MC JUPITER 2/85 CCCP

[laenee]

[Attila]

All are very nice dreamy soft images , except roof image

[muddus]

Stunning photos. Perhaps the roof picture does not sit on the in series. f2?

[rbelyell]

very interesting shots with one of my favorite lenses. imo the best jupiter lens out there. very enjoyable.

[themoleman342]

I mean no offense but I honestly do not like the rendition. This soft, glowing character while wide-open is the reason I never bought a MC Jupiter-9. I think it has it's place for portraits but for what you've presented a good sharp subject would be better overall. Maybe I'm alone on this though.

[Orio]

[ChromaticAberration]

[pst]

To be honest I was not sure I would like the J9 before I bought it. I was thinking along the same lines as my foreposters. But now that I have it, I love it!
It's rendition @F2 is soft and dreamy and therefore not easy to use in everyday photography. And I mean no offense, but the shown pictures of the TO would have been better with a sharper lens, also IMHO.
The J9 is decently sharp when stopped down.

@F2: (with some pp)


@F2.8 (I think)

[peterqd]

Yes, I agree too. I love the colours and composition of the first shot, but it's a pity about the willow leaves. It's not lack of resolution, this lens is extremely sharp at f4. There's a peculiar kind of aberration which makes it uncomfortable on my eyes. I would never use this lens fully wide open, its usable aperture range for me stops at 2.8.

@Patrick - I love the creative use of English! A "foreposter" sounds like an old bed with curtains!

[pst]

@Peter: If there's a "forebear", let's create a "foreposter". Not to be confused with a "four-poster" of course (had to look that one up)

[Rolf]

Stop down the lens to f4 and it will be sharp enough.

http://forum.mflenses.com/jupiter-9-and-pentax-k-5-t39462.html

[Cistron]

[rbelyell]

hey fellas, this is an $80 lens we're talking about! it's not an overrated leica that costs $1000 or the great zeiss planar that costs $6-800.

also, i always thought 85mm were 'portrait' lenses where tack sharpness was a detriment (though i certainly agree with rolf, stopped down this lens is plenty sharp). btw on this issue, i have always found that 'optimum' lens performance starts at about double the open aperture of that lens. so here that would start at f4 and probably go to f5.6, which is where i've found it sharpest.

most importantly, when did individual lens 'character' become a negative? i missed that memo! seems to me the reason why we have multiple fl 85's, or 50's etc in our collection is to allow and appreciate the different character and image profiles of different lenses.

like most russian lenses i've used, this one has a lovely and individually distinctive profile, including the typically wonderful russian color rendition. perhaps we can take a step back here and consider some of these other factors that make this lens a great addition to ones collection.

[Cistron]

[rbelyell]

cistron, cmon! we can differ on what we like, that is common and makes sense. but to say extreme price difference doesnt matter in comparing lenses is not reasonable. you cant judge and compare an$80 lens to a lens costing 10x's as much and demand the same performance, just like a volga cant outrun a ferrari!

also, my main point was that we should celebrate the individual characters of lenses like this and not expect or want the same profile from all our lenses.

btw, no way you can buy that samyang for $150, and imho, i wouldnt want it even if you could, as i dont find images ive seen from that lens appealing at all. again, thats just my personal opinion.

[Cistron]

[themoleman342]

[themoleman342]

[rbelyell]

moleman, i really like your photography and you make some very good points as well. however, with regards to being 'unsharp', i believe you very much overstate the case. you have this lens, as do i and many others. being 'unsharp' is not a characteristic of this lens. softness wide open may well be. or perhaps in this series of pictures the photographer had focus issues or handshake issues. perhaps his particular version of the lens is of poor quality.

my point certainly and obviously was not that 'unsharpness' is a unique character to be valued. it was that all lenses are softer wide open, that this lens in particular in my experience also has shallow DOF which is a 'characteristic' if not to be valued one that certainly needs to be acknowledged and worked with, and that this jupiter in general does have wonderful and unique characteristics beyond wide open tack sharpness that should be valued.

[Cistron]

[themoleman342]

I don't have this lens! The MC Jupiter is different than the older style single-coated Jupiters.

Being unsharp wide-open, from almost everything I've seen, IS a characteristic of the MC Jupiter. That was my entire point.

Edit: I just wanted to make the case that you can get the same valued characteristics from the older versions without the glow and softness wide-open. That's all. But we've seemed to have lumped them all together...

[peterqd]

Anybody on this thread who remembers our member Borges (Michael) would also remember the fabulous pictures he took with his black J-9. Very sadly it looks as though they've been taken down and his website seems defunct too. I hope he's OK.

If you go to
http://forum.mflenses.com/search,search_author,Borges.html
and look at his posts you'll find heaps of discussion and praise for his skill and how he made the lens shine. Let me just say it was because of Michael's pictures that I bought my own copy and I've never regretted it, with the proviso that (on Michael's advice) I never use it beyond 2.8.

[Attila]

[rbelyell]

yes attila, i agree, as that was my point. a little too much vitriol for me.

[BRunner]

Later Jupiters-9 are VERY variable in quality. From 6 black J9s I tried, only one was really good (even better than my silver copy). Surprisingly it's the later version with newer barrel, but non-MC. Another important aspect is color rendering, none of two copies have same color rendering. Luckily, the latest version is most neutral to my eyes. But still wide-open sharpness is not on pair with my other portrait lenses.
Center resolution is comparable to Summicron-R 2/90, but with significantly lower contrast, which leads to lower perceived sharpness.