I love these comparisons. I have two copies of the Jupiter-8, and they're almost as different from one another as they are from my Summitar. The earlier Jupiter is a bit softer, exhibiting some veiling wide open. (I've cleaned all the elements - the glass is spotless, and there's no separation or flaws in the coating. Just slightly less optically perfect?) The later copy, a black body beauty, is clearer wide open, but doesn't have as much of that lovely colour shift that the older one has. It's slightly more contrasty, as well, but by f/4, there's not much between them. A different look. The Summitar is, well, a Summitar. The lens is legendary for many reasons. And, yes, I'm keeping them all, using them at whim to suit my mood. Have you experimented with doing lens profiling in post to shift their colour rendering and contrast closer to one another?
I love my Summitar - the centre sharpness is up there with a Summicron, and but for a small tendency to flare when there is a strong light source ahead of the lens (I must get a hood), it works brilliantly in black and white, and reasonably well with colour. Like all old lenses, it's as much about the example you are shooting, but mine is beautiful.
It is indeed a beautiful thing, both in terms of engineering and the images it makes. I've never used a Leica lens before this one and was sometimes a little suspicious of what might be called the mystique surrounding them. In my relatively brief experience with this one I've found it makes images that have a unique and uniquely pleasing look, even though the difference between these and those made by other lenses is, technically at least, quite small. I love it, hope you're enjoying yours!
I bought the Leica this week and man that is the absolute sharpest lens I've used next to the Sears Auto 55 mm 1.4 and the Jupiter 37a. Worth every penny.
I have a mid-1930s example of the Summitar’s predecessor, the Summar. It has much the same swirly bokeh but not nearly the same resolving capabilities. :) I’m also a fan of Sonnar lens designs like the Jupiter 3 & 8 and their Zeiss counterparts. The Summitar, though, represents the next step forward in design.
Recently my brother who is not into photography gave me back my father's Leica IIIf with a Sumitar 50 f2 on it. The camera is from 1949 and had been lubed and calibrated in the 1980s. The camera amazingly functions perfectly except the cloth shutter was partly detached. I took the lens that is still in excellent condition and took some pictures with my Sony A7RII and wow...very sharp and especially attractive in black and white, colors are also quite good but the sharpness and grey scales that this lens produce is as you say...magical. My debate now is if I should repair the cloth shutter, as repairing it cost US$250, nearly the price of buying another used IIIf. Actually the repair man said I should just buy another one. But, this one is my late father's favorite, and I am thinking I should repair it. Or, just let it sit on top of my shelf as an ornament? Decisions, decisions.....Please advise!
about myself....I am 65, and I am into photography, but very seldom took film, although I have several film camera....Nikon fm2, Voigtlander R2 and a Petax 645, The last time I took use them was three years ago though.
I'd repair it. It clearly has value for you other than its monetary worth, also if you buy another Leica, it may need repairs too! I like old machinery of all kinds and find there's a special feeling in keeping it alive; they aren't made any more and each one saved is another one preserved. If it was me I'd bring it back to good condition and enjoy it!
@@zenography7923 Thank you sir! That is indeed the perfect answer. I have no incentive to buy another camera that was not personally used by my father, and frankly, I have used it 50+ years ago when i was only 14 or 15, and this kind of connection is priceless. BTW, my brother who gave me this camera said he would pay for it....that closes the deal doesn't it? Thank you again for your excellent advise and yes, saving one more old camera is a noble cause too.
@@zenography7923 Just want to thank you again. I took it to a vintage camera shop in Hong Kong. The person checked it and said the cloth shutter was only partially detached with the sewing loose, and the cloth itself is intact which is important, since nobody makes cloth shutter anymore. So that was a month ago, and the camera is repaired costing about US$125 dollars. I am now going through my first roll of film. Thank you again.
I have a pair of Leica Summilux 1.8 lenses on my Huawei p10 plus smartphone. When I use it in aperture mode I get wonderful bokeh. I also have a Zorki 4k with the awesome Jupiter 8 50mm f2 lens. Used with Ilford XP2 400 black and white film I get terrific sharpness and wonderful bokey at f2. Unbeatable and reasonably priced
I have a Jupiter 8 which normally lives on a Zorki 4. This afternoon I took a few test shots with it mounted on a Nikon 1 J1. Looks pretty good and angle of view just about equal to a 135 mm lens on a 45 mm camera. The lens is small enough that it doesn’t feel too out of place on the tiny Nikon.
