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 Rangefinder Lenses?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 8:35 pm    Post subject: Jupiter Rangefinder Lenses? Reply with quote
Are these as good as their M42 varieties?

Any other suggestions for lenses to use on my FED 2?


PostPosted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 8:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The J-12 is a classic lens for the Fed





http://cameras.alfredklomp.com/jupiter12/


PostPosted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 9:10 pm    Post subject: Re: Jupiter Rangefinder Lenses? Reply with quote
martinsmith99 wrote:
Are these as good as their M42 varieties?

Any other suggestions for lenses to use on my FED 2?


I think even better... I did try Jupiter-9 85mm f2 Contax RF lens, it did produce awesome images.

Jupiter-12 35mm has good reputation really.

I heard 50mm f1.5 Jupiter-3 is an excellent Sonnar copy too.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:03 am    Post subject: Re: Jupiter Rangefinder Lenses? Reply with quote
martinsmith99 wrote:
Are these as good as their M42 varieties?

Any other suggestions for lenses to use on my FED 2?


I'm not too well qualified to speak about the M42 ones, but I've had my share of Soviet RF ones over the years, though never had one made post-USSR. They vary in quality, both optically and mechanically. If you get one that pleases you, hang on to it; if you think it's naff, that's because you've got a poorly made one. Chuck it away (or sell on eBay "as seen") and buy another - assuming you didn't pay a silly price when you bought it.

I've owned:
28mm f6 - seems to have a lousy reputation but mine was sharp enough at f8. It needed a hard grade of paper, which must mean it was low in contrast. Nothing you can't live with.
35mm f2.8 - like the one in Nesster's picture - pre-war Zeiss Biogon design which again has a mixed reputation. My first one was dreadful - rangefinder coupling seemed way out. The second was okay mechanically but a third of the image never got sharp. The third (a silver one) looked diabolically scruffy and had an oily iris, but it was SHARP. So I sold it and got a mint black one that was nearly as good optically. Nice warm image tone from them all. Looked good on Ektachrome, but too rich on CT18.
50mm f2 - Sonnar design (I think). I have two, one in Leica screw, the other on a Kiev. I use the screw one on my M8 ... no snobbery in our house! It's nowhere near my Summicron at f2, or at f2.8, but it's pretty much there for sharpness at f5.6. I did have it cleaned and half a litre of oil taken out of it, so it's fine now. It couples perfectly.
52mm f2.8 - Fed lens, presumably a Tessar type. It would be good if it coupled properly. It's just enough out to knock the edge of the image.
85mm f2 - Sonnar type. I should have kept the black one I had. It coupled perfectly and had a lovely quality on Kodachrome. Not a Summicron, by any means, but a lot smaller, lighter and cheaper. I also had two M42 ones at different times, neither of which seemed to give the same quality. But maybe I never quite got the focusing right on my Canon - used with FD adapter of course.
135mm f4 - the one I have now is a real "dog". It's a chrome one, scruffy, with some scratches and even has a rough mounting thread! It won't even fit my Leica screw bayonet adapter, but will just about go into both my cheapo Japanese ones. But it screws smoothly into my Bessa R ... it isn't as good as my 135 M42 one, but I think that's maybe down to its optical condition. This one cost me £7.50, worth every penny.

Advice summary: don't pay more than you can afford to lose. If you get a good one, the make sure you hang on to it!

Alternatives? All cost more, a lot more. You can get a 90mm uncoated Elmar on eBay for less than £50 quite often, or a coated one, or a 135 Hektor occasionally for about £40 to £75. But everything else marked Leitz is now silly money. The Canons are fought over by collectors, except for the 135mm f3.5 which is a first class lens (I have one). The Schacht ones, 35mm, 90mm and 135mm (which are all VERY good) now sell typically for £100+. And the Cosina Voigtlander ones are also getting costly. Very costly.

Roger Hicks speaks very unkindly of the 50mm f1.5 Soviet lens... other folks on the RF forum/s rave or rage about Russian lenses. Always puzzles me why they get so fired-up about them. If they'd had the joy of selling them in UK back in the 1970s they'd know how variable they always were.

