A roll with the first (and last) test of the Jupiter-8

ForenSeil · Joined: 15 Apr 2011 Posts: 2726 Location: Kiel, Germany.

TriX-400 in 1:1 Xtol, accidentally developed a few degrees too warm, so results are a bit suboptimal this time.
#1 (F5.6)

#2 (F2.

#3 (F2)

Arrgh. Camera was focused below arrow. As you can see the lens has a ~10cm focus shift. That ruined dozents if potraits I tried to make with it. With the same adapter and the Jupiter-3 I had no problems at all. Also the haptics of my copy are very bad. The aperture ring is somewhat easy running - the the slightest touch gives a completly wrong exposure, I always had to keep one eye on the target and one eye on the aperture ring. Sharpness stopped down to F5.6 is very good in center, in corners acceptable; contrast is on the low side, colors are poor, CAs and distortion are both inconspicuous under normal situations. As with Jupiter-3 the contrast on analog seems to be better than on digital sensors. Bokeh is imho ugly wide open but neutral to good stopped down slightly. Vignetting is a bit strong wide open but negligable stopped down. On the optics/price site alone it would a keeper for me (at least until I would find something better, I paid 28€ for it), but with the annoying haptics and the focus shift it's absolutely no fun to use and I definately won't keep it.

PS: The cat isn't mine. It's a only "semester break cat"

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

Find a better copy, a good one is a joy to use. They didn't introduce click stops until the 8M - the M designates it has click stops.

I have a 1957 red P in Contax/Kiev, a 1955 red P in M39 and a 1957 red P in M39, all are really good ones, the early ones seem to be the ones to have as all of mine (and I have almost a dozen) are really good.

I also have a 1963 Jupiter-8M in Contax/Kiev, not tried it yet but it just so happens it's on my Kiev now with a fresh roll of film, ready to try tomorrow.

ForenSeil · Joined: 15 Apr 2011 Posts: 2726 Location: Kiel, Germany.

In the meanwhile I sold my J-8 and I won't buy a new one because I made a very cheap deal for an original collapsible prewar Elmar 50/3.5 and collapsible 1956 Summicron for less than 400€ both together in above average and very good condition. After reselling the Elmar I will have good deal which won't leave any need for an further Jupiter-8

Here's a little addition of 100% crops from the "scan" of the first pic:

Near center, very sharp:

Near corner, resolution is lower:

Not bad for an design from the 1930ies, huh?

Katastrofo · Expire: 2013-11-19

Nope, not bad at all. I ordered some Xtol with a bunch of AP400 (TriX) and Foma 200, looking forward to
trying it.

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

Be interesting to see how a 56 Summicron is, the 57 Summitar Attila tried wasn't better at all than the J-8. I don't see any need to improve on the J-8, I have 55, 57 and 58 ones. I also have a 59 I-50 and that is actually sharper than the J-8s, Russian resolution figures given for them were 38/28lp/mm centre/edges for the J-8 and 42/28 for the I-50. Summicron is supposed to be 55 in the centre but only 28 at the edges. Interesting to see if that increased sharpness can be seen in the pics or if you'd have to shoot a test chart with microfilm and examine it under a microscope to see the difference. Other difference between Summicron and J-8 is distortion, the Summicron is a symmetrical design so should have less distortion than the J-8 which is the decidely unsymmetrical Sonnar design. Although whether the difference between very little and slightly less is discernible in photos I have my doubts. The Leitz lenses will be more nicely finished although my LZOS made 59 I-50 collapsible is chromed brass and actually has thick, quality chrome, unusually for the Russians. I have a 57 I-22 collapsible made by KMZ that is aluminium and far less nicely finished. It would be nice to sit the I-50 next to an Elmar and compare them, but I don't have any use for an uncoated Elmar so I doubt I'll ever get to compare them.

ForenSeil · Joined: 15 Apr 2011 Posts: 2726 Location: Kiel, Germany.

I guess the resolution difference between the J-8 and the 1956 Summicron-M can be also seen on normal film, especially on wide apertures. I guess the 38/28lppmm is more a well-meant guideline, as these Russian lenses always have some copy variation. I'm pretty sure my J-8 copy has less than 28lppmm in the corners @ F5.6 (look at the example). But I'm looking more forward the better build quality, haptics and imho better bokeh.

EDIT: According to this site the Jupiter-8 has 38/22 lp/mm and not 38/28, but I gues my copy has even less
http://www.baierfoto.de/russobj/objektive/industar.html

Distortion of the J-8 is actually quite visible in the corners on large prints or if you look close, btw.

The collapsible Industar-50 50/3.5 is indeed a nice lens, and from what I've seen indeed superior to old Elmar 50/3.5 copys if you find a good one. If I hadn't found such a cheap offer for the Leitz lenses I would have clearly bought an I-50 next.

I also had some Industar-26m and Industar-61 L/D copies - they were all not as good as the Jupiter-8. More glow, lower resolution, very bad flare control,.... Industar-61 (I had a black mint one) had also a crappy wobbly build while my silver 26m copy was a build-wise a beauty and a joy to use.

maxcastle · Joined: 14 Apr 2012 Posts: 492

you are missing some cock on picture 1, (titter ye not) Wink