They're both nice lenses, but I think the Leitz has a magic that the Jupiter can't quite match. Having said that, the Jupiter has it's own unique look and I do like it very much.
Thank you for a very informative video! I have both lenses that I have recently found in my deceased father’s collection. I would like to do my own testing on my Sony A7C so please excuse my ignorance when I ask if you test lenses in RAW or jpeg?
I usually shoot in jpeg - I don't usually post process as I like to keep things as simple as possible. If I were doing a commercial shoot I'd use raw, but not otherwise.
It’s tragic for the Jupiter 8 you possessed for this video. I have a Jupiter 8 that maybe a more recent edition and I must say: it’s about as perfect as a lens can be. It’s smooth and deliberate in both the focus barrel and f-stop ring. Mine is also quite clean and the glass is super clean. My 2 cents: fingers crossed with that model you end up with should anyone order one. It’s not a Leica but a good version is a great value! 👍
I don't have the Jupiter 8 but have a Jupiter 3 50mm f1.5 that is in good shape and takes great picture, with dreamy bokeh albeit images that are a tad soft. i wonder if you have experience with Jupiter 3 and its comparison to the jupiter 8? I do have the Leica Summitar 50 and no doubt it is a better lens than both Jupiters.
I only ever used the J3 very briefly, not enough to get an idea of its characteristics. The Summitar is much more nicely made than the Jupiters, but optically there really isn't much between them!
I took some pictures wide open with the Summitar and the Jupiter3 with aperture wide open. Interesting to note that the 2.0 Summitar actually is brighter than the 1.5 Jupiter. And the bokeh with the Summitar better also. But because the Jupiter is coated and the Summitar not, against light source head on, the Jupiter 3 is much better.
I have both and given the ages they are they all need cleaning. I took apart and cleaned the Jupiter but hesitating doing the same for my Summitar. Any advice?
Like you, I haven't plucked up the courage to open my Summitar, but I wouldn't think it's too difficult if you're handy with a lens spanner. Unless you have lots of practice I'd always advise doing the minimum dismantling required to service lenses. Sorry I can't be of more help!
Question: I have a Jupiter 8 and an Industar and use an M39 adapter to mount them on my D800. In both cases what I end up with are superb macro lenses. I though I was sent the wrong adapter ring but now I have three adapter rings and I like the macro function very much BUT what adapter do I actually need to use these lenses as “normal” lenses? (I have been looking for this info but so far have been unsuccessful) Thank you!
Unfortunately, you can't mount rangefinder lenses on an slr or dslr and use them as normal - they'll only ever give a macro image because they're made to focus much nearer to the rear of the lens than slr lenses are. Mirrorless cameras are a different matter - the sensor is even closer to the lens than it is in a rangefinder, so by adding length with an adaptor you can achieve the right distance. To mount them on a dslr you'd need to remove distance - which can't be done I'm afraid!
@@zenography7923 Fair enough! Thank you for the CLEAR answer! and providing the distinction between what works and what does not AND WHY. Thank you again!!
Hi, I'm enjoying your videos. I'd be very interested if you could do a review of the Leica Summar 50mm f2 lens. Hopefully, you could find one to try! Thanks
PS. The first and last shot displayed the differences really well. The last shot especially. I would hardly have given the post shot a second look, but for whatever reason, the Leica image held my attention and interest much, much more. Do you have any interest in 8mm or 16mm movie cameras (pre 1970)? I have a few Soviet and Western models and I like them just for the look and engineering and they are nice to fiddle with (play with!) - I don't use them (of course I had every intention to use them...but..).
I know what you mean, there is something about the images this lens makes which I can't quantify but just seems pleasing. And yes, I'm fascinated by movie cameras. Terry Gilliam (I think it was Terry Gilliam) called them 'the last machine' (though I think that might be more accurately applied to the internal combustion engine). Nevertheless a mechanically produced moving image is quite a wondrous thing, simple but somehow beautiful. I believe Quentin Tarantino won't use digital movie cameras; he says they take away the magic and the nature of the illusion and I can entirely see what he means. Other directors too will still only use film; I think at least one of the recent Star Wars films was shot on film, perhaps more. Unlikely that a Zenography episode will be shot this way, but how nice it would be to do so!