Is it worth spending high prices on glass for an inexpensive camera that might not be 100% perfect in its rangefinder couling anyway? Maybe not. Unless you have a spot-on Russian camera and really want to go down the rangefinder road, which I hope you do.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
For me I like to start small. The Russian gear will eventually turn into Leica gear when I know I will get the use from it.

Film is my main medium at the moment but it may just be a novelty.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 8:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have the following:

Jupiter-8 (50/2), Sonnar-type, have one 1970s export model (engraved in Latin characters) and a domestic one from 1985; both good. A good all-rounder all in all.

Jupiter-12 (35/2.8), a silver/chrome one that I got from a pawn shop in Estonia. Very scruffy looking, scratched rear element and all. But it performs OK as long as the sun isn't in the frame (goes for all essentially, to really increase performance use a lens hood, wide 40.5mm lens hoods are sold in eBay and such).

Industar-22 (50/3.5), have three of these but have used only one due to the others still in quarantine after fungus removal. A great collapsible lens, maybe not really at home on your FED 2. An excellent performer. The Industar-50 (50/3.5) is also a tessar type that is a slightly newer lens, also collapsible. Supposedly better (have one that is also waiting for a "post-surgery" checkup. These take A36/K36 slip-on filters/hoods.

Industar-61[LD]. Tessar type, often found in 52 or 55mm focal lengths. The -LD version has rare earth glass elements, supposedly better. Nowadays cheap when bought from Russia and such.


Whatever lens(es) you end up with, make sure to get a hood for it (or make one of your own) as all(?) of these lenses are single coated.

Soviet filters are uncoated and unfortunately have rather thick screw-in retaining rings that hold the glass to the filter ring; one can't attach a hood if using a Soviet-made filter.

EDIT: note to self, read what the OP actually said... At any rate I don't think you should limit yourself to the m39 Jupiters, there's plenty of nice (and unbeatable value-for-money) FSU m39 lenses out there.

Last edited by Scoo on Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:56 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 9:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
martinsmith99 wrote:
For me I like to start small. The Russian gear will eventually turn into Leica gear when I know I will get the use from it.


I been thinking Bessa r2c but then I'll always wake up ..


PostPosted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 9:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have the Jupiter 8, 9 and 12 with a Zorki 4K all bought together quite cheaply. But they must have been put together as a kit with the camera and properly adjusted, as all are superb. I particularly like the 35mm, but the Zorki is the only cam' I have that I can use it on.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 11:56 am    Post subject: Re: Jupiter Rangefinder Lenses? Reply with quote
scsambrook wrote:

My first one was dreadful - rangefinder coupling seemed way out.


This is a serious issue with non-50mm LTM lenses. If the lens has been disassembled for service (pretty likely at some point after 50 years), the odds of the repairer having gotten the RF cam back in the correct position on his first try are less than 50/50. If he checked and corrected it, then all's well, but this is harder to do on a rangefinder than an SLR - especially a rangefinder with a non-removable back. My LTM Jupiter-9 stank when I got it, and I discovered that the RF cam was sticking out about .02" too far. Once that was corrected, the lens was great. But if you have one that's off, this is not an easy thing to correct.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:47 pm    Post subject: Re: Jupiter Rangefinder Lenses? Reply with quote
martinsmith99 wrote:
Are these as good as their M42 varieties?

Only Jupiter-9 85/2 and Jupiter-11 135/4 was made for both SLRs and RF cameras.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 6:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well, I have won Jupiters 8 & 11 this afternoon. The 12 is high on my list as is the 9.

50mm isn't a favourite focal length of mine, but I'm trying to get to like it. It just seems neither one, nor the other. Laughing The Jupiter 3 with the F1.5 aperture sounds interesting.

I've also bought a Universal finder. I've heard mixed reviews, but the Helios finder has sold out here. If I don't get on with it I can resell.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 20, 2009 2:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nesster wrote:
The J-12 is a classic lens for the Fed





http://cameras.alfredklomp.com/jupiter12/

Not what they are talking about, but good picture, very good.
congrats
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1