View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
horvlas
Joined: 30 Dec 2008 Posts: 202 Location: Budapest, Hungary
|
Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 6:37 am Post subject: Jupiter-9 2/85 vs. Jupiter-9 2/85 |
|
|
horvlas wrote:
Few days ago, I tested my 2 copies of Jupiter-9. I saw significant differences between them, so I thought I have one bad copy of this lens. Then I had a chance to get an other one, so I bought it. All of them are black versions. First one made in 1979, second 1991, third 1984. The last two have are the newest design, while the first one has the same design as Mir-1B (I think more confortable than the new design). The lenses are in good conditions, no scratch, fungus, dust. Here is the resoults in wide open. (The resoults get closer each other when stopped down)
100% crops from center:
1979:
1991:
1984:
The oldest has a little yellow coatiog, while the newers a little blue.
Conclusion: The 1979 version is much better than the newer versions! Why?? When stopped down, the last two get much sharper, so they close to the first one, but a little It performs better sharpness than the others.
I thought I have a bad copy, but the newest acquision is almost the same than the older one (newer finish) Any experience with this lense in different finish?
I must get or loan an MC version to complete the test.
Last edited by horvlas on Fri Apr 03, 2009 7:23 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
horvlas
Joined: 30 Dec 2008 Posts: 202 Location: Budapest, Hungary
|
Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
horvlas wrote:
Here are at f2.8 and f4:
AT f2.8:
1979:
1991:
1984:
AT f4:
1979:
1991:
1984:
The last one I overexposed a bit. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
scsambrook
Joined: 29 Mar 2009 Posts: 2167 Location: Glasgow Scotland
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 9:49 am Post subject: Jupiter 9 variations |
|
|
scsambrook wrote:
I was in the UK photo-retail business from the 1960s to the 1990s and sold a lot of Soviet-made gear. I can testify to the fact that the quality varied from time to time, irrespective of whatever design revisions were made. The UK importer had a large quality-control department, certainly in the 1970s, and that kept the really bad stuff out of the shops, but even so the overall quality began to decline in the early 1980s.
Horvlas's problems may more be to do with even-less-rigid inspection and quality control than to any re-design of the lens. Maybe if he can get the two later lenses to a good lens-repair shop he will find improvements possible if there are problems with assembly and/or centering.
I had an early 1970s Jupiter 9 (in pre-digital times) which I foolishly sold - it produced some very pleasing images on Kodachrome and could not be faulted in relation to its selling price - allowing for inflation about 35 to 40 Euros in todays values! Soviet phot gear in the UK was always priced at levels so low that sales were guaranteed. _________________ Stephen
Equipment: Pentax DSLR for casual shooting, Lumix G1 and Fuji XE-1 for playing with old lenses, and Leica M8 because I still like the optical rangefinder system. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
no-X
Joined: 19 Jul 2008 Posts: 2495 Location: Budejky, Czech Republic
|
Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
no-X wrote:
Is the new version MC?
I have 3 Jupiters - M39 leica, M39 Zenit silver and M42 Zenit old black. I sent wide-opened crop taken by the old M39 silver Zenit version to a photographer, who has new black version, he said, that my result seems to be visibly sharper then results from his lens. He also said, that his wide-opened Jupiter 85mm is softer than wide-opened Helios 85mm, but my silver Jupiter seems to be at least as sharp as my Helios...
I compared my silver 1965 to the black 1973 and the older is better (however, about 0,2 f-stop slower)
both at f/2:
1965
http://www.abload.de/img/sdim7639be0v.jpg
1973
http://www.abload.de/img/sdim7634pjgf.jpg
(same settings in RAW conversion, that's why the 65 has more greener tint, while the 73 is more purplish) _________________ (almost) complete list of Helios lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57865 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
I have two silver thanks for Jesito nice present again! I sold all my MC I did test range finder version too it was just excellent.
In Russian lenses olders are better if lens is close enough to WW2 you have good chance to get a genuine Zeiss _________________ -------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
no-X
Joined: 19 Jul 2008 Posts: 2495 Location: Budejky, Czech Republic
|
Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 11:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
no-X wrote:
My RF version is the Π 8,5cm from 1956 made by KMZ... "Сделано в СССР".
I don't know if this is the one which was made on Zeiss machines. _________________ (almost) complete list of Helios lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
horvlas
Joined: 30 Dec 2008 Posts: 202 Location: Budapest, Hungary
|
Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 12:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
horvlas wrote:
no-X wrote: |
Is the new version MC?
I have 3 Jupiters - M39 leica, M39 Zenit silver and M42 Zenit old black. I sent wide-opened crop taken by the old M39 silver Zenit version to a photographer, who has new black version, he said, that my result seems to be visibly sharper then results from his lens. He also said, that his wide-opened Jupiter 85mm is softer than wide-opened Helios 85mm, but my silver Jupiter seems to be at least as sharp as my Helios...
