Soviet Lens. Which era is the best or worst?

[syuji_honda]

I hear a lot of stories on Soviet Lens. Many say that 1950's are the

best and 1980's are good too. Others say older the lens, it's

riskier due to unknown repair history. Any experience on Soviet

lens?

[bob_a]

Let me turn the tables. What is the best era for Japanese lenses? Are older German lenses "riskier due to unknown repair history"?

 

I guess the answers will be similar to what is true for Soviet-made lenses. And don't listen to the likely urban myths about spotty quality control. It's the same with any equipment, Japanese, Soviet or German. Especially American:)

[paul t]

Go to beststuff's Russian forum for the best answer on this. Consensus seems

to be that 50s lenses are better - plus mid-late 80s. The more complex the

lens, the greater the chance it's been tinkered with - hence Jupiter 9s are

riskier. I have a 50s and a circa 1980 Jupiter 8 for Contax, and the latter

seems to be excellent, but in general the Contax/Kiev fit lenses seem more

consistent. <p> Hence I wonder whether you're better off paying $100 for a

1950s Kiev 2 complete with lens, than $50 for an LTM Jupiter 8, especially

when there's still doubt as to how compatible the LTM J-8 is with Leica, as

opposed to Fed, cameras.

[Rob F.]

I have a Zenitar fisheye, the current one. Great lens, no problems. Of course, I'm not sure if it is really "Soviet" exactly, as it is made in the Ukraine. But it is marked, "Made in Russia."

[bob_a]

I think Zenitars are made at the Zenit's Krasnogorsk factory in Moscow, RUSSIA. (You're probably confusing with Ukrainian Kiev equipment). Here's the Zenit website:

 

www.zenit-foto.ru/english/index.htm

 

also http://zenit.istra.ru/

 

Cheers

[Andrew in Austin]

Here is my own experience with the FSU LTM lenses. With the execption of the collaspsible Industar, the Jupiter 11 and 12 lenses I'll vote that buying a Soviet LTM lens is risky business.

 

Next, the Soviet LTM cameras have a different register than the standard Leica screw mount. These lenses will not focus properly at close range on a standard Leica screw mount, unless the aperture is closed down.

 

All of the Jupiters, which have soft aluminum construction, and most if not nearly all need to be regreased. If the lens jiggles when mounted to the camera, its focus helicoid needs to be regreased with a light to medium weight silicone grease. Assume that any Jupiter you buy will need to be regreased.

 

Part 2 of regreasing is the aperture ring. It will not stay put unless the ring is regreased. I recommend heavy silicone grease, as it doesn't migrate onto the aperture blades.

 

The 85/2 Jupiter 9 in the LTM is by far the most problematic of the FSU lenses. Its problem is worse than an inproper assembly or reassembly. Many of the helicoids for the focus on the silver bodies were cut incorrectly.

 

The black bodied J-9's don't have the beautiful coatings of the earlier lenses, but their helicoid assemblies seem to be in better working order. All need to be regreased, and due to the type of lubricants used are especially prone to having oil on the aperture blades.

 

The Jupiter 8, which is my favorite, comes in three flavors: 1950's with a focusing tab, 1960's without the focusing tab and 1970's onward which are black bodied. - I have one of each. - Although, the mid to late 1950's versions are said to be the best, I prefer the very early 1960's Jupiter 8 which don't have focusing tabs for both practical and personal vanity reasons. The black bodied J-8 seems to be a more solid design, but many lack coatings and the front half of the lens rotates when focusing.

[Alex_Es]

Basically, the early Kievs have a good reputation. They are Contaxs taken directly from Germany. I have a Kiev made in 1967 which is very good. Had a Kiev made in the late 70s or early 80s for about an hour and a half. Rewind fell apart and I took it back to Naniwa Camera and got my money back.

 

Recently bought a black Jupiter 8/2 in Leica screw mount. It is aluminum and light. I paid 12,000 yen or about $100. Its focusing ring was stiff. A friend and I took it apart and couldn't put it back together. So I sent it off to a professional repair service. They re-greased it, added a missing spring in the focusing mechanism and put it back together properly. I paid them about 9000 yen or about $80. Got it back today and it feels great. For around $200 or so, I think I did pretty well.

[peter_n1664876959]

My readings of the many web sites with FSU related forums led me to believe that the period 1958-1962 produced lenses that were a little better in terms of attaining a reasonably consistent level of quality. You still got duds, but apparently a smaller number. So I bought a 1959 Jupiter-8 and a 1961 Jupiter-11. I was very lucky, both lenses are very good. The J-11 is a <i>really</i> good lens and I will never have to look at a Leica 135.

[syuji_honda]

Bob A.,

 

Do not turn the tables! Soviet Lens' history is different from

German lens' or Japanese lens'. As many Soviet lens users say from

their own experience, certain era of Soviet lens seems better made

than others. To dismis this subject as just an "urban myth" is

ignorant and misinformed.