@@zenography7923 I have a Bell & Howell next to me on a tripod, wound up, ready for action... (I won't leave it wound up too long though)) It is the same model that caught JFK being shot. They are a fuss to work with - I know I shouldn't admit it here, but when I first got a digital camera I thought it was just mind blowing. I loved it. Getting an image immediately and fiddling with it. It was amazing then when they first arrived.
@@martinda7446 I don't think there's any shame in admitting that - digital cameras are an amazing thing; like any technology they're a tool that enables us to do stuff - in this case, stuff that film based systems can't do. That Bell and Howell sounds nice - it deserves some film!
It would be interesting to compare the lenses for far-field objects, where (I suspect?) the lenses have been computed for best performances. At f2, f2.8 etc, near-field shots will always produce a softness at the edges and corners due to (for one) natural curvature of field. Just a suggestion Zeno, but If you still have the Leitz lens, try a set of horizon (or ~100metre) shots from f2 to f11 on both. Incidentally, who is to say that the Leitz or Jupiter 8 has the better colour rendition? - I say this as I cannot recall exacty how a scene looked in colour. ;o) Thanks for your videos Mr Zeno. I always enjoy them!
Thanks James, glad you're enjoying the videos! It would be interesting to try a set of shots as you suggest, to fully determine the technical differences. Your point about colour rendition is spot on; there's no objective way to measure it. As I've probably said before, a photo is a representation or symbol of reality (whatever reality is) and our experience of reality is a very different thing in which attention is selective and perception is unique to the perceiver. That's why for me the notion of realism in photography is not one I really go for. An image might feel real in some way or other, but it's very different to actual experience. Whatever that is...
Glad you enjoyed the video, thanks for watching! And as for colour rendition, who indeed is to say which is best? Much of it is personal preference, and personally I don't think photography is about capturing reality, whatever that is, but creating a pleasing image!
Bought a Jupiter-8 recently for $20... it was well worth the money. It's rather sharp at f8-11. I found it having a bit of reddish color rendering. Way too soft at f2, but starts getting sharp at the center around f2.4. It's very good for portrait, nice bokeh. It has a bit of ghosting - hazing - smoothing effect at wide apertures which is quite unique. It's also super light and the L39-EOSM adapter is also very light. It's in the same ballpark with Helios 44-2, but much less bukly. Sadly, no swirly bokeh but still I love how it renders everything so silky smooth.
Yes, yes and again yes! Don't try it! The only collapsible I know of that will collapse without damage on the a7 body is the 1930s Fed 10 (also known as Fed/Industar 10). There may be others, but I don't think the Summitar is one of them!
It can't be done I'm afraid. Rangefinder lenses focus much nearer than SLR or DSLR lenses, so the focus point would never reach your sensor. It mounts on mirrorless cameras because the distance from the back of the lens to the sensor is even smaller than in a rangefinder, so the right distance can be achieved with an adaptor. Sorry!
The Leica was pampered because it is a Leica, and that Jupiter was obviously kicked around like a stepchild since birth. I don't bother with vintage Russian lenses for that reason.
The Jupiter does look a bit beat up, but it's mechanically and optically excellent. Strangely enough I like this particular Jupiter because of its battle scars!
@@zenography7923 .....according to your video ( at 3:30 ), your Jupiter is not quite so sound mechanically , maybe optically so. With Russian glass, it's a lot of miss before a hit. You lucked out! Anyway, I enjoy watching you get all misty-eyed and poetic about these battle-scarred vintage lenses. Please carry on.
None at all for this video I'm afraid, all shot digitally on the Sony A7. All are straight out of camera with no processing, except the black and white shots of the mannequins. I'll be doing some film shots soon though...
The Summitar does seem sharper than the Jupiter to my eye; as I understand it, it's quite well known for being a pretty sharp lens, if a little soft at the edges. Thanks for watching.
Aesthetically speaking, probably not, but I guess if you particularly want a Leica, and can afford it, then it's worth it! I appreciate the engineering quality of the Leica, and I love the images it makes, but I do like the little Jupiter and its more rough and ready approach - and it makes great images too!
