Jupiter-9 2/85 vs. Jupiter-9 2/85

[horvlas]

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.

[horvlas]

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.

[scsambrook]

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.

[no-X]

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)

[Attila]

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

[no-X]

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.

[horvlas]

[horvlas]

[scsambrook]

[horvlas]

If anyone has different models of Helios-40, please send pictures taken with them at wide open, and f2!
I'm courious about sharpness.

[no-X]

Here are the mentioned Jupiters:




M39 rangefinder KMZ (1956) / M39 SLR LZOS (1965) / M42 SLR LZOS (1973)


I found this note:

[djmike]

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.

[horvlas]

Yes, it is producted in 1983.
Orio, please take shots with your Helios-40's at the same scene at wide open and f2

[no-X]

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

[estudleon]

[horvlas]

[no-X]

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)

[horvlas]

And what about Helioses? Made in the sixties can be better than the newer ones?

[no-X]

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)