Opinion on Jupiter-9, Jupiter-12 and Helios 1.5/85?

[andrew10]

I'm interested in these lenses for LTM and/or M42 mount and would appreciate any user opinion. Thanks.

[ben_hughes]

I've messed with a few Russian/Ukranian lenses on LTM's

before. The optics are actually pretty good, but the build quality is

generally poor. F stop rings are either sloppy or tight, focus goes

from buttery smooth to gravel road bumpy. Enlargements fall

apart pretty fast above 5x7. They are cheap though!

I did use an old Leitz Summitar on an old FED Ig with great

results, so the shutter speed must have been close.

[bobtodrick]

I agree with Ben. I used a 35mm Jupiter for a couple of years and

found it to be quite sharp. Well behind the 35 Asph that replaced

it, but well ahead of the 35 Summaron I tested. But in the two

years I had it, it virtually fell apart.

[michael_darnton1]

Because I believe my standards are as low as anyone's, I really

wanted to like them--I've got six, three in Kiev mount, three in LTM,

but you know, they're junk, no matter what anyone says. I think the

glass is probably fine, but the mounts get in the way. I also believe

that the Fed focus cam is different from the Leica standard,

effectively preventing these lenses from ever working really properly

on a Leica (all three of my Fed mount lenses misfocus in exactly the

same way on my three Leicas, and I've seen the effect in others' pix,

too), but I still haven't gotten around to the definitive test for

that yet.

 

<p>

 

Just say no. Spend your money on Voigtlander, or even cheaper, old

Canon--there are some great Canon LTM lenses.

[gerald_widen]

I have used a few Russian lenses over the last two years. Mine at

least seem to be of decent mechanical quality. Focusing and all

controls are smooth, Infinity lines up where it should. The Jupiter

35/2.8 I find to have nice sharpness, it handles contrast well, and

gives nice tone work the only complaint is there is a little more

distortion than I would like, otherwise for around $70 it can't be

beat. I have enlarged to 8X10 with nice results. <a

href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=427359&size=

lg">Here</a> is a shot and you can see that the first horizontal pole

appears to bow slightly and the poles further down appear to be

leaning. I little much for a 35mm.In most circunstances this is not

appearent. I have also used the Jupiter-3 50/1.5. It too is a fine

lens very sharp, handles contrast nicely and gives nice tones. It's

drawback is wider than 2.8 it is low in contrast and not that sharp. I

just consider it a 2.8 lens I can shoot wide open (2.8) with good

results and for that once in a lifetime shot if I need 1.5 it is

there. <a

href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=438380&size=

lg">Here</a> is the Jupiter 50.

for around $75 it also can't be beat.

[andrew_schank]

Someone mentioned above "but you know, they're junk, no matter what

anyone says" and in the long run, my experience is the same. I tried

more than a few out and bought a couple of theses lenses, and there

ends up being something not quite right with just about every single

one of them. You get what you pay for. I had my worst luck with the

85mm. Bought them from Eastern Europe, 1 was frozen solid on the

focus, on another one, the focus was off by about 20 feet! The 50mm

f1.5 I have is an OK lens, but its insulting to Zeiss to call it

a "Sonnar copy"--maybe a poor copy would be more accurate.( I have a

50mm 1.5 Sonnar and it is in a different class completely-nearly as

good as my current Summicron). None of the lenses seem to couple

precisely to the Leica rangefinder. Ergonomics on the 35mm lens are

poor-hard to set the F stop.

 

<p>

 

As a curiosity and for fun, you might enjoy trying them out, but all

in all I have to say my experience is that it was a waste of time and

money.

[igor_osatuke]

Well, I was born in Russia and lived there for the first 25 years of

my life. Naturally I have accumulated a bunch of Russian and

Ukrainian lenses. I've got 50mm 2.8 Industar for Fed(LTM), a bunch of

42mm screwmounts(pentax?) for Zenit SLR, a bunch of Nikon mount Kievs,

and a Kiev 60 6x6 with two lenses. I think it is 12 total. Even

though I'd hate to but I have to agree that most of them are junk.

