| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| uwittehh |
Posted - Oct 06 2011 : 07:04:27 AM
I have noticed that the Tair 11A sells on eBay for really high prices, 100 to 130 Euros seem to be normal. I wondered a bit about this price, so I made a comparison between a Tair 11A (2,8/135), a black Jupiter 11A (4/135) and a black Jupiter 37A (3,5/135).
The results are amazing... The cheap Jupiter 11A is the best of the 3 ones! It's sharp wide open up to the edges and on 5,6 it's stunning.
The other ones are much bader, soft wide open and you have to go at least to 5,6 to get the sharpness of the Jupiter 11A with aperture 4.0.
Another advantage of the J-11A: It's small and lightweight, the Tair is big and heavy.
Here are pictures to compare.
First the Jupiter 11A at 4.0:
Then the Jupiter 37A at 4.0:
At last the Tair 11A at 4.0:
All shots with a Pentax K-10D developed in Lightroom, it's a 100% crop that is not sharpened.
Ulrich
http://fotos.cconin.de |
| 16 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| jasmeen |
Posted - Feb 19 2016 : 04:24:37 AM
Be careful with the SLR version as I saw 2 types of Jup-11: one with aperture preset and one without.
Take care.
_____________
NOOR |
| jiriruzek |
Posted - May 14 2014 : 03:56:17 AM
my Jupiter 37A is also very sharp @ F3.5
Uglamour Nude Art Photography http://www.jiriruzek.net
1-on-1 Nude Art Photo Courses http://www.jiriruzek.net/nude-art-photography-courses |
| martinsmith99 |
Posted - Nov 14 2012 : 06:37:16 AM
Copy variation plays a huge part. |
| msiegel |
Posted - Nov 09 2012 : 03:30:54 AM
Even if it is an older thread please keep in mind that the Jupiter 11A is NOT the same lens as a Jupiter-11. The 11A is known to be sharper and contrastier than the 11 or the 37A
All I ever get is older and around (Kris Kristofferson) |
| martinsmith99 |
Posted - Jul 02 2012 : 01:13:06 AM
So much variation in sample quality makes tests like these difficult. I sold my 37A as it was just an ok lens; my Tair 11a stays with me. |
| Gelios |
Posted - Apr 08 2012 : 10:52:12 AM
So there is a lot of defective Tair-11 around as my experience is in favor of the Jup-11 which won hand down all the tests I did between the 2 lenses which is pretty much consistent with the general consensus...
On top of that, the Jup-11 is smaller and lighter. Be careful with the SLR version as I saw 2 types of Jup-11: one with aperture preset and one without.
Take care. |
| sirrith |
Posted - Mar 26 2012 : 4:05:07 PM
Sorry to bring up an old topic, but I wanted to contribute :)
I have a tair 11A, and I think your copy must have something wrong with it! Here are some results with mine (default 25 sharpening in LR, no more) I think these were taken at f4, I can't remember exactly, and the EXIF doesn't report correct aperture:
[
My copy at least, is a very sharp lens! |
| Luiz Paracampo |
Posted - Oct 09 2011 : 7:32:45 PM
You can reach these marvelous pages at:
http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_tecnici_fotografici.htm
Regards LP |
| Luiz Paracampo |
Posted - Oct 09 2011 : 6:54:14 PM
Well Uwittehh
But observe! Summicron is a f2 lens which one would expect to be softier than a f3.5 lens. really Leitz did a MIRACLE! Russians made the prototype Mercuri 1 used on Kometa camera and some pieces for Zorki. You can be delighted in the extraordinary pages of friend Marco Cavina that details several Russian as Zeiss lenses.
Detail: Industar has more contrast than Summicron
LP |
| uwittehh |
Posted - Oct 09 2011 : 4:22:12 PM
okynet,
yes, the Helios 40 is a bulky heavy piece of metal and glass and on 1,5 it's veeeery soft. I have sold mine away some times ago. The J-9 is great and the M42 version is smaller than one can think.
An outstanding lens is also the Industar 50-2. I have sold one to a Leica user that has compared it to his Summicron 2,8/50. He sent me two photographic prints, one with the I-50-2, one with the Summicron, both a aperture 4,0. There is NO difference! The I-50-2 is sharp as the Leica lens which costs 50 to 100 times more... He was really astonished.
Ulrich
http://fotos.cconin.de |
| okynek |
Posted - Oct 08 2011 : 11:43:18 AM
Same with Jupiter 9 and Helios 40. Helios 40 way more expensive and much heavier then Jupiter 9, but picture quality I'd say lower then with J-9.
Although H-40 good for portraits, it make very soft and "cozy" pictures. |
| uwittehh |
Posted - Oct 07 2011 : 05:34:28 AM
Luiz,
thanks, I did not know that page in the Wiki. Very interesting.
Ulrich
http://fotos.cconin.de |
| Luiz Paracampo |
Posted - Oct 06 2011 : 8:33:25 PM
Go to page
http://www.ussrphoto.com/Wiki/default.asp?WikiCatID=86&ParentID=4&ContentID=718&Item=Lenses+Specifications+and+Comparison+Tables
lens 67 J 11 (J 37 has the same schematics) nr 12
lens 58 Tair 11 Schematics nr 14 (triplet with achromatic front element)
|
| Luiz Paracampo |
Posted - Oct 06 2011 : 8:14:58 PM
This test is the absolute truth. J11 is the best design o them all.
The same formula used in RF and reflex cameras.
J11 has the same formula of Sonnar f4/135 prewar Jena and postwar Opton; J37 is the same formula of post war Jena Sonnar 3.5/135. really the only change is the wider front element the rear block remains the same. Tair 11 is a special triplet of own Russian design.
LP |
| uwittehh |
Posted - Oct 06 2011 : 2:20:21 PM
Jacques,
maybe the Tair and the J-37 are not good aligned, I don't know. When I go to aperture 8 all 3 look nearly equal.
Yes, the J-11 is outstanding, it's sharp like my good Pentax lenses :-) Is the J-11 for SLR the same design as the one for rangefinder?
Ulrich
http://fotos.cconin.de |
| Jacques M. |
Posted - Oct 06 2011 : 10:17:08 AM
Thanks Ulrich.
The difference is so important that we can even wonder if the Jup 37A and the Tair are well regulated...
Anyway, the Jup 11 is surprising... Zeiss quality!
Jacques. |
