Jupiter 8 50/2 L39

Jupiter 8 in Leica screw mount has small body which is perfect to be attached in my Sony NEX
As you can see on left, If We don't see front lens it looks like Leica :D
In fact this lens is copy of Carl Zeiss Sonnar 50/2 for Contax rangefinder.
Many people say about Russian copy of Zeiss, almost same with the one being copied. This conclusion, I believe is true including Jupiter 8.
There are some Jupiter 8 variants according to Sovietcam, this lens code name is PT3030. Seems to be an earliest version of the regular Jupiter-8 lens. Released by KMZ in 1951-1960


This lens isn't razor sharp wide open, I'd choose my yashica ML 50/2 for that purpose, somehow I like its character

Someone on photo.net (2002) even said that this lens is Lens Bargain of the Century

wide open






stepped down

Minolta MD Rokor 35-70/3,5

First of all, I need zoom :D
why this lens?
I heard that this lens design was adapted to Leica. So I was curious how good is it.
My first Minolta lens anyway.
MFD os written 1 meter, not close enough for macro. There's other macro version of this lens

Yashica ML 55/1,2 & Canon FL 55/1,2

My friend offered me his Canon FL 55/1,2. too bad I'm out of cash. it's bargain condition tough
My Yashica has worse body.
I made short comparison in room, available light same setting
ML

FL


Vivid mode
ML

FL


portrait or standard mode
ML

FL

Isco Gotingen 50/1,9 Zeiss planar 50/1,8 & Zenitar 50/1,7

Time to compare these 3 50mm. well maybe it's nit fair as planar isn't good shape, while 2 other is in good condition
I just took this set few minutes ago. same speed 1/80 ISO 800, in front of my Asus, available light, setting portrait.
Interesting result
zenitar


planar


Westrocolor


zenitar


planar


westrocolor

Kiron 105/2,8 MACRO & Leica Elmar 100/4 macro on NEX

This is not scientific test, that's kind of boring test for me :D so it's not represent all copies of both lenses.

My friend allow me to test his Leica elmar 100/4 macro non bellow version against my Kiron 105/2,8

Leica said to be 1:1,75 maginification, while Kiron 1:1

on body it's written 0,6 mmeter MFD, but it can be turned to closer ( about 0,5 in Kiron) 

Kiron has 0,45 MFD

Over all Leica has better control of light & lower contrast while Kiron high contrast & little bit sharper

elmar

kiron

 I forgot which one is elmar/kiron in 2 photos below, can you distinguish them?

elmar

kiron

elmar

kiron

I shot some of this dragon fly, but it cannot be good for comparison 'coz it was in different place also  different setting, but I think Kiron is sharper

kiron

elmar

that's the closest can go for elmar, here's closest of Kiron

Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 20/4 exakta

This is the legendary lens for being non distortion one, very good for architecture. I haven't test it quiet much, '

100% crop from above




100% crop from below

I just play with this lens when I saw A Fly  enjoyed chicken shit, it didn't move. So I took my macro lens, but when I came back, it's gone

auto adjustment in Irfanview

My Exakta IIb cam

Closest distance (it's written 0,16 m)

Volna 9 resurrection!

Doing macro work with Sony NEX is really pain in the ass. This lens was rest for a while.
Finally I can use it properly

crop