Still relevant in 2024 thank you Nigel....you were very humbled by the Summitar I could tell...
Old glass and modern system camera is my jam. Been using this format since i start learning photography.
I love this vid.
What a piece of glass.
Many thanks, glad you enjoyed it!
I could watch your reviews day and night. They are a real therapy for me.
Many thanks Dan, glad you're enjoying them!
I love these comparisons. I have two copies of the Jupiter-8, and they're almost as different from one another as they are from my Summitar. The earlier Jupiter is a bit softer, exhibiting some veiling wide open. (I've cleaned all the elements - the glass is spotless, and there's no separation or flaws in the coating. Just slightly less optically perfect?) The later copy, a black body beauty, is clearer wide open, but doesn't have as much of that lovely colour shift that the older one has. It's slightly more contrasty, as well, but by f/4, there's not much between them. A different look. The Summitar is, well, a Summitar. The lens is legendary for many reasons. And, yes, I'm keeping them all, using them at whim to suit my mood.
Have you experimented with doing lens profiling in post to shift their colour rendering and contrast closer to one another?
I watched the whole video trying to decide if you look like Steve Buscemi or Christopher Walken.
Either is fine with me - two of my favourite actors!
@@zenography7923 I think now you're one of my screen favourites too. I'm subscribed and binge watching the channel since yesterday.
@@SatanSupimpa Many thanks, glad you're enjoying it!
Or, brother of Richard E. Grant
Looks like Christopher buscemi
Thanks for this! I have a Nikkor H.C Auto 50mm F/2 L39 Mount. That one is a gem for the price.
I'm not familiar with this lens, it must be quite rare? Sounds very nice indeed.
Really a delight to see that beautiful lens. You can tell how much you love these things, which is wonderful. Much appreciated.
Many thanks, glad you enjoyed the video!
Many thanks, glad you enjoyed it! I'm glad my love for these old machines comes across!
I love my Summitar - the centre sharpness is up there with a Summicron, and but for a small tendency to flare when there is a strong light source ahead of the lens (I must get a hood), it works brilliantly in black and white, and reasonably well with colour. Like all old lenses, it's as much about the example you are shooting, but mine is beautiful.
It is indeed a beautiful thing, both in terms of engineering and the images it makes. I've never used a Leica lens before this one and was sometimes a little suspicious of what might be called the mystique surrounding them. In my relatively brief experience with this one I've found it makes images that have a unique and uniquely pleasing look, even though the difference between these and those made by other lenses is, technically at least, quite small. I love it, hope you're enjoying yours!
I bought the Leica this week and man that is the absolute sharpest lens I've used next to the Sears Auto 55 mm 1.4 and the Jupiter 37a. Worth every penny.
Still interesting and relevant in 2021. Thank you
Thanks Igor, very glad you enjoyed it!
What a great side-by-side comparison! Wonderful content.
I have a mid-1930s example of the Summitar’s predecessor, the Summar. It has much the same swirly bokeh but not nearly the same resolving capabilities. :) I’m also a fan of Sonnar lens designs like the Jupiter 3 & 8 and their Zeiss counterparts. The Summitar, though, represents the next step forward in design.
The Summitar is indeed lovely, though I hear good things about the Summar too... Thanks for watching!
Recently my brother who is not into photography gave me back my father's Leica IIIf with a Sumitar 50 f2 on it. The camera is from 1949 and had been lubed and calibrated in the 1980s. The camera amazingly functions perfectly except the cloth shutter was partly detached. I took the lens that is still in excellent condition and took some pictures with my Sony A7RII and wow...very sharp and especially attractive in black and white, colors are also quite good but the sharpness and grey scales that this lens produce is as you say...magical. My debate now is if I should repair the cloth shutter, as repairing it cost US$250, nearly the price of buying another used IIIf. Actually the repair man said I should just buy another one. But, this one is my late father's favorite, and I am thinking I should repair it. Or, just let it sit on top of my shelf as an ornament? Decisions, decisions.....Please advise!
about myself....I am 65, and I am into photography, but very seldom took film, although I have several film camera....Nikon fm2, Voigtlander R2 and a Petax 645, The last time I took use them was three years ago though.