Optically they are OK especially 35mm SLR lenses. But the built

quality is all over the place. And you do not want to shine a light

inside them. Pretty much you get what you pay for and in rare cases

you may get a decently made lens, but you'll have to be lucky. For me

the gamble is not worth it.

[gerald_widen]

I guess I've been lucky. I don't doubt what everyone else is saying

because I have heard the same here and at other forums many times.

It's funny my Jupiter 35 eventhough the f stop is a little

inconvenient (a design flaw not mechanical or quality) is as smooth

to focus as any Leica lens I've ever used which includes 3 M mounts

and 2 LTM mounts. While not as solid or heavy as a 50's Leica lens it

feels well made. In terms of optical quality it is clearly superior

to the 35/3.5 Summaron I had.501.5 optically is also clearly superior

to my Elmar 50/3.5 it is noticably sharper and gives better shadow

details. My Elmar example is coated, totally clear (no haze or

fungus) and has only the faintest cleaning marks under bright light

inspection. However when I received the Jupiter 50 the focusing was

so stiff it would unscrew from the camera. But again this was

probably from dis-use not a mechanical flaw. I left the lens in my

glove compartment on a hot day and after a hundred or so back and

forths the lens is smooth. I did however unscrew the optics from the

barrell and can see that eventhough the focus is smooth it is not

made that well. Maybe in the future it will fall apart. These lenses

are so inexpensive and if you buy with the right of return they are a

good way to try a new focal length before spending thousands on a

Leica lens.And are also good for a second body. Maybe I should just

hold my breath so they don't fall apart.

[andrew10]

My thanks to all who have replied. (and keep'em coming!)

 

<p>

 

Michael, I thought Canon LTM lenses have become collectors' items.

Any specific models do you recommend? Are they cheaper than

equivalent Voigtlander/Cosina models?

[michael_darnton1]

Gerry, the photos you put up are all at a distance--the thing I've

noticed is wide open, at 1M, (about the only circumstance under which

I usually shoot, unfortunately) the focus with all of them

consistently falls about four or five inches behind where I focus.

The one that people like the most is the 35mm, and I think a lot of

that might be that DOF to some extent covers the focusing error,

especially at longer distances. After I realized what was going on I

wondered how they'd work on my Fed body, which I lent out and don't

have around to test with. I'm willing to bet that on a Russian body

for which they were made they'll be on the nose. This is a somewhat

similar situation to the problem between switching Contax and Nikon

lenses--they're on the nose at infinity, but the closer you get the

more they're off (because the number of degrees the two systems

rotate between near and far is very slightly different)--but people

usually say DOF makes it OK.

 

<p>

 

I took my 50/1.5 apart and greased it up--it's now the smoothest lens

I have--probably the effect of lots of grease, in lots of space. :-)

But the nose is too short to hold a lens cap for long, and the f-

stops change if you think at them too hard. :-)

[gerald_widen]

Andrew, the only Canon Ltm lens I have is the 35/2 which I am very

happy with.It's a very nice lens all around. If you look on the LUG

archives many people have rated it equal to the 2nd/3rd version of the

Summicron of the same time period.Tom Abrahamsson was one of them. One

with mint glass goes for around $300, so they are not cheap. At the

time I was deciding between the Canon and the Ultron 35/1.7 while I'm

happy with the Cannon I'm sure I would also be with the VC. The 50/1.8

is also supposed to be very good. Probably will be my next purchase.

Some people have claimed in side by side tests to be equal of the

Rigid/DR Summicron, I'm sure some here will have something to say

about that. They go for around $150 or so with mint glass. Hope this

helps.

[michael_darnton1]

The Canon 50/1.4 has a stellar rep, and is relatively cheap--I keep

almost buying one, just because they show up all the time at a bit

more than half the price of a used Summicron 50. The 135/3.5 in black

is hard to beat for the price, common, and usually in perfect shape.