I compared my silver 1965 to the black 1973 and the older is better (however, about 0,2 f-stop slower)
both at f/2:
1965
http://www.abload.de/img/sdim7639be0v.jpg
1973
http://www.abload.de/img/sdim7634pjgf.jpg
(same settings in RAW conversion, that's why the 65 has more greener tint, while the 73 is more purplish) |
WOW, your 1965 version is REALLY sharp!!!
All of them marked without MC, I wrote that I must try an MC version to complete the test. (And a much older than 1979...)
Is M39 Leica different from M39 Zenit? What is the difference? Register number? How do you realize that one is m39 leica and the other m39 zenit?
Is it possible to get a m39-m42 adaptor, if the register no. the same? I've never seen it. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
horvlas
Joined: 30 Dec 2008 Posts: 202 Location: Budapest, Hungary
|
Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 12:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
horvlas wrote:
Attila wrote: |
I have two silver thanks for Jesito nice present again! I sold all my MC I did test range finder version too it was just excellent.
In Russian lenses olders are better if lens is close enough to WW2 you have good chance to get a genuine Zeiss |
Did you test the newer MC version? How is it compares to the older ones?
I saw some pictures taken with MC version on other forum, and they were excellent at wide open. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
scsambrook
Joined: 29 Mar 2009 Posts: 2167 Location: Glasgow Scotland
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 1:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
scsambrook wrote:
horvlas wrote: |
no-X wrote: |
Is the new version MC?
I have 3 Jupiters - M39 leica, M39 Zenit silver and M42 Zenit old black. I sent wide-opened crop taken by the old M39 silver Zenit version to a photographer, who has new black version, he said, that my result seems to be visibly sharper then results from his lens. He also said, that his wide-opened Jupiter 85mm is softer than wide-opened Helios 85mm, but my silver Jupiter seems to be at least as sharp as my Helios...
I compared my silver 1965 to the black 1973 and the older is better (however, about 0,2 f-stop slower)
both at f/2:
1965
http://www.abload.de/img/sdim7639be0v.jpg
1973
http://www.abload.de/img/sdim7634pjgf.jpg
(same settings in RAW conversion, that's why the 65 has more greener tint, while the 73 is more purplish) |
WOW, your 1965 version is REALLY sharp!!!
All of them marked without MC, I wrote that I must try an MC version to complete the test. (And a much older than 1979...)
Is M39 Leica different from M39 Zenit? What is the difference? Register number? How do you realize that one is m39 leica and the other m39 zenit?
Is it possible to get a m39-m42 adaptor, if the register no. the same? I've never seen it. |
Horvlas - the M39 Leica model has shorter register and is rangefinder coupled, and looks very different without the pre-setting iris rings. It can't be used on a Zenit M39 body, except for very close ranges.
There was an adaptor that let you use M39 Zenit lens on M42 bodies - simply a collar threaded internally M39 and externally M42. It did the job - more or less! - but was tricky to handle as it tended either to stay on the lens (awkward) or remain in the M42 camera body (more awkward). And being so thin, they were easily put out of shape. I suppose the Zenit M39 and M42 bodies must have had the same register. They were very inexpensive, less than the equivalent of one Euro. _________________ Stephen
Equipment: Pentax DSLR for casual shooting, Lumix G1 and Fuji XE-1 for playing with old lenses, and Leica M8 because I still like the optical rangefinder system. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
horvlas
Joined: 30 Dec 2008 Posts: 202 Location: Budapest, Hungary
|
Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 1:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
horvlas wrote:
If anyone has different models of Helios-40, please send pictures taken with them at wide open, and f2!
I'm courious about sharpness. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
no-X
Joined: 19 Jul 2008 Posts: 2495 Location: Budejky, Czech Republic
|
Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 1:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
no-X wrote:
Here are the mentioned Jupiters:
M39 rangefinder KMZ (1956) / M39 SLR LZOS (1965) / M42 SLR LZOS (1973)
I found this note:
Quote: |
J-9 quality tends to vary. The older ones can be good. And among the M42 set, there could be lemons. |
http://m42.artlimited.net/lens_detail.php?lid=89
Seems that the older Jupiters are really better. _________________ (almost) complete list of Helios lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
djmike
Joined: 01 Apr 2009 Posts: 930 Location: Taiwan
|
Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 3:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
djmike wrote:
I got one black body and the SN is started with N83xxxxx, does this mean mine is producted in '83?
