Originally Posted by brucemuir
sorry didn't notice this was the rangefinder forum
Jupiter 12 is very sharp lens, even wide open, especially a good sample of the black paint ones, from the 70's and upwards.
However, old Jupiter 12 from the late 50's could match the vintage vibe better.
As Nicholas Lindan wrote already, there is no lens @ 35mm focal length that will even come close to the signature of Jupiter 3.
Every focal length has its specific signature and there are brands that add or extract certain properties.. the Leitz Elmars from its 35mm to 135mm is a very good example - besides the differences, they have something common pretty much the same optical formula, they are very sharp and with sufficient contrast, even the uncoated ones. The Zeiss Sonnars are a good examples for other brand specific qualities.
The early Jupiter 3, in fact, were using original Zeiss parts brought from Jena by the russians - hence they are very very desired and hard to find.
A lot of countries from the WWll "wining" ally got their hands onto Zeiss, Leitz and lots of other top brands data and tools around the war time, so thats how You have canons, nikons and other new comers that initially copied Zeiss and Leitz.
1st nikons are pretty much Zeiss identical
1st canons are pretty much Leica copies
Things haven't changed enormously, since, they are slightly improved but since more and more people are wearing glasses these days.. its gets really hard to say if the new lenses are better or the old ones
If You like the Jupiter 3, then You might check into some of the Zeiss stuff or copies but, then again, everything under 50mm is going to have a different character, DOF etc, etc.
I want to add Georgs notes. Nikon copied 50 mm Elmar, because there was no Leitz patent in Japan and 9 million unit sold. Its difficult to know whos hand in whos pocket.
And for SLRs , 58 mm Helios Zenit lens is a Biogon copy and daylight pictures are amazing.
Short , If you happy with your lens , contuniue to use it until you collect enough money for Leica.
We have a word here , dont change the horse , when you are crossing a river.
Sometimes , the problem is photographer , not the lens , when someone complaining not able to compose with 50mm. Some photographers create large format like pictures with 50 mm.
If you need Zeiss , look Kiev 60 and a east German Soviet Zeiss Jena. Changing format makes you happy and total cost will be similar
A good (relative) bargain amongst the Leica lenses is the 35 Summaron. They came in two versions, F2.8 and F3.5. The 3.5 version in screwmount is often fairly cheap for a lens from Leitz.
I've got the 2.8 version--with goggles, for my M3--and it's extraordinarily sharp. I haven't really shot it much wide-open, as I generally like more extensive depth of field, but I'd say it would come close to giving a 3D look used that way. Of course, as others have pointed out, a fast 50 will give even more of that sort of thing owing to the shallower depth of field of the longer lens and the wider aperture.
Summaron , one amazing lens. If you look 25000 dollar Leica S2 , one or two lens is still a Summaron design. Old ones will satisfy all your needs and more. I have 1957 Popular Photography Annal and light spreads on the subject like a dream , if you know Leica , You would know what I do mean. And its extremelly 3D.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Voigtländer Vitessa-L with the 50/2.0 Ultron.
...scratching my head...trying to figure out what meant by "that 3D look"...????
Someone mentioned that a 35mm lens would give you in focus backgrounds, even at f/1.4. I shot this at f/2 on a 35 f/1.4L and the background is nicely blurred, I think. And there's plenty of separation between subject and background:
Ultimately, Photography is subversive, not when it frightens, repels, or even stigmatizes, but when it is pensive, when it thinks. --from Camera Lucida, Roland Barthes
Cameras: Canon 5D2 | Ricoh GRD III | Fuji Klasse
Reply to BradS
Most photos are simply flat, as you would expect them to be. But with the Jupiter 3 I often get photos with some apparent depth to them. It is certainly not as pronounced as stereo photos, but stlll noticable. If you search Flickr for Jupiter 3, as you brouse the photos you will see some examples of the 3D effect. Here is one I noticed right away: flickr.com/photos/blazejs/3382732112/
Originally Posted by BradS
I think it is a combination of the creamy bokeh caused by the large number of aperture blades, shooting wide open, and having the subject as close as possible to the camera. It helps if the subject has texture. I particularly like knarly trees and old wooden buildings.
I'm going to try the Jupiter 12 for the 35MM focal length.
@ziggy7 - Jupiter 12 have a lot less aperture blades than Jupiter 3.
When stopped down, the J 12 iris is of a pentagonal shape.
@matthewm - thumbs up for the Roland Barthes quote.
btw: we were commenting about the DOF of Jupiter 12, the shot You posted, if I am not mistaken is with SLR.
The Jupiter 12 @ its wide open f/2.8 will have the house on Your shot a bit more in focus.
Last time I used J 12 @f/2,8 was inside Madrid Barajas airport, I was focusing on a friend of mine at a coffee table standing 3 or 4 steps away - everything in the frame is in focus, hundreds of steps away. I have to check my archives if we want to go into detail.
@Monito, its a game of words, You say David Douglas Duncan, I say The Photographers of Magnum Photos.
You say "Japanese manufacturers came out with new fast designs", I say the same way the US presented Kodak and Fuji with Agfa's data after the war?..
@benjiboy, "racial stereotypes" exists in countries specializing in slavery up until recently.
I am from the Balkans, we don't care about racial stuff, because we've never had an allies for more than a few seasons.., a werewolves we are, like Dracula