Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Jupiter-9 comparison: do 25 years make a difference?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 6:43 pm    Post subject: Jupiter-9 comparison: do 25 years make a difference? Reply with quote
Recently acquired a 1960 silver, M39, red "n", Jupiter-9 lens.
I already own a 1986 black, M42, MC, version.

So, today I took them both out with the adapters and my DSLR (canon 550D) to the field (I mean, park Smile ) and compared the "point of dispute" between the 2; for those who don't know, it appears that some time in the 70's or 80's there has been some change made into the production of the Jupiter-9 lens, some additional procedure to one of the optical elements... it is claimed that this procedure, which took of 1.4mm of the lens element, made it soft at the aperture range of f/2-f/4 .

So here are some results!

No editing, only resized when uploading to 1024X768...

Jupiter-9, 1960:

F/2



F/2.8



F/4 (missed the focus a bit, sorry...)




Jupiter-9, 1986:

F/2



F/2.8



F/4 (I think that the model moved a bit, so the focus shifted to her legs and hand...)



I know that there were focus misses at F/4, but I suppose it is less critical, because the softness was alleged to be present at f/2-f/2.8 ...

To me the 1960 version does seem a little sharper that the 1986 version, but only by a little... also, the 1986 has some strange glow going on, which isn't a bad thing, but already differentiates it from the 1960 lens.

I intentionally shot portraits, because that's the "main purpose" of the lens, at least for me (I most often use the Helios-44 as my "standard" lens) .


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 6:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I had a 1970s J8M and it wasn't as sharp as my 1955, 57 and 58 J8s.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 6:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
1960 is still late, I have numerous one probably 6-7 copies or even more , best ones are 1955-1957 from my lenses.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 8:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
You can compare your results with mine.

I have a copy of that model with serial number beginning with 67, so I guess this is the year of manufacture. Silver is huge (seems manufactured to a format larger than 24x36), very heavy. It is well maintained, everything is smooth. The coating reflects every color imaginable.



I would not say that is sharp, especially wide open. Even at f/5.6 needs some editing.

At f2:





At f5.6:



He creates a special atmosphere and a very pleasant blur:
(I not remember aperture)







Perhaps my copy is not optically good or is that this lens is really well, do not know. I just know my jupiter-11 surpasses him sharp.

Happy shots!


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 8:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
1960 is still late, I have numerous one probably 6-7 copies or even more , best ones are 1955-1957 from my lenses.


If I remember correctly from some other thread on this lens, the earliest copies were the RF version right?


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 9:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
If I remember correctly from some other thread on this lens, the earliest copies were the RF version right?


Yes. It is very difficult to acquire a m39 SLR Jupiter 9 pre-1960. I've only seen 2 on ebay in the past several years. I believe normal production began in 1955-56 but they were produced in low numbers. Zenit production was gearing up.

You can find a Jupiter 9 for Zorki as early as 1951. A good amount were produced from '51-60. Prior to that they were known as ZK-85s or something like that.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 9:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
themoleman342 wrote:
Quote:
If I remember correctly from some other thread on this lens, the earliest copies were the RF version right?


Yes. It is very difficult to acquire a m39 SLR Jupiter 9 pre-1960. I've only seen 2 on ebay in the past several years. I believe normal production began in 1955-56 but they were produced in low numbers. Zenit production was gearing up.

You can find a Jupiter 9 for Zorki as early as 1951. A good amount were produced from '51-60. Prior to that they were known as ZK-85s or something like that.


+1 all of my SLR version later don't know exact dates, but surely not RED P and cm scaled.

I have an 1956 RF lens which is professionally converted to Exakta. I bought it converted.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 9:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
First, congratulations on such a fine model Smile

Whatever else the differences are, to my eye the 1960 is warmer with more life like skin tone. In general the colors on the younger lens seem muted and broken somehow.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 9:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well, I much prefer the 1960 pictures, due to nicer skin rendering. That being said, the colors are interplay between the lens, the light, the WB, and processing, so I wouldn't make any long reaching conclusions. I am quite happy with the skin rendering of my 1982 J-9 (Kiev/Contax mount). EPL-1 with J-9, pretty much out of the camera.



PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 10:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It is almost the same thing with most of the Russian lenses - they change during years to worse not good. Here you can see the differences Smile
http://forum.mflenses.com/comparing-my-jupiter-9-85mm-f2-silver-black-and-black-mc-t42988.html
Yes it is a CZ copy as the Helios 44, 40, ... Jupiters and ... most of those lenses in their yearly versions are just rebaged Zeiss lenses. So... the older you find the better you can get.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 10:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
At most the materials taken from Zeiss account for two years of production. After that, the glass was made in house. It's possible the original Zeiss formulations were used initially but these soon change as well. Very few Jupiter and Helios lenses use true Zeiss-made glass.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 11:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
themoleman342 wrote:
At most the materials taken from Zeiss account for two years of production. After that, the glass was made in house. It's possible the original Zeiss formulations were used initially but these soon change as well. Very few Jupiter and Helios lenses use true Zeiss-made glass.


Raw material glass kept lot longer , first two years made from genuine Zeiss parts , but pure glass took lot longer. Hungarian optical factories was closed when Russians did start to deliver low quality glass, I think this is one of the possible date once they did run out from German glass.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 12:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I read that the Russians got all of the 28 and 29 serial wartime Zeiss production and those were the source of the BK and ZK lenses. However, some 28 serial lenses that should have become ZK or BK have been spotted with original CZJ name rings. 26 and 27 serial CZJ lenses from the first half of the war are seen fairly often, they were exported to Sweden, Finland, Hungary and other Axis satellite states.

If the Russians did get the 28 and 29 serial Zeiss production, that's upto 200,000 lenses. I doubt they got all of the 28s, some will have been distributed and probably some went to Sweden, where much Zeiss stuff went during the wartime years in order to earn raw materials, especially high grade steel ores.

So let's say the Russians got 150,000 lenses. No idea what lens designs were produced 1942-1945, I read that there was rationalisation of the number of designs being produced when the war began to bite in 1942. Out of those speculative 150,000 how many were Sonnar 1.5/50s, 2/50s and Biogon 2.8/35s I have no idea.

Just those lenses with serial numbers is enough to keep the Russians going for a while, plus they probably got a lot of glass elements and other lens parts from Zeiss stocks so all in all, I think Attila is probably right and they were using German glass for quite a few years.

You can tell if your early Russian rf lens is a rebadged Zeiss production if you unscrew the optical block, the Zeiss number will be stamped into the brass at the back of the block. If your lens doesn't have the Zeiss number, it might still have German glass, just means it wasn't assembled into a complete optical block in Germany.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 1:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
That's an incredible stock-pile if true. I wouldn't think a factory would keep that much raw material. Honestly I can't find much to corroborate your speculation. Sources?

All I can say is that in Princelle's book he seems to stress that materials were running out by 1950 or so. Under the entry for the "FED-ZORKI 1948" camera it says "Little by little the subassemblies are made in Krasnogorsk. Likewise the lenses begin to be made in house. The stocks of ZK and BK lenses of Zeiss origin gradually run out and are replaced by locally produced ones." That is sort of where I was basing my post off of. If Princelle defined "locally produced" as "using Zeiss raw glass material but grinding/polishing at KMZ" I do not know. Maybe.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 6:02 am    Post subject: Re: Jupiter-9 comparison: do 25 years make a difference? Reply with quote
Misha_M wrote:
also, the 1986 has some strange glow going on, which isn't a bad thing, but already differentiates it from the 1960 lens.


That is it. That is the softness that people talk about. You can see it clearly around her hands at f/2 and f/2.8. My copy actually seems a bit sharper than yours at f/4 Smile

My SLR Jupiter wide open:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/5231801091

Stopped down to f/4 it works great:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/7377765030

As for the rangefinder version, it is crisp at all apertures:

@f/2.8:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/6866811426

@f/4 or higher:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/7957867172


http://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/7957868874


http://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/7957869468

Sorry, I just like how this version works.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 12:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Laurentiu Cristofor, your SLR version also seems to be quite sharp wide open, although less sharp than the RF version you own...

Very interesting story about the Zeiss glass's new home at Moscow!

