Leica Jupiter-3 Plus Compared with Three Rare Sonnar lenses

Digital Technology is coming down in cost, BSI sensors are less expensive to make than CCD's. I would be happy with the M9 and M Monochrom for the rest of my life. My oldest Digital SLR was bought in 1994, still works- but easier to take apart and keep running. Kind of like WALL-E.
 
Hi Brian

Yes....digital technology goes through a deflationary cycle. However, Leica technology is never introduced at bargain prices or attains that status.

Now...the M3 was introduced in the 50's and is still a viable mechanical camera which can be repaired and still operate as intended, although competent repair facilities are dwindling.. Do you honestly believe, really, that you are going to have a functional M9 or Monochrome for the rest of your life.. ? Will there be parts ? Electronic devices are trashed in short order since they have complex circuitry and integrated miniaturized boards and connectors. Sensors degrade. Even Rolex...Rolex does not typically keep parts guaranteed beyond 25 years....and Rolex just went through a process of screwing independent watchmakers by denying them parts which are only kept in rolex repair facilities. in Cuba they are still running 57 Chevy's...but they aren't really Chevy's anymore.....enterprising Cubans have reverse engineered and machined parts to keep these running. Sorry, you can't yet convince me that an M9 will be viable for the rest of your life...:)) M 9 will be as relevant as a Norden bomb site.

Nobody knows what a Wall-E is anymore.
 
Of course you are dealing with someone that writes FORTRAN and Assembly for MS-DOS computers for a living and rebuilds 80 year old lenses for fun. Do I believe that I can keep an M9 running for 20 years- That would be like having a Nikon E3 still working. It does.
 
I've been shooting my J8 at middle to higher f stops . I am curious to see how flare controlled if at al.....and if sharpness improved. aso waiting for mm hood to show up from China. My first impression is that it is not sharp enough at f2 but like you I should start mounting on a tripod before remonstrating.....

My first inclination after receiving it from adjustment was to shoot wide open or close to it.
Hap
 
We've veered a bit from comparing the J-3+ with three rare Sonnars, BUT- this seems to be a good place to put in the Jupiter-8 shots from a lower-cost Sonnar.

This one is now in the hands of a Leicaplace member... It is Specially Modified for 0.65m close-focus, and is in focus across the range.

by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

Both at F2.

And F2 on the M Monochrom with a Yellow filter.

19063008152_3d8623a4e4_b.jpg
G1005267
by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

18882443299_2d6f743323_b.jpg
G1005240
by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

Processed using my Custom FORTRAN code for applying a Gamma curve and converting to 16-bit pixel values.

This lens took a lot of work, ie shortening the focal length and modifying the mount. I bought another Jupiter-8, cannot modify it for close-focus, but it is made in 1957. Like me.
 
Last edited:
YOu can see how shallow DOF is at F2.....eyelashes sharp but other features nearby are not as sharp.

But as you know the cost of a J8 is extremely reasonable. Still fiddling with the critical focus of J9. I would probably have worked it out if I had an M8.

Maybe I will post one or two of my J8 shots if I find something reasonable wide open. Again, tripod mount could be in order.
 
If I understand you correctly, you are implying some degree of backfocus while stopping down as you adjusted this lens to focus correctly wide open? Wouldn't DOF generally compensate for minor backfocus at reasonable distances?

Hap
 
If I understand you correctly, you are implying some degree of backfocus while stopping down as you adjusted this lens to focus correctly wide open? Wouldn't DOF generally compensate for minor backfocus at reasonable distances?

Hap

A rangefinder has no idea at what aperture you've focused at, so stopping the lens down makes no difference to the eye, unlike live view.
It all depends on what aperture the lens was calibrated at for precise focus. Usually wide open, to f2.8, so shift would occur between f4/5.6.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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

Any A7 version with the Kolari thin filter mod is right in there with M240 and M9. I like the v2 Kolari, which is .8mm, as opposed to the stock sony 1.9mm cover glass. That mod costs 400 or 500 depending on the A7 version and is well supported by Kolari.

