Jupiter 9 question

[rockycarter]

I purchased a Jupiter 9 lens. I find the lens very soft. the images that it produces. my question is there a way to make the lens sharp. say with filters or any thing else or is this just the way this lens works. any help greatly appreciated.

[newst]

The J-9 is a Sonnar design and basically a sharp lens. Wide open it is a little soft but stopped down it sharpens up smartly.

You don't say when the lens was made. The Soviets made that lens from the 1940s until, I believe, the early 2000s.

In that time the coatings varied widely, from no coating at all to a modern multi-coated lens. The quality and condition of the coating can affect sharpness.

Is there any internal haze? Are there a lot of 'cleaning marks' on the glass. This too could affect sharpness.

[y]

[Jeff Zen]

I've owned a half dozen M42 and M39 J-9's. Only the early silver (alu) ones were sharp wide open. The later black ones were all soft wide in varying degrees. Lots of variation in quality between copies I tried.

I like some lenses that are a little soft wide open like Oreston 50 f1.8 and Volna 9. If you consider sharpness wide open to be the ultimate measure of quality then I would avoid.

[calvin83]

The copies made in early 50s should be the sharpest one yet give smooth bokeh.

[newst]

A few shots taken last month. A7II and late, black Jupiter-9. Shots are OOC JPG taken at f/2.0.

[rockycarter]

thank you all. I had to set the lens to 5.6. its great now. its my first time trying one of these lens. to set the aperture is different than most lens. again thank you all it is sharp no doubt this image is a plastic holder. I will have another question later for you all. I want to do experiment that was done by another photographer. the experiment he used a 50mm to 60mm lens as a corrective objective. the result he got was outstanding. I will ask you guys later for you input if you members don't mind have a great one. if I can recreate what he did you will all see what I mean. I am presently trying to buy some pieces to do this. thank you

[rockycarter]

wow really like your images of your dog. that is very nice photos

[newst]

Thank you. He is a much better companion than I am a photographer but he doesn't mind modeling, so long as the session doesn't interfere with his treats.

[woodrim]

A search will show many posts and comments about soft J-9s. I read those before buying one and first went with a 1961 rangefinder version. I was first disappointed, but then found that I wasn't being precise enough with the focus. Additionally, it had a yellow cast which it still does.


I then found a mint M39 version from 1966 that has been very good. I avoided the black M42 and have been fortunate with the two I have.

[rockycarter]

thank you woodrim for the info. the lens had some haze on it that I removed. the lens is preforming very well nice and sharp. I like you photos very well done. I have read a lot of posts here. the images you all take are all I can say wow incredible. thank you

[caribou]

[Tervueren]

[StyxD]

[woodrim]

[caribou]

[y]

[Basilisk]

[rockycarter]

I have a image taken with a trailcam. I know how many deer are there. I wonder if you guys can see them all. the most I seen this year at once was 8 large adult doe's. no fawns. last winter the snow was very deep. I saw 1 large mature buck twice. thought about it said to myself see you next year old timers. I hope next year to try a sony camera and zoom lens. enjoy

[newst]

I don't have a trail camera setup. The white tail come to and through my yard. A pair of shots from a week or so back...






The neighborhood is surrounded by large tracts of woods and the deer travel from one prime feeding area to the next. I have seen groups of twenty or so but single deer or pairs are most common. They are protected in the city and have absolutely no fear of people. I had one buck walk out from behind some shrubbery not twenty feet from me, stop to stare me down, then amble slowly across the street and into my neighbor's yard. Of course I didn't have a camera then.


As for your puzzle, I see five deer but those animals disappear so quickly in the woods that I wouldn't bet money on it.

[rockycarter]

wow steve wonderful the first buck is probably the second buck father. see they are both non typical. all the first bucks off spring will carry his horns. very nice thank you for sharing. great photos

[rockycarter]

wow steve wonderful the first buck is probably the second buck father. see they are both non typical. all the first bucks off spring will carry his horns. very nice thank you for sharing. great photos

[newst]

Thank you but they are not great photographs, just heavy crops of shots taken under poor conditions. Still, I like them.

I hve no idea whether the two are related. All I can say is that they passed through the yard on the same day, several hours apart.

[scsambrook]

About the M42 version in the 70's, I read somewhere that it was modified to give more soft focus... that was hype at this time (remember all those vaporous portrait and of course David Hamilton). Don't know if it is true but it would be an answer, plus the "famous" variation in the russians lens production.

I've never heard about the soft focus alteration suggestion which, taking in to account the contemporary Soviet attitude to Western culture, seems to me to be highly unlikely.

I suspect there's another, far more prosaic, explanation. I wonder if the M42 version is actually a modified computation that was needed to allow use on the deeper SLR bodies? I ask this because in the late 1950s Nikon gave up trying to modify their rangefinder 85/2 "Sonnar" lens so it would fit on the then new Nikon F. The back focus of the rangefinder lens was too short and (according to Rotoloni's major book on the Nikon rangefinder system, and the Nikon "1001 Nights" webpages) "tweaking" the design was not feasible in the same way that it was with their 105 "Sonnar". The implication is that image quality deteriorated to a degree which was regarded as unacceptable.

I own both the rangefinder and "tweaked" SLRS versions of the Nikkor 105 and although the image quality from both is excellent, there are some differences. My thinking is that a stronger "tweak" to the rangefinder Jupiter 9 might well have resulted in a more noticeable change in image quality. User observations on the M42 version of the Jupiter 9 do seem to say consistently that it isn't as "good" as the other.

In the past I had both versions of the Jupiter 9 and the M42 version certainly gave different results to the rangefinder model. The mid/late-1970s Jupiter 9 I have now is certainly less sharp wide open than the 85/2 Nikkor I tried earlier this year but it's still quite acceptable for a design dating back to pre-WWII.

Of course, I could be wrong about the Jupiter 9 changes . . .

[caribou]