So, even if we conclude that there was still Zeiss glass used in 1950, but it was mixed with Soviet parts, and finished at Krasnogorsk, would it be safe to say that there is no chance that an SLR Jupiter-9 is from Zeiss parts? I read somewhere that Jupiter-9 SLR production was started at 1953... but the earliest Jupiter-9 I saw on sale was 1959 or 1960 (don't exactly remember...) .


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 1:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I used to have both one of the newest made J-9 (mine was made in the 90s) and one of old aluminium ones.
The aluminium lens is sharp wide open.
The 90s lens was glowy and dreamy wide open, and super sharp stopped down.
I am of the impression that this was made by design and not by chance.
All of the black J9s that I tried were that way (glowy wide open, super sharp stopped down).
I think that this was influenced by the success of the glowy fashion portraits in the 70s
several people used to invert one of the elements of J9 lenses in order to cause spherical aberration wide open.
I think russian engineers did acknowledge that and redesigned the lens to allow for more spherical aberration wide open
in order to please the portraitists.
Whereas old aluminium J9 were more direct copies of Zeiss original, pursuing optimal sharpness from wide open.

P.S. I sold the black one and kept the aluminum one Wink


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 1:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
If I have both, should do the same, Orio.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 2:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
I read somewhere that Jupiter-9 SLR production was started at 1953


It's possible. Princelle has slightly conflicting information. Under the "Lenses for KMZ reflex cameras" he has a picture of a prototype Jupiter 9 supposedly produced in 1951. It looks exactly like my one from 1957 which has a spring-loaded preset system unlike any other Jupiter 9:


Under the "39mm thread mount lenses" section he has an entry under the Jupiter 9s that says "shortened mount for Zenit reflex (around 1958)."

A production start date for the SLR version is little fuzzy. That's why I put full-scale production somewhere between 1955-1956. I think by this time the Zenit would have gained popularity and KMZ would begin with accessory lenses.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
themoleman342 wrote:
That's an incredible stock-pile if true. I wouldn't think a factory would keep that much raw material. Honestly I can't find much to corroborate your speculation. Sources?

All I can say is that in Princelle's book he seems to stress that materials were running out by 1950 or so. Under the entry for the "FED-ZORKI 1948" camera it says "Little by little the subassemblies are made in Krasnogorsk. Likewise the lenses begin to be made in house. The stocks of ZK and BK lenses of Zeiss origin gradually run out and are replaced by locally produced ones." That is sort of where I was basing my post off of. If Princelle defined "locally produced" as "using Zeiss raw glass material but grinding/polishing at KMZ" I do not know. Maybe.


Princelle might be right. I read about the 28 and 29 production being the source of the ZK and BK lenses on the ussrphoto.com forum.

The numbers is just my simple maths based on serial numbers from the 28xxxxx and 29xxxxx production, perhaps the actual numbers are lower and Zeiss never reached 30xxxxx before the end came in 1945?


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 11:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Misha_M wrote:
Laurentiu Cristofor, your SLR version also seems to be quite sharp wide open, although less sharp than the RF version you own...


Have you clicked on the larger size versions? Now I don't know what is your bar for sharpness, but that lens doesn't look as it is in focus anywhere at f/2. Of course, the problem diminishes once images are scaled down and it might look sharp enough to you at the size I uploaded (it also has an unsharp mask applied to it - my regular processing, not something special). I can only say that compared to the other fast lenses I own (f/2 or faster), this lens feels the least sharp. The Mitakon 85/2 looks amazing in comparisons of 100% crops and that lens is not the best I used either.

Like Orio said, I don't think this is an accident. The lens was probably engineered to produce this effect. On film, it would have been tricky to produce such glow or it would have required special filters, but on digital, I feel that it is just a wasted effect. That being said, I like how it works stopped down. In time, I might also figure out how to use its softness for effect. Smile


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 11:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It is impossible to tell anything about these lenses with these photos. You need a test target and a tripod.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 3:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oreste wrote:
It is impossible to tell anything about these lenses with these photos. You need a test target and a tripod.


+1



The author of this site (Google translated) claims that softness of the black Jupiter-9 can be partially corrected if you put a shim under the front element. The thickness of this shim must be 0.1mm. Such as thin wire. I did not try it yet - I don't have the right tool for this.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1