The 85/1.8 was greatly superior to the contemporary Summicron--one of

the very best Canon RF lenses--and quite a bit smaller, but it's a

collector thing. Even so, if you can find one, it costs less than a

used 90 Summicron, and fits LTM, too. I currently have an 85/1.5

which is a great lens at 2.8, and at 1.5, well, it has so little

depth of field, who knows if it's good or bad. :-) It's really too

heavy, though. As Gerry says, the 35/2 is the one to have in that

range. People who have them say the black 100/3.5 or whatever exactly

it is, is an absolute gem, and always cheap. Too slow for me, though.

 

<p>

 

The 35/1.5 is a dog, and I don't have direct experience with the

28/2.8 (I like the size of it, though), the 25, the 19, and the 100/2

in black.

[harry_soletsky]

I continue to use and strongly recommend the 100 mm f3.5 A36 Canon.

Small and light and extremely sharp.

[chris_chen4]

Andrew:

 

<p>

 

Re: Canon RF glass--in my continuing fit of camera collecting madness,

I've managed to accumulate a lot of the classic Canon LTM lenses

(50/1.4, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 100/2, etc.) & they have indeed proven to be

excellent performers for the money (even the hard-to-find "collector"

models like the 100/2), fully competitive w/their Leitz, Nikkor, &

Zeiss competition.

[michael_darnton1]

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/f_lens.html

[richard_ilomaki]

I have a 50 mm f2 Industar LTM and it is great both optically and

mechanically. The only complaint is that there are no click stops on

the aperture ring. From 2.8 down it is very good, tho' I hesitate to

make a sharpness comparison WRT the 50mm Summicron.

 

<p>

 

I also have 3 Russian/Soviet lenses for my Nikons: a 35mm f2 which is

indistinguishable in performance from my Nikon 35f2, a 50f2 Helios

which I got for $15 Cdn at a pawn shop and a recently purchased 100mm

2.5 Kalenar- all excellent optically AND mechanically, but I checked

them out first, having rejected more than few because of poor build

quality.

 

<p>

 

Considering the prices-total less than 150 Cdn- In have no

complaints. The LTM Industar has exquisite colour rendition and depth

unlike anything else I have seen. Sharpness is not up to the Summi,

but for £25 with a Zorki 4K attached- no complaints. The Zorki still

works very well.

 

<p>

 

I also have 2 E German Zeiss Jena lenses for a Pentacon- an 80mm

Biometer and a 50mm Distagon- both very good.

 

<p>

 

I guess I am lucky

Cheers.

[kaiblanke]

I also happen to like my 50/2 Jupiter. A nice lens with excellent

optics (but not a Leica lens, though). The Helios 53/1.8 on my Kiev

works also well. Build quality is another chapter: The 50/2 is out of

aluminium and the quality is as light as the lens. But as long as it

is properly greased it works very well.

<br>

On the other hand I have seen a lot of LTM copies which were just in

bad shape - someone had apparently forgotten to maintain them: If you

grease them once a year you should have no problems and they will

serve you some 20 or more years (my lenses are from the 50s). In

general the older lenses are alo better build, so have a look at ther

serial#: The first two digits show you the year of manufature. I

found that almost every lens up to the 67/68 range was ok, while most

of the latter were not.

[antonio_shalders]

Hello,

I think that comparing J-8 with summicrons and such lenses is unfair. Summicrons are top lenses from Leica and suposed to be one of the very best of the world. J8's are cheap mass production lenses.

Several J8s passed trhu my hands and today I keep one, #012991 and it's extremely sharp. The problem is that 99% of the russian lenses you find 2nd hand were uncorrectly CLA... It's very easy to ruin a lens if you don't have the factory service manual and correct instruments. Lens elements distance tolerance is extremely critical, even more in the Sonnar design. I have also some I-61L/D, J-12 and MR-2 that works great, never opened, still with factory seals.