Here's the 28 cron on the v1 Kolari:
17295224422_3a8225c64e_b.jpg

Old Hotel
by unoh7, on Flickr

And the SEM 21:
21878493909_6982ff95a7_b.jpg

Light up the leaves
by unoh7, on Flickr

What about a Sonnar? Here's the Nikkor S 50/1.4 WO, now on an unmodified A7r:
11229639893_9f4f56e581_b.jpg

Vic
by unoh7, on Flickr

So, for your samples a stock A7r2 would shoot the sonnars great because the FC induced by the thicker cover would not matter. There is nothing at the edges except the grass and it would still show sharpness, but closer compared to the center. It's the landscapes that gives everyone, including me, fits with the Sonys unmodified. Wide open shots seldom demand flat sharp edges---10%? Most everybody puts the subject in the center and fires away LOL.

But with the thin filter mod you get the lens at near film flatness, like the M9. Here is the Sonnetar around 1.5 on the A7.mod:
21304942373_6afd9becdb_b.jpg

Cold Comfort
by unoh7, on Flickr

Film is flatter yet than the M9, as I'm sure you are aware, Brian. There are a number of small wides which are much better on film than a M9, like the CV 21 and that slow zeiss 21. But the bottom line is a used A7 is 700+400 for thin filter mod and for 1100 you have a very strong M shooter which can use any lens the M9 likes to good advantage: right out to the edges. :)

I still prefer my M9, and they are down to 2200, but the Sony mod makes a superb companion, because it not only does M well, but shoots my 500/4 P Nikkor like a dream :)

Anyway I love your sets with the sonnars, Brian, and it's very interesting to see the wartime Sonnar basically win the contest. At f/4 I think the J3+ is right with it, but wide open, my eye says the wartime sonnar wins in these samples. It's also so interesting to see how warm the other sonnars shoot.

Thank you so much for the report :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The j8 was adjusted by Brian at f2. ....close focus to infinity. I know the rf has no idea of the aperture...but I do. He is telling me that stopping down will produce back focus. I could figure out on a live view m....but on analog need to guess and practice the amount to nudge the focus compensation.
 
We've veered a bit from comparing the J-3+ with three rare Sonnars, BUT- this seems to be a good place to put in the Jupiter-8 shots from a lower-cost Sonnar.

This one is now in the hands of a Leicaplace member... It is Specially Modified for 0.65m close-focus, and is in focus across the range.

17920415424_ab11a13e29_o.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
L1016243 by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

18355418040_fd07ebef97_o.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
L1016254 by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

Both at F2.

And F2 on the M Monochrom with a Yellow filter.

19063008152_3d8623a4e4_b.jpg
G1005267
by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

18882443299_2d6f743323_b.jpg
G1005240
by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

Processed using my Custom FORTRAN code for applying a Gamma curve and converting to 16-bit pixel values.

This lens took a lot of work, ie shortening the focal length and modifying the mount. I bought another Jupiter-8, cannot modify it for close-focus, but it is made in 1957. Like me.
That looks like my Jupiter 8!
 
The j8 was adjusted by Brian at f2. ....close focus to infinity. I know the rf has no idea of the aperture...but I do. He is telling me that stopping down will produce back focus. I could figure out on a live view m....but on analog need to guess and practice the amount to nudge the focus compensation.

I don't think it would be nearly as noticeable shooting film, it seems to be more profound on digital.
My 50 ZM Sonnar was fine on my analog M's, but shift was certainly noticeable on my M240/246.
I had to either adjust the focus slightly, or lean in about an inch, which I found easier.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's possible. If you read Dante Stella's review of the ms optical 50 1.1 Sonnetar ( my lens too) he discusses in detail with suggestions to use lens align to quantify on digital and semi quantify on analog. But Sonnetar has coma adjustment which has the added effect of changing focal length, partly what the adjustment is about..

In reality this done automatically on floating element modern lenses. Miyazaki leaves the effect and degree up to photog. Aberrations on demand.
 
On my j9.....focus with rf through distance range towards back focus. I turn thr focus ring 1-2mm shorter to compensate. Shimming too difficult I am told. More complicated than j8 or3
 
Film is thinner than the digital stack, but is not as flat. Manufacturers have to make assumptions on how film sits in the chamber of the camera to adjust lenses. I had to use one layer of copper tape on the RF cams of the 35/1.2 V1 Nokton and the 50/1.1 Nokton to have them focus perfectly on my M9.

Sonnar formula lenses have a great amount of spherical aberration at F1.5 which spreads out the DOF. Imagine the light from the center of the lens being at a different plane than the light from the edges. More light from the edges- hence the best point of focus is at that plane. But- the plane produced at the center and every point along the radius of the lens is falling into a different plane.
 
Back
Top