Yes, it's soft but becomes sharp after F5.6. _________________
DSLR: Canon 400D
SLR: Nikon FM2 + Canon A-1 + Canon AE1-P + Praktica MTL-5B + Pentax Spotmatic F + Fujica ST801 + Voigtlander Bassematic + Voigtlander Vito + Rollei 35S + Rolleiflex SL35 ME + Canon QL17 GIII + Olympus Pen EE-3
Lenses
M42: CZJ Flektogon 35/2.4 + CZJ Flektogon Zebra 35/2.8 + CZJ Pancolar 50/1.8 + CZJ Sonnar 135/3.5 + CZJ Tessar 50/2.8 Chrome + Pentacon 135/2.8 + Pentacon 50/1.8 + SMC Takumar 50/1.4 + SMC Takumar 55/2 + SMC Takumar 135/3.5 + Fujinon 55/1.8 + Jupiter-9 85/2 + Jupiter-37A 135/3.5 + Helios 44-6 58/2
Nikor: Nikkor 50/1.4 + Nikkor 28/3.5 + Nikkor 35-105 Zoom + 36-72 Series E Zoom
Canon: Canon FD + 28/2.8 + 50/1.8 + Canon 35-105 Macro Zoom
Other: Rollei Planar HFT 50/1.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
horvlas
Joined: 30 Dec 2008 Posts: 202 Location: Budapest, Hungary
|
Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 4:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
horvlas wrote:
Yes, it is producted in 1983.
Orio, please take shots with your Helios-40's at the same scene at wide open and f2 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
no-X
Joined: 19 Jul 2008 Posts: 2495 Location: Budejky, Czech Republic
|
Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
no-X wrote:
Here is my silver J-9 and Helios 40-2, both at f/2.
Same settings for RAW conversion, difference in WB, exposure and contrast are given by the lens.
Jupiter has better borders, Helios has better center and a bit higher contrast (however, Helios has much newer coating, so good copy of later Jupiter would be more contrasty as well)
J-9:
http://www.abload.de/img/j99hab.jpg
Helios 40-2:
http://www.abload.de/img/h404c39.jpg _________________ (almost) complete list of Helios lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008 Posts: 3754 Location: Argentina
|
Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
no-X wrote: |
Here is my silver J-9 and Helios 40-2, both at f/2.
Same settings for RAW conversion, difference in WB, exposure and contrast are given by the lens.
Jupiter has better borders, Helios has better center and a bit higher contrast (however, Helios has much newer coating, so good copy of later Jupiter would be more contrasty as well)
J-9:
http://www.abload.de/img/j99hab.jpg
Helios 40-2:
http://www.abload.de/img/h404c39.jpg |
Hi no-X. Your samples are greats.
I ask what happend at f/5,6-8?
sonnar vs double gauss ? Who win ? _________________ Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
horvlas
Joined: 30 Dec 2008 Posts: 202 Location: Budapest, Hungary
|
Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
horvlas wrote:
no-X wrote: |
Here is my silver J-9 and Helios 40-2, both at f/2.
Same settings for RAW conversion, difference in WB, exposure and contrast are given by the lens.
Jupiter has better borders, Helios has better center and a bit higher contrast (however, Helios has much newer coating, so good copy of later Jupiter would be more contrasty as well)
J-9:
http://www.abload.de/img/j99hab.jpg
Helios 40-2:
http://www.abload.de/img/h404c39.jpg |
Interesting, the Helios is only sharper at the center only, in a little area. The jupiter is same sharp at the whole frame, except center sharper than Helios-40-2 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
no-X
Joined: 19 Jul 2008 Posts: 2495 Location: Budejky, Czech Republic
|
Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
no-X wrote:
estudleon: I'll post some samples later. It's after sunset now
horvlas: I checked the two pictures once again and I think that the difference in center is quite subtle, so the silver Jupiter seems to me overally sharper than late Helios.
I think that the huge variability of Jupiter lenses is due to the optical design - Jupiter consists of two cemented triplets, which were very difficult to produce (minor inaccuracy can cause significant degradation of IQ). The photographer, who sold me the silver Jupiter told me, that the Jupiters from sixties were better than the newer ones. I thought he wanted to convince me to buy, but he was probably right. It seems, that later check-out wasn't as good as in sixties (maybe all produced lenses went to shops to complete manufacturing plans) _________________ (almost) complete list of Helios lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
horvlas
Joined: 30 Dec 2008 Posts: 202 Location: Budapest, Hungary
|
Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
horvlas wrote:
And what about Helioses? Made in the sixties can be better than the newer ones? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
no-X
Joined: 19 Jul 2008 Posts: 2495 Location: Budejky, Czech Republic
|
Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
no-X wrote:
I don't think so. The problem of Jupiter is (I think) in the two cemented triplets. Helios doesn't consist of triplets, so I expect that per sample difference will be really much lower (just like pre-set Helios 44 lenses with metal bodies - 44-2 and 44-3, maybe even lower, because the 44 were cheap set lenses, while 40 was one of the most expensive lense of that era) _________________ (almost) complete list of Helios lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|