[antonio_shalders]

Continued... If a lens is disassembled, you MUST have all the technical specs and professional equipment like a autocollimator rot proper lens alignment and adust. Maybe 50% of the Russian lenses weren't well collimated at factory, but believe me, almost all russian lenses you see at ebay were opened, cleaned (god knows how) and reassembled without any care. If you do the same with a Summicron, it will turn crap too ! Another very common problem is the RF cam in the Zorkis and Feds. It can be easily bent and loose its calibration. The best to do in my opinion is to use the RF to set a reasonably accurate distance and rely in the depth of field of the objective. If you really want to do close focus pictures, go to a reflex camera. RFs aren't the best choice in this case.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Most of the 1950's vintage Russian lenses I have are decent. The later 1950's Sputnik era are great. The "good" focusing 85mm F2 Jupiter-9 is chrome; from 1959; and is abit stiff. Stiffness is a good sign; no hack has messed it up with a botched amateur regreasing job. The two botched black Jupiter-9's of mine are from the 1970's; and have missmatched lens blocks to focusing helix pitches. Another cool looking 50mm F2 black Jupiter-8 is shimmed wrong; and even scale focuses wrong. <BR><BR>

[antonio_shalders]

I agree 100% with Kelly. Some months ago I had in hands two Industar-50, one stiff and the other very clean an d well lubed. The images from the stiff one were far better.

[finefacefotos]

you asked about m42, not just ltm experiences (although this is in the leica forum, it shows up in the search engines for m42). my m42 experiences have been pretty good. i don't think there is a focusing problem in this mount. somtimes i suspect the m42/k-mount converters, but not the russian lenses themselves. my jupiter-9 85/2 gets a lot of work. i think its color-rendition stinks, but it makes a lot of my black and white shots look beautifully vintage. i'm actually surprised when some sharp high contrast results pop out, as they sometimes do. i just don't expect it, and sometimes it's there. but mostly it's a buttery soft flattering wide open portrait shooter for me. i'll shoot fairly open so i don't have to stop-down, which is quite slow on this lens. the jupiter-11 135mm f4 was a good lens too with faster handling, but i much prefer the jupiter-37a 135mm f3.5. wow, that thing is sharp. again, its color is a bit suspect. it also can flare something awful. but there is no question it is sharp. some of the online lpm figures you see might actually be right -- 50-67% more resolution than the other two. as for build quality, i can hear some aperture grating in the 37a, as if it's not oiled well and it still has 'rock from work camp' inside it. on the other hand, it's a near-circular aperture. not bad for the $30 cost of ownership. the 9 is quite a smooth and robust little thing, though it is shaped a bit like a mushroom and has an exposed front element. i once took apart a rolleiflex slr 85/2.8 zeiss made in w. germany. it wasn't so pretty on the inside, not much better made than these russian gadgets. maybe the jupiter 9 was better built than the zeiss. and considering all the canon eos, cheap new nikon consumer zooms, and even pentax smc-f lenses that have fallen apart on me, some bad tokinas and floppy vivitars (but never a bad tamron or sigma!), i don't think the russian lenses are so badly built. similarly, my praktica-l feels like the crap that it is, but it's the contax rts that i keep replacing, each one falling apart shamelessly while the east german one soldiers on.

[james_b_cooper]

I have Jupiter-9 in Leica thread, silver finish. Excellent lens, enough sharpness, excellent bokeh and character to color. Some stifness in focusing but tolerable. Helios 85/1.5, one of the greatest portrait lenses made. With my Leica R 60 macro this one is tops. Wide-open, has mysterious, out of this world look. Great, subdued colors and fine sharpness fall-off, not seen in anything in 35mm world. You will have to look at some large format lenses to get this feel. This one is a Nicola Parscheid on a budget ! Stoped down the lens images fine, colors are natural and not over the top. Regret selling it, most people on the net confuse its destination and make straight-forward comparisons based on traditional criteria. Again, the lens should be self-tested for quality control before purchasing. If you do art and glamour this is the lens to get.