[bob_a]

Syuji - I applaud your obvious fascination with Soviet gear. I love it too. I agree, the history of the Soviet production and R&D may have its specifics, like any other country. HOWEVER - and it's a big "however" - the science of statistics, IF you ever studied one, tells us that variations within a group are usually larger than variations between groups. E.g, there would be more variation in average body height withing a large group of women than between a group of women and men. Are you still with me? In terms of Soviet gear, the variation in quality between a large group of Soviet cameras/lenses etc is statistically bound to be LARGER than variations between, say Soviet, Japanese or German equivalents. Same is true for Japanese, German or Mongolian photo equipment - there will be "better" or "worse" years.

 

Who's peddling "ignorant and misinformed" urban myths now?

[Andrew in Austin]

Bob, I believe you wandered too far out there with regards to the bell curve.

 

Let me reiterate that to anyone interested in a Jupiter 8 or 9, that they will probably need to be, taken apart, cleaned, and then regreased. These are vintage lenses after all is said and done. I doubt that the Soviets intended them to be used in 2005 by photographers in industrialized Western countries.

 

The sometimes harsh criticisms of these lenses do reflect another set of variables and predjudices. First, Soviet lenses work fine on Soviet bodies, but internet reviewers still insist on putting them on non-Soviet bodies. Second, in the case of the Jupiter lenses, these are definitely 1930's designs that were intended to be used with the Contax/KIEB mounts. They aren't Summicrons and they aren't Voigtlander-Cosina screw mount equivalents to which they are often compared with. Anyone who fixates on MTF charts or Japanese QC with regards to these lenses should not be buy one.

 

But for us vintage 35mm users, the Jupiter 8 for example does compares well when paired against a Summar and is about equal to a Summitar in image quality. That is when used on a FED 2, Zorki 3 or Zorki 6.

 

The LTM Jupiter 9, which works very well in the KIEB mount, does seem to have quality control problems with regards to early production in the 39mm screw mount. By late production these problems seem to be resolved and it is a better lens than an uncoated 90mm Elmar. Let me say though, that the J-9 lens really needs the 62mm base-length of a FED 2 or Zorki 6 to shoot at close range, wide open.

 

As Peter mentioned, the Jupiter 11 outperforms the 135 Hektor.

 

A caveat to all of the above is how much use and abuse has a particular lens seen. Cleaning marks, anyone?

 

If many users are or seem to be happier with their 1980's lenses then it may be because,(in my unscientific opinion), that the 1980's Soviet LTM lenses of this era have seen far less use than their older counter parts. This would not be surprising as by 1980, the serious Soviet Block amateaur was yearning for a SLR, Canon or Nikon preferably. By 1978 KMZ had already stopped making their Zorki line to concentrate their production on Zenits.

 

Do note that the lubrication used in the black J-8 and J-9 does tend to separate and the liquid run-off will migrate on to the aperture blades.<div></div>

[v.anisimov]

Andrew, would a similar assessment of non-FSU equipment reveal similar patterns in terms of batch/year related issues? My Nissan, for example was factory-recalled 3 (three) times in 4 years. Probably because it was a first batch of that particular model. Some batches of Canon dSLRs are said to be more prone to various QC issues that others (backfocusing comes to mind). That was Bob A's point, I guess, that QC issues with FSU equipment are blown out proportion... Also bear in mind that many FSU pieces go through decades of abuse and neglect due to their relative (lack of) value - compared to the cherished Leicas et al - before being sold to picky Westerners. A couple of winters on the roof of a dacha, minus 40'C anyone? No wonder the grease leaks.

[Andrew in Austin]

Vladimir, if you read my posts, I'm stating which lenses need to be properly serviced and why. The lubricants used in these lenses have far exceeded their original sell-by-date.

 

The Jupiter 8's and 9's are not inheritantly badly constructed as a whole. I just wish there was more brass instead of aluminum. Other than early helicoids on some of the J-9's, I don't know any specific defects in workmanship. The lubricant issue doesn't count as a defect.

 

Rather than worry about the Dacha factor, I feel that a fresh start with a properly serviced apparatus is the best way to go and I'd issue this warning on any 40 year old piece of even if it says Leitz Wetzlar.

[v.anisimov]

<<....and I'd issue this warning on any 40 year old piece of even if it says Leitz Wetzlar...>>

 

Andrew - you've said it yourself - finally! Exactly the point.

[syuji_honda]

Bob A.,

 

To be honest, I was sleeping during Statistics classes. Sorry, I

don't remember anything.

[syuji_honda]

Maybe that's why.

[bob_a]

Syuji - not a problem, I wasn't so keen on statistics myself. I remember the biggest challenge for me was to realise that the odds of something are not affected by previous events. I find it bizarre, really. Imagine you bet on black in roulette, the chances are still 50% REGARDLESS of how many times it was red before! I find it hard to believe, however that's the science and, I suspect, the reality.

 

Now let us enjoy our photography!

