Canon 1.8 LTM vs. Jupiter 8

Hi,

 

I just purchased a Canon 50mm f/1.8 off of ebay. I have read that this

is a good performer, this is why I bought it (the price was right, and

the fraction of a stop didn't hurt either). My current 50mm is a

Jupiter 8, I am pleased so far with this lens, but I feel my photos

could be sharper. They say you pay for what you get and since I only

paid $18 shipped for the lens it would not surprise me if the Canon is

sharper and an overall better performer. But the question, is it?

 

Thanks

Uhhh... so why are you asking? Why don't you shoot some film when you get the lens and post your results?

I have paid only 17 dollars for a Jupiter-8; with a Zorki-4; and case; and airmail from the Ukraine to the USA. This is before 9/11; when airmail was cheap; and complete cameras were sometimes only 9 to 10 bucks; with 7 or 8 for airmail shipping. Here I have about at least 6 Jupiter-8's; they are generally decent. One is way the heck off in focusing. You should test your own two lenses; and let us know. A sample of one lens doesnt represent what the perforance of the group is.

For a sharper image on a budget. Nothing can beat CV Nokton/1.5 I am saving for one.

Robert, just curious how you are determining the comparative sharpness of this lens? Is it from 4X6 commercially processed prints, darkroom work,scanning? Did you shoot the lens hand held? Just curious. Also the Jupiter happens to be a sharp lens so a few stops down it can hold it's own against most any lens. I have the 1.8 Canon and also a DR Summicron and in everyday non test conditions they are very comparable.

Well,

i have a canon 1.8, and love it. If going for sharpness, maybe it's not the way to achieve it - i think all my other 50mm are better, but in my eyes it as a nice 3d rendering and used at 1.8 a softness i like a lot. I dont know jupiters, so i cant help on this, but i agree with the idea of shooting film and look the prints. By the way, i've heard vg things on the Nokton 1.5: if someone can help me in choosing another LTM 50, i'll be happy.

Hi,

 

Well I suppose I was a little vague there. Anyway i don't have the lens yet, I just wanted to know what to expect. Also I develop film and print my self. Just thought someone might of had some opinions, thanks anyways.

for the price its a fine lens....

Robert: ok, now its easier. buy this lens - only serious probl is loooong focus rotation reqd. : i.e. no fast taking allowed.

The Canon 1.8/50 Planar is a good one, but I like the Canon 1.5/50 more. It's also a Sonnar type as a Jupiter-8 but solid brass made. It's very fine made. My was 200 USD.

 

regards Frank

I have tested a number of Jupiter 8s,Industar 50 or 22 and 61 on the same roll of Ilford PanF 50. VS Zuiko 50/1.8 and Canon FD 50/1.8. to avoid developing and fixing variations. Viewed the film with a 50x microscope. All the Jupiter 8s,8Ms and Helios 103 performed more consistantly on Kiev rangefinder cameras for the more accurate rangefinder. At f5.6 or smaller, all the Russian Kiev mount lens compared favorably to the Japanese ones. If your J-8 is not sharp enough,please check if there is any focusing problems.

I must say that J.8 is one great lens. Aside from its sharpness it has a character too. The price may be not expensive but that has to do with the socialist - none profit oriented - economy which made everyday products for all people and of all background, so everyone could enjoy having it. As a matter of fact this whole notion in addition to say universal education; universal health care system; life time employment etc. were Socialist contribution to our human heritage. Also one must realize that when one pays big bucks for lets say a camera or a lens; psychologically - one feel more professional or let say one better be feeling more professional. I find the challenge is SEEING, equipment is secondary. But if it comes to perfoming I think the jupiter 8 lens can become a potent tool in the hands of a good photographer. Take a look at VUK's photos in some of these forums.

For 17 years I used a Serenar 50/1.8 on an M3: with a bayonet adapter, of course, and in preference to a Summarit which gave virtually nothing but flare, apparently having died of a botched cleaning job. Testing does not interest me and I cannot easily do it anyway. Results, though, do interest me: and the Serenar's were entirely satisfactory with regard to definition, contrast and colour rendition. Direct enlargements were up to 10" x 8", I think, and cropped portions of smaller scanned prints were also quite all right up to that size. I always used it with its hood. Several frames included bright lights, though those were never too close.