Russian rangefinder lens quality - newer vs older

msteen1314

I'm in the process of purchasing some rangefinder lenses for a couple of ltm rangefinders and I'd like to hear from anyone who has had experiences with both old Russian lenses from the 50's and 60's to those made up till around the 90's.

Putting aside the often quoted issue of consistent quality, my question is whether the overall quality increase as the production run made it into the 80's and 90's or whether the older lenses have the edge. Obviously the newer the lens, the less there is for potential ware and tare, but is this overshadowed by poorer quality construction and quality control.

In particular, the two lenses that I'm interested in purchasing and hearing peoples experiences with are the Jupiter 12, 35mm f2.8 and the Jupiter 9, 85mm f2.

Thanks in advance

konicamera · Expire: 2014-06-14

Nordentro · Expire: 2015-01-29

Jupiter 9, I have had both the black newer and the silver J9 with red marking, and they where equal to my eyes in terms of IQ (I did a test. I didn`t notice differences in mechanical quality either.

I have the black Jupiter 12, but never had any of the silver versions. The black J12 is decent good lens, but not as good as the Canon or Nikkor LTMs in terms of sharpness. Bokeh is quite nice. Wink

You can only use the J12 on FF camera, but I guess you know this...

msteen1314 · Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2014 2:22 pm Post subject:

thank you both for your input. From what I understand and based on the 3 lenses I already have, the image quality is very good considering their low cost relative to modern equivalents. I'm sure there will be more input to come as I know that there are a lot of Russian lens users out there.

Thank you again.

P.S. Nordentro - can you just clarify the FF for me just in case I'm missing something?...."You can only use the J12 on FF camera, but I guess you know this..."

Nordentro · Expire: 2015-01-29

FF = fullframe sensor, if you also want to use them digital Wink

memetph · Joined: 01 Dec 2013 Posts: 942 Location: Poland

My experience is with old J8s from the fifties. From 3 of them, only one is usable at the end . All of them had to be dismantled , cleaned and greased .
Those 20 additional years compared to later models make even more important the way they were treated and kept.

Aanything · Expire: 2014-05-30

I have had a bunch of jupiter 9's in different mounts (contax rf, m42, m39) and the impression was that the older ones were averagely better wide open than the newer ones - I ended up keeping an early 60's silver one in contax mount and selling the others - while stopped down they were all about the same. Obviously not enough to draw some general conclusion, but that's my experience.
I also have a very nice jupiter 8 from the same period with red P coating, and it performs much better than I would expect according to the lens' reputation: a bit glowy wide open, but sharp none the less.

Paulius · Joined: 25 Nov 2014 Posts: 321 Location: Connecticut

RSalles · Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2014 5:23 am Post subject:

Paulus,

Simple as that?

Cheers,

Renato

Teo · Joined: 19 Jul 2014 Posts: 1079 Location: Romania

calvin83 · Joined: 12 Apr 2009 Posts: 7554 Location: Hong Kong

I think the early chrome/silver lens have better build quality than the later all black lens. My 1951 J-9 LTM is pretty good at wide open and the sharpness is pretty close to my postwar CZJ Sonnar.

P.S. FED makes good quality rangefinder lenses from late 1930s too.

philslizzy · Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 4748 Location: Cheshire, England

Mos6502 · Joined: 20 Jun 2011 Posts: 961 Location: Austin

I think the quality of the lenses declined for reasons other than old tooling and old timers retiring. After all the Helios 103 (introduced in the 70s) is a nice performer and a nicely made lens. I think the decline in quality was basically purposeful, rather than accidental sloppiness.

The Zorki cameras by the 1970s were old fashioned, even by soviet standards. They were being exported as bargain cameras and there was no longer a need to maintain a high level of quality or consistency. The lenses were mechanically simplified and the finish was cheapened. Obviously this meant having to reconfigure the assembly process and the use of new tooling. So they invested money into making a product cheaper, rather than just accidentally making something sloppier.

scsambrook · Expire: 2011-11-18

Mos6502 wrote I think the quality of the lenses declined for reasons other than old tooling and old timers retiring. After all the Helios 103 (introduced in the 70s) is a nice performer and a nicely made lens. I think the decline in quality was basically purposeful, rather than accidental sloppiness

I certainly agree with Mos6502's first sentence, but I don't think the drop in quality was actually purposeful. Rather, I think it was an inevitable consequence of contemporary Soviet attitudes towards the making of consumer goods.

The overall quality of Soviet photo exports to the UK was so bad in the 1970s that the importer set up a large department to check everything that came in. From what we were told at the time the problem was worse from some factories than others, although we had no idea which were the 'better' and 'poorer' ones. The underlying reason was attributed by the UK importer to the quota-dominated output philosophy that then prevailed in Soviet manufacturing industry - factories were given targets for quantities to be made in a given time and the important thing was to meet the figures required. Numbers first, quality second. In the case of photo equipment that resulted in cameras that often didn't actually work and sometimes even lacked parts. What seemed to be entirely lacking at the factories, at least for much of the time, was any sort of quality control.

Mos is right in pointing out that there was no perception of the need to maintain quality in 1970s Soviet photo goods production, but I don't think that it resulted from a deliberate decision that 'anything would do' for the export market. The picture from the UK importer was that it was easier to rectify inherent production shortcomings at importer level than to make changes in the Soviet Union.

Paulius · Joined: 25 Nov 2014 Posts: 321 Location: Connecticut

Lenny On Ice · Joined: 17 Dec 2012 Posts: 22

Jupiter lenses and most other stuff were produced at different factories. First there was KMZ only which in general had good quality. Later KMZ couldn't produce the quantities which were needed and the production was outsourced. Every factory has a special logo which helps to identify. I would say overall a drop in quality started in 1958. In 1959 some stuff was produced in China. Russia delivered the factories and know-how and got products in return. Even before 1958 changes were made to simplify the production and to make the production cheaper.
I have various Jupiter-12 in silver and black, but I don't shoot with them. A later black one even with only 2 blades instead of 5.

Kamerer · Joined: 24 Jun 2008 Posts: 389 Location: Russia Moscow

Kamerer · Joined: 24 Jun 2008 Posts: 389 Location: Russia Moscow