Cheers

BA

[kelly_flanigan1]

Re <I>Let me reiterate that to anyone interested in a Jupiter 8 or 9, that they will probably need to be, taken apart, cleaned, and then regreased.</I><BR><BR>Jupiter-8's and Jupiter-9's are radically different in actual performance; when a group of LTM lenses are sampled. The -8 is like the sun coming up; the -9 is like a total gamble; with bad odds. These should not even be grouped in the same arena; one is a angel; one is the damn devil. The J-8 is as constant as the Canon 1.2's I have tested; most focus ok; a few do have some slight missfocus issues. The J-9 is a mess; a horror story felon; a bag of worms. I have 3 now; and have tested 5. Only one damn lens is ok; 1 is so so. 3 others are total bastards; with mixed helixes; and miss matched lens blocks to hlen helix pitch. In contrast the J-8 is a darn good bet; in the over dozen I have had in LTM. The bad ones are the regreased ones; and the ones sold by fellow Americans. The spot on ones are from mother Russian; the Ukraine; and are stiffer. This is a good thing; old Goober from Mayberry has not regreased it; and then left out shims. <BR><BR>I have never seen a J-8 that really HAD too be regreased at all. This regreasing process is often done my hackers. In my book; it drops an excellent lens to "junk status"; totally worthless in value. <BR><BR>You should vist www.beststuff.com; where there is a greater body of knowledge on soviet camera gear on the russian camera boards. <bR><bR>There is alot of junk product out there. Fellow Americans here dump off their regreased; miss focusing; hacked lenses on other Americans. <BR><BR>Before 9/11; a camera body; J-8; case; and shipping was often only 15 bucks. (Ukraine to the USA). One could buy 3 or 4 complete cameras; for the price of just one hacked black J-8; from an american seller; that miss focuses. <BR><BR>

[kelly_flanigan1]

What if the dear Russians started buying up all our old Signet 35's' Kodak Pony's; Argus A2 , c3, C44?. The range of performance could vary radically; just due to the negelect factor; store in dresser drawer for a decade factor. The lens focus cam ring on a Soviet lens is aluminum. There is NO roller cam in a FED; Zorki; or Lennigrad. These Soviet cameras can wear in the cam area of the lens; and cause focus errors. The worst 50mm LTM lens I ever tested was a 50mm F1.2 Canonl that had its stern lens ringsticking way too far out. This gross error is not a factory error; but a "kilroy was here annd messed it up during repair" error. <BR><BR>Alot of old camera stuff on both sides of the pond are probably unearthed from estate sales; relatives who died; flea markets; junk store stuff. Thus the past performance; and condition is unknown. With small samples; folks experiences will vary radically.<BR><BR>Even in accepted high end products such as the Rollei TLR there are some dud cameras on Ebay; made up of mismatched parts; built for collectors who stress looks over function.

[bob_a]

Kelly - thank you. You've articulated so beautifully something couldn't. All the best to you.

[Andrew in Austin]

<p><i>"I have never seen a J-8 that really HAD too be regreased at all.

<br>This regreasing process is often done my hackers.</i>- (Probably true in your experience.) -

<br><i>In my book; it drops an excellent lens to "junk status"; totally worthless in value."</i></b></p>

 

<p>Kelly, I know you have plenty experience and are therefore a respected member of photo.net, but the above <i>"blanket statement"</i> is bogus.</p>

 

<p>First, it gives the impression that -<i>there isn't anyone in the US that is capable</i>- of properly reassembling a Jupiter 8.</p>

 

<p>Second, in my informed opinion and confirmed by a Russian camera tech, the original grease used at the factory was fine when new, but over more than a couple of decades the volatiles have evaporated or separated and migrated elsewhere in the lens.</p>

 

<p>Third, I've used both and must say I prefer the dampened focus ring and more importantly a dampened aperture ring on this particular lens.   I like it when my focus ring and aperture ring stay put, but this is my preference.</p>

 

<p>The Jupiter 8 will be fine so long as reference marks are used during disassembly and the following steps are taken after reassembly.</p>

 

<li>Infinity focus is calibrated with a collimator, shim if necessary.</li>

 

<li>Before inserting first film, the near focus is checked at different distances with a ground glass screen.</li>

 

<li>I like to measure the cam ring extention at different focusing distances. (Does anyone still do this?)</i>

 

<li>Finally, with film do the old picket fence test at various distances with cup upside down on one of the pickets</li>

 

<p>I'd like to add, that film scanners are great for spotting focus defects.</p>

 

<p>Also, the Jupiter 9 is "truly" a whole different kettle of fish, but I actually like this lens, warts and all.   It is a very complicated LTM adaptation from the original Contax/KIEV mount.  The LTM version of this lens is best left in the hands of a Russian tech.</p>

 

<p>I did run across a J-9 from 1957 that has either cam ring ground wrong or the helicoid cut incorrectly.   The optics now reside in a 1971 mount and it works flawlessly, but I will say that there are at least 20 different ways to reassemble a Jupiter 9 and 19 of them will make the lens as you say totally worthless in value.</p>