35mm Jupiter vs 35 2.5 Voigtlander

<p>I recently purchased a 3F and am looking around for a 35mm. Almost all my photography is outdoors so I don't mind limiting a lens to 2.8 or 2.5 to save on weignt. My nostalgic streak says to get a 2.8 Jupiter because it is based on a Zeiss design and has a nice retro look (in silver of course). My logical side says go for the 2.5 Voigtlander - being a more modern lens, it should be better and the build quality will be far superior. Does anyone have any ideas on comparing these two, Does the Zeiss design offer something the Voigtlander doesn't. I've heard that the 35 1.7 Voigtlander is amazing but the 2.5 only so so. Is this true?</p>

<p>The VC 35mm f2.5 is one of my favourite lenses, on the IIIf or on the M series with adapter. It's B&W rendition is impressive. Mike Johnston once wrote a very positive review of the VC classic design 35 f2.5 in the British journal B&W Photography. I doubt if it gives up anything much to other designs. And it is economical. Apparently the 35mm VF from Voigtlander is quite accurate, better then the mini 28/35 finder. </p>

<p>I can only comment on Jupiter 12 in Contax mount although I shoot with it on a Nikon S2. It is sharp and warm toned. Be sure to have the deep rear lens cap, the element is totally unprotected and cannot be placed down on any surface because of the convex design without a rim! I paid $60USD and am very happy with the lens.</p>

<p>the vc 35mm 2.5 is a bit of an unheralded classic. for the money it really is better than many other lenses there.</p>

<p>There may be some problems with using Soviet LTM lenses on "real" Leicas, as opposed to Zorkis and FEDs (<a href="http://www.dantestella.com/technical/compat.html">link</a> ).<br>

This is a beautiful lens on its Soviet bodies and on the Kievs and Contaxes.</p>

<p>Mr. Dante is probably correct, but . . . <br>

I have a number of Soviet lenses, from the 35mm Jupiter (silver and black), several Jupiter 8's (50mm f2, black and silver), a Jupiter 3 (f1.5 50mm), the 85mm f2 Jupiter and the 135mm Jupiter, all of which I use interchangeably on a number of Leica bodies and Soviet bodies. I have not had problems with the lenses on any body. As I understand Mr. Dante, errors in focusing creep in in close-ups. Since I am rarely, if ever, at 1 meter, and not too frequently at 2 meters especially with a 35mm lens, and it is equally rare for my lenses to be wide open, the lenses have been entirely satisfactory. Another theory, for whatever it may be worth: Most of my Soviet lenses came to me well used. My idea is that the "dog" lenses are put in the drawer. The good ones were well used.<br>

I have not compared the VC 35mm with my Soviet lenses since I done have one. But I have no problems recommending the 35mm Jupiter.</p>

<p>Regardless of the possible focus problems at close distances, I do think that the "well-used" theory is good for all old Soviet gear. The best stuff was used, the ones that came "dead" from the factory are still "like new".</p>

<p>Despite my subscribing to the above theory, I have picked up some very nice "like new" Soviet gear too, especially in lenses where the most common problem is decentering, I think. The Kiev survival site has a technique for recentering (<a href="http://www3.telus.net/public/rpnchbck/tips%20and%20tricks%20lens%20tighten.html">link</a> ), but I've not yet found any examples that I know need the technique, I confess. Perhaps I will try it on the re-labeled lens on my Swedish Army Leica which has more than its share of "glow".</p>

<p>Peter Hennig's recentering method sounds worthwhile for many lenses (perhaps even as critically so with enlarger lenses - often poorly centered - this should perhaps be mentioned by JDM sometime in the printing forum).</p>

<p>But how many poorly centered lenses are caused by assembly compared to how many by poor tolerances in manufacturing the barrels, lens element seats and focussing assemblies (I presume that the spherically produced lens elements are quite uniform and not a source in themselves of decentering)?</p>

<p>In terms of optics, ergonomics and build quality the VC 35/3.5 classic is a gem. Importantly, you don't need a special real body cap. I'd go for it. </p>

<p>Do not kling onto 'Zeiss design' -- even though Jup 12 is based on Biogon scheme, it is very weak in flare, means you should always use a hood or likewise (hat or palm). If the light is evenly diffused, and there is no need for hood, this lens can produce beautiful photographs. Yes, Jup 12 will give the pictures none of the modern design will reach (and they do not intent to), it will give a 'retro' style photo if you are aimed at it.<br>

you can check the photos made by both lenses via Google images search, there are plenty.</p>

<p>I've had a couple of 35 3.5 Summarons over the years and I am still kicking myself for selling them. Both were screw mounts and really sharp. Great lenses w/ classic Leica imaging.</p>

<p>When you have a look at the lens design of the CV Skopar 35 you might see, that its derived from the Zeiss Biogon. It's lens formula is almost identical to the new Zeiss ZM C-Biogon 2.8/35. The FSU lenses are quite good opticaly when you get a good one. Mechanicaly they are , ähh suboptimal. For the J-3 i tried three to get a useable one. The CV is a real gem, especially the new one in M-Mount! IMHO Cosina is learning fast from Zeiss ...</p>

<p>Here are some lenses used on a Leica M3;</p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/LTM%20lenses/tripods-213.jpg?t=1259625239" alt="" width="558" height="374" /></p>

<p>Rigid Industar-50; 50mm F3.5 @F3.5 :</p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/LTM%20lenses/tripods-210.jpg?t=1259625359" alt="" width="501" height="375" /></p>

<p>Here is new type LTM 50mm F2 Summicron #11619 @ F2 :</p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/LTM%20lenses/tripods-209.jpg?t=1259625453" alt="" width="533" height="381" /></p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/LTM%20lenses/Leica50LTM.jpg?t=1259625535" alt="" width="576" height="473" /></p>

<p>Here is my Canon 50mm F1.2 @f1.2 :</p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/LTM%20lenses/tripods-211.jpg?t=1259625635" alt="" width="511" height="395" /></p>

<p>Here is Jupiter-3 from the eyeball factory being turned on a Harbor Freight lathe:<br>

<img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/LTM%20lenses/P1010039JUPITERTHREE.jpg?t=1259625695" alt="" width="600" height="785" /></p>

<p>I own my Jupiter 35mm about 39 years now and if you are shooting outdoors, forget the Jupiter. Flare, flare, flare!! I repainted the chrome parts mat black inside the barrel, but that didn't help.<br>

If there is no sunshine nearby - Holland does have sunny days - it is a great performer. Sharp (2.8 is rather useless) at 5.6<br>

If I can find some shots scanned and from this 35mm (I brought a Summilux later for my M2) I will add them. The Voigtlander looks a better choice for me anytime!</p>