps, this one front-focused on the M9. I also zeroed a second Zeiss Opton 50/1.5 Sonnar T for the M Monochrom used with a deep yellow filter. I have three of these Sonnars, bought when they were ~$100 each- and one was free in a trade. The new adapter uses an Indexed Cam and provides good agreement from 0.7m to infinity. The focal length of the Sonnars varies slightly, even 0.5mm difference in focal length makes a difference on the indexing. I got the one lens free because the focal length was so far off originally. I brought it back to decent agreement.
 
Nice work.... The amadeo adaptor does expand the options for M users given now Contax and Nikon RF compatible. there are a lot of sonnars (and other zeiss) out there in contax mount. Frankly, I was looking at some scanned photos from my M4 P using pretty decent lenses and those from my G2 with it's autofocus lenses. Images from the G2 were extremely good. These modern Zeiss T star lenses in the G2 system are fantastic and I will bet you that they are very inexpensive even relative to vintage Contax Sonnar. Can't be used on M but can be adapted, autofocus and all to a Sony A7II. I have thought about this....a used A7II, three Contax prime autofocus G2 lenses, Techart Adapter........?2K total. That kills an M9.....theoretically. And techart now with M autofocus adapter. What is this world coming to?

Poor Brian, your labor of love hobby is going to expand into a business before you know it.
Hap
 
Nice work.... The amadeo adaptor does expand the options for M users given now Contax and Nikon RF compatible. there are a lot of sonnars (and other zeiss) out there in contax mount. Frankly, I was looking at some scanned photos from my M4 P using pretty decent lenses and those from my G2 with it's autofocus lenses. Images from the G2 were extremely good. These modern Zeiss T star lenses in the G2 system are fantastic and I will bet you that they are very inexpensive even relative to vintage Contax Sonnar. Can't be used on M but can be adapted, autofocus and all to a Sony A7II. I have thought about this....a used A7II, three Contax prime autofocus G2 lenses, Techart Adapter........?2K total. That kills an M9.....theoretically. And techart now with M autofocus adapter. What is this world coming to?

Poor Brian, your labor of love hobby is going to expand into a business before you know it.
Hap
Autofocus, nah, I Like my M-E and M Monochrom (CCD) rangefinder. Even on my Canon 6D my good lenses are all manual focus Zeiss.
 
Asiafish......I understand for the purist, which tends to be those of us older and familiar with film (and not cell phone cameras), the ideal is MF. I can barely use my Galaxy S5 cam. OLder, however, gives way to infirmity and declining vision. All of a sudden AF looks good even while sounding heretical.....another disadvantage of old age, hearing problems but typically in the sonic spectrum of female voice. This is why I would love to have a fantastic EVF and other focusing aids...not because I want to but I have need.

the lens that get's the most use on my Nikon 7100 is a 50mm 1.2 AIS.....but I wish I could get a focus aid.

I think we might extend ourselves, those visually challenged who want to dabble in vintage lenses coupled to digital cameras, some slack with the autofocus. My other comment, which will get me hanged here....is the "relative" worth and difference between a digital M and a kick ass Sony A7RII. Sean Reid, no M hater at all did a comparison evaluation of Monochrome M and Sony. In fairness, miniscule difference. Price....well you know answer to that. Furthermore, the photographic world is expanded to 4K video and who knows what else. A question.......we will still have our vintage lenses to play with, even the manual modern lenses, in 10 years. Will we have our Sony A7 or digital M like we have our M3?
 
I am extremely near-sighted, have been since a Kid. That is why I can work on Russian lenses and use triple-zero drill bits and set screws.

I use a 1.25x magnifier on the M9 and M Monochrom for Fast-50s and Telephoto lenses. Although the images in this thread are done with the heavy tripod that I bought in 1970, it does not get too much use. I find the Rangefinder to by fast and easy, just wait until the two images overlap and "click". I've been using them since 1969, it's first-nature to me. I use mostly Manual Focus lenses on the Df, but have several AF lenses for it.
 
It would be interesting to see the J-3+ and these other Sonnars used on a full-frame mirrorless. Sonnar formula lenses sit closer to the image plane than their Planar counterparts. The microlens array that Kodak used for their CCD's amazes me: I can use a Jupiter-12 with lens-detection off on the M8 (1.3x crop) without vignetting. Lens detection applies a "non-uniformity correction" to reduce vignetting, meaning it is a multiplier across the image. Either drop the center to match the edges- lose efficiency; or multiply the edges to match the center- possible contour banding. Starting with a more uniform image reduces the need for software trickery. I wrote my first non-uniformity correction routine for a digital image almost 35 years ago.

For the next comparison- I have the Carl Zeiss 50/1.5 "zeroed" with the new Amedeo adapter, focus is spot-on from 0.7m to infinity. That took a little time, you remove the rear retaining ring and turn the variable stand-off ring- put back in and test on the camera. Zeiss dropped the "Opton" sometime during the run, simply marked them "Carl Zeiss". There were two distinct versions of the 50/1.5 that were produced concurrently. Almost looks like two sets of tooling used, the fixtures and exact shape of the optics is different between the two.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi Brian,

The only experience I had was with the 50 ZM C Sonnar on my A7r, strong vignette up to f4, and anywhere off centre was soft.
Any of my Leica lenses below 50mm on that body were marginal at best.

cheers/ken.
 
Rambling here.....obviously M digital cameras are designed for RF lenses intended. Hence the thinner glass covers and presumed specific microlens arrays. Hit or miss to some degree on non M cameras (and maybe even M cameras). The Ricoh A12 M mount module may be ancient by today standards, but it is designed for RF lenses according to Ricoh engineers. It's performance seems to bear that out even with the CV 25/4 that Sean Reid uses. Miyazaki san who developed the Sonnetar has said that this lens , based on Sonnar design, has optimization for digital M which appears to be a departure from earlier statements. The way it's used with digital versus analog M, especially with manual coma adjustment is different. I do not know why....but lots of effects possible. It also seems that Sony design evolving to account for RF lens use on their cameras although Reid confesses that design optimized for FE mount lenses. Fast Sonnar designs appear to be a jumble of compromises and the fun , if you can say that, is in the creativity of photographer to work with that to produce a vision....."faults" and all.

Maybe Brian or someone else can answer this: why aren't sensors curved, like eye retina or the mirror of a large telescope.?
 
Sony has actually patented a curved sensor to try and resolve that exact issue, when, or if ever it will be commercially produced, is the big question...

cheers/ken.
 
Sensors are made from Silicon Wafers, then have to be "thinned"- milled down.

I thought that back-side illuminated sensors used in the latest Sony would be better for lenses with a short back-focus, but the microlens array and filter stack also play a roll. I am betting that the next digital M will be BSI technology. I would like to see a new camera use the Dalsa 32MPixel CCD, available in color and monochrome. Phase 1 uses CCD's in their latest monochrome back, the 32MPixel Dalsa CCD is the 24x36 version of the one used in the medium format back.
 
I am not sure there will be another revolutionary digital M. If Leica somehow uses new (read expensive) or novel technology , then it would be out of the realm of a consumer device. The SL without a lens is already 8K. The "people" have run out money. As the saying goes...socialism really sucks when the other guy runs out of money. If Sony uses novel technology, maybe there's a chance it could be affordable.

Nice thing about the rising prices of M technology is that it makes film look like a legitimate and financially viable alternative.
 
Back
Top