I'd repair it. It clearly has value for you other than its monetary worth, also if you buy another Leica, it may need repairs too! I like old machinery of all kinds and find there's a special feeling in keeping it alive; they aren't made any more and each one saved is another one preserved. If it was me I'd bring it back to good condition and enjoy it!
@@zenography7923 Thank you sir! That is indeed the perfect answer. I have no incentive to buy another camera that was not personally used by my father, and frankly, I have used it 50+ years ago when i was only 14 or 15, and this kind of connection is priceless. BTW, my brother who gave me this camera said he would pay for it....that closes the deal doesn't it? Thank you again for your excellent advise and yes, saving one more old camera is a noble cause too.
@@zenography7923 Just want to thank you again. I took it to a vintage camera shop in Hong Kong. The person checked it and said the cloth shutter was only partially detached with the sewing loose, and the cloth itself is intact which is important, since nobody makes cloth shutter anymore. So that was a month ago, and the camera is repaired costing about US$125 dollars. I am now going through my first roll of film. Thank you again.
Both lenses are excellent and both have their place in photography
Agreed!
I have a jupiter 8 a black one not sure about year...might adapt in for my Nikon F301 film camera too??
Great video! Very interesting to see them compared like that.
Many thanks, glad you enjoyed it!
Just discovered your channel and I am loving the content. Good work.
Many thanks, glad you're enjoying it!
I have a pair of Leica Summilux 1.8 lenses on my Huawei p10 plus smartphone. When I use it in aperture mode I get wonderful bokeh.
I also have a Zorki 4k with the awesome Jupiter 8 50mm f2 lens.
Used with Ilford XP2 400 black and white film I get terrific sharpness and wonderful bokey at f2.
Unbeatable and reasonably priced
The Jupiter is a fantastic lens, rather under rated in my view!
I have a Jupiter 8 which normally lives on a Zorki 4. This afternoon I took a few test shots with it mounted on a Nikon 1 J1. Looks pretty good and angle of view just about equal to a 135 mm lens on a 45 mm camera. The lens is small enough that it doesn’t feel too out of place on the tiny Nikon.
The J8's a great little lens, still somewhat under-rated I think, but still cheap too!
Thanks. I have a Jupiter 8. Per your review, I prefer the images from the Jupiter 8. You are right: They are "cooler." Le
itz is nice, though.
They're both nice lenses, but I think the Leitz has a magic that the Jupiter can't quite match. Having said that, the Jupiter has it's own unique look and I do like it very much.
How about the summar ( uncoated version with 12.5 min aparatura), should i use the summar vs the jupiter ?
Summitars are well known or their ability to produce swirley bokeh, I lov em:)
It's just lovely, one of the nicest lenses I've ever used. As you probably noticed, I'm definitely a fan!
a couple of his images looked like Dorothy going to Oz....
Thank you for a very informative video! I have both lenses that I have recently found in my deceased father’s collection. I would like to do my own testing on my Sony A7C so please excuse my ignorance when I ask if you test lenses in RAW or jpeg?
I usually shoot in jpeg - I don't usually post process as I like to keep things as simple as possible. If I were doing a commercial shoot I'd use raw, but not otherwise.
@@zenography7923 thank you! You answered my question and concern.
Great channel. You should be at at least 100k subs based on your qaulity videos . Love your channel.
Thanks, that's very kind! Glad you're enjoying the channel, and thanks for watching.
It’s tragic for the Jupiter 8 you possessed for this video. I have a Jupiter 8 that maybe a more recent edition and I must say: it’s about as perfect as a lens can be. It’s smooth and deliberate in both the focus barrel and f-stop ring. Mine is also quite clean and the glass is super clean. My 2 cents: fingers crossed with that model you end up with should anyone order one. It’s not a Leica but a good version is a great value! 👍
I've found all the Jupiters to be pretty good, but the one in the video is my favourite - it just seems to have the edge over other the others!
I don't have the Jupiter 8 but have a Jupiter 3 50mm f1.5 that is in good shape and takes great picture, with dreamy bokeh albeit images that are a tad soft. i wonder if you have experience with Jupiter 3 and its comparison to the jupiter 8? I do have the Leica Summitar 50 and no doubt it is a better lens than both Jupiters.
I only ever used the J3 very briefly, not enough to get an idea of its characteristics. The Summitar is much more nicely made than the Jupiters, but optically there really isn't much between them!
I took some pictures wide open with the Summitar and the Jupiter3 with aperture wide open. Interesting to note that the 2.0 Summitar actually is brighter than the 1.5 Jupiter. And the bokeh with the Summitar better also. But because the Jupiter is coated and the Summitar not, against light source head on, the Jupiter 3 is much better.
I have both and given the ages they are they all need cleaning. I took apart and cleaned the Jupiter but hesitating doing the same for my Summitar. Any advice?
Like you, I haven't plucked up the courage to open my Summitar, but I wouldn't think it's too difficult if you're handy with a lens spanner. Unless you have lots of practice I'd always advise doing the minimum dismantling required to service lenses. Sorry I can't be of more help!
On the Leica Summitar f2 you demonstrate, would you use a daylight protection lens as well - or are you just very carful? Regards Mike
I'm careful. I'd like to put a filter over this lens but the fitting is unusual, and they're quite rare too!
Question: I have a Jupiter 8 and an Industar and use an M39 adapter to mount them on my D800. In both cases what I end up with are superb macro lenses. I though I was sent the wrong adapter ring but now I have three adapter rings and I like the macro function very much BUT what adapter do I actually need to use these lenses as “normal” lenses? (I have been looking for this info but so far have been unsuccessful)
Thank you!
Unfortunately, you can't mount rangefinder lenses on an slr or dslr and use them as normal - they'll only ever give a macro image because they're made to focus much nearer to the rear of the lens than slr lenses are. Mirrorless cameras are a different matter - the sensor is even closer to the lens than it is in a rangefinder, so by adding length with an adaptor you can achieve the right distance. To mount them on a dslr you'd need to remove distance - which can't be done I'm afraid!
@@zenography7923 Fair enough! Thank you for the CLEAR answer! and providing the distinction between what works and what does not AND WHY. Thank you again!!
Hi, I'm enjoying your videos. I'd be very interested if you could do a review of the Leica Summar 50mm f2 lens.
Hopefully, you could find one to try!
Thanks
I'd love to try a Summar, should one come my way!
PS. The first and last shot displayed the differences really well. The last shot especially. I would hardly have given the post shot a second look, but for whatever reason, the Leica image held my attention and interest much, much more.
Do you have any interest in 8mm or 16mm movie cameras (pre 1970)? I have a few Soviet and Western models and I like them just for the look and engineering and they are nice to fiddle with (play with!) - I don't use them (of course I had every intention to use them...but..).
I know what you mean, there is something about the images this lens makes which I can't quantify but just seems pleasing. And yes, I'm fascinated by movie cameras. Terry Gilliam (I think it was Terry Gilliam) called them 'the last machine' (though I think that might be more accurately applied to the internal combustion engine). Nevertheless a mechanically produced moving image is quite a wondrous thing, simple but somehow beautiful. I believe Quentin Tarantino won't use digital movie cameras; he says they take away the magic and the nature of the illusion and I can entirely see what he means. Other directors too will still only use film; I think at least one of the recent Star Wars films was shot on film, perhaps more. Unlikely that a Zenography episode will be shot this way, but how nice it would be to do so!
@@zenography7923 I have a Bell & Howell next to me on a tripod, wound up, ready for action... (I won't leave it wound up too long though))
It is the same model that caught JFK being shot.
They are a fuss to work with - I know I shouldn't admit it here, but when I first got a digital camera I thought it was just mind blowing. I loved it. Getting an image immediately and fiddling with it. It was amazing then when they first arrived.
@@martinda7446 I don't think there's any shame in admitting that - digital cameras are an amazing thing; like any technology they're a tool that enables us to do stuff - in this case, stuff that film based systems can't do. That Bell and Howell sounds nice - it deserves some film!
I have a jupiter connected to my Leica M3....its sharp!
The Jupiter 8 is a very nice lens indeed - one of my favourites!
It would be interesting to compare the lenses for far-field objects, where (I suspect?) the lenses have been computed for best performances. At f2, f2.8 etc, near-field shots will always produce a softness at the edges and corners due to (for one) natural curvature of field. Just a suggestion Zeno, but If you still have the Leitz lens, try a set of horizon (or ~100metre) shots from f2 to f11 on both.
Incidentally, who is to say that the Leitz or Jupiter 8 has the better colour rendition? - I say this as I cannot recall exacty how a scene looked in colour. ;o)
Thanks for your videos Mr Zeno. I always enjoy them!
Thanks James, glad you're enjoying the videos! It would be interesting to try a set of shots as you suggest, to fully determine the technical differences. Your point about colour rendition is spot on; there's no objective way to measure it. As I've probably said before, a photo is a representation or symbol of reality (whatever reality is) and our experience of reality is a very different thing in which attention is selective and perception is unique to the perceiver. That's why for me the notion of realism in photography is not one I really go for. An image might feel real in some way or other, but it's very different to actual experience. Whatever that is...
Glad you enjoyed the video, thanks for watching! And as for colour rendition, who indeed is to say which is best? Much of it is personal preference, and personally I don't think photography is about capturing reality, whatever that is, but creating a pleasing image!
which lens are you shooting with here?
I shot this one with my panasonic gh2 and czj 35mm flektogon f4 - a very nice lens indeed!
Jupiter is awesome.
It really is, and for the price it's quite something!
love it
Thanks, glad you enjoyed it!
12:33 The red rendering was probably mandatory for soviet lenses
Bought a Jupiter-8 recently for $20... it was well worth the money. It's rather sharp at f8-11. I found it having a bit of reddish color rendering. Way too soft at f2, but starts getting sharp at the center around f2.4. It's very good for portrait, nice bokeh. It has a bit of ghosting - hazing - smoothing effect at wide apertures which is quite unique. It's also super light and the L39-EOSM adapter is also very light. It's in the same ballpark with Helios 44-2, but much less bukly. Sadly, no swirly bokeh but still I love how it renders everything so silky smooth.
I love the J8, hope you're enjoying yours!
If you collapse the Leica Summitar f2 lens on the Sony A7, will it hit the sensor?
Yes, yes and again yes! Don't try it! The only collapsible I know of that will collapse without damage on the a7 body is the 1930s Fed 10 (also known as Fed/Industar 10). There may be others, but I don't think the Summitar is one of them!
I use a summitar on my a7 it never hit my sensor when i retract it.
how do you put the leica on a canon EF dslr?
It can't be done I'm afraid. Rangefinder lenses focus much nearer than SLR or DSLR lenses, so the focus point would never reach your sensor. It mounts on mirrorless cameras because the distance from the back of the lens to the sensor is even smaller than in a rangefinder, so the right distance can be achieved with an adaptor. Sorry!
The Leica was pampered because it is a Leica, and that Jupiter was obviously kicked around like a stepchild since birth. I don't bother with vintage Russian lenses for that reason.
The Jupiter does look a bit beat up, but it's mechanically and optically excellent. Strangely enough I like this particular Jupiter because of its battle scars!
@@zenography7923 .....according to your video ( at 3:30 ), your Jupiter is not quite so sound mechanically , maybe optically so. With Russian glass, it's a lot of miss before a hit. You lucked out! Anyway, I enjoy watching you get all misty-eyed and poetic about these battle-scarred vintage lenses. Please carry on.
Will the sumitar fit on a Bessa r?
Yes, absolutely!
What film stocks did you use?
None at all for this video I'm afraid, all shot digitally on the Sony A7. All are straight out of camera with no processing, except the black and white shots of the mannequins. I'll be doing some film shots soon though...
All shot digitally on the A7. Thanks for watching!
It’s like Honda and Ferrari. Honda is awesome.
10:45 Summitar SHARPER? Are you looking at the out of focus trees and headstones?
The Summitar does seem sharper than the Jupiter to my eye; as I understand it, it's quite well known for being a pretty sharp lens, if a little soft at the edges. Thanks for watching.
Drool!
:)
but is one worth X times the value of the other?
Aesthetically speaking, probably not, but I guess if you particularly want a Leica, and can afford it, then it's worth it! I appreciate the engineering quality of the Leica, and I love the images it makes, but I do like the little Jupiter and its more rough and ready approach - and it makes great images too!
☕️👍
Thanks!
I prefer the J8 for the colour balance overall
A good J8 is a very nice lens indeed, no doubt about it!
i made it to two minutes and when he was talking about his lenscap like his wife!! i had to leave